English sample 1
1
1
Last Name
NOTE: If you revise any of your artifacts, explain how and why in this Reflective essay. Please also note these essays are not perfect but they do serve as an example of how you might approach this project.
Student Name
Professor Name
English 1102
06 May 2020
Reflective Essay
On my journey in First Year Writing, I have grown as both a reader and a writer. I am now more able to identify key parts of any writing, reflect on it in a meaningful way, and identify where the authors writing is most successful and problematic, which is something I struggled with in the past. I can also write meaningful essays, whether they inform or argue. I am now a lot more confident in my ability to synthesize sources and write argumentative essays, which I stated as a problematic area for me in the past. Furthermore, I have reached every outcome and I truly believe that my English 1102 will help me in the near and far future.
I can confidently say that I have met outcome one. This outcome is about genre and rhetorical knowledge, and this is best demonstrated when we listened to and wrote about the podcast “Serial”. This outcome is all about interpreting genres in a variety of modes, and even though it strayed from the usual academic essay, I was able to identify the genre and how it relates to the intended audience and purpose. I was also able to identify the genre for the online magazine article that I wrote my reading artifact on, and I edited it to make it more apparent that I knew the genre, purpose, and context.
I am sure that I met outcome two as well. Outcome two asks for me to demonstrate my ability to evaluate arguments and rhetorical situations. This is best demonstrated in my best reading artifact and the various rhetorical reading responses that I wrote on “Serial”, especially on my third paragraphs. I explained the appeals to the rhetorical triangle, meaningful strategies adopted to appeal to these three elements, and the effects on the reader. I edited my reading artifact to better explain the effects each of the strategies Kang uses to convince the readers that his point is valid. For example, in my best reading artifact I wrote, “[Kang] then compares the topic to everyday media, giving him pathos as some colored people can understand [generalization] complaints, but losing ethos, as he is complaining about problems that he is practicing at the same time when he describes how white people write a story. At first glance, the reader is compelled to agree with Kang, but on closer inspection, the argument here falls apart.” It is obvious how much I have improved.
I definitely have met outcome three. This outcome is mostly about writing persuasive pieces. During my journey in English 1102, I had the opportunity to write one semi-argumentative piece, my cultural criticism essay, and one fully argumentative piece, my research essay, which I used for my best Writing artifact. I made sure that I had an arguable thesis and a counterclaim that I rebutted successfully, responsibly and respectfully. For example, I wrote, “Animal testing needs to be replaced because it is unethical to both animals and humans, it is poorly regulated, and there are many viable alternatives.” I made sure that I explained the importance of my topics with imagery and statistics to my audience in an effort to persuade them. I also used the rhetorical triangle and other strategies to make sure that the readers are convinced of my topic
Outcome four is the outcome that I grew the most in. All of my writing uses this, but the best example of how I used outcome four is the research essay, especially when it comes to synthesizing sources. In this essay, I made good use of intext citations, paraphrasing, quoting, and as stated before synthesizing sources. This was most successful in my analysis of the problems in the Animal Welfare Act. In this essay I originally addressed an author by his publishing company in an effort to include more ethos into my writing. However, as soon as I realized that this was wrong, I corrected my error, instead saying, “According to WS Stokes in ‘Animals and the 3Rs in Toxicology Research and Testing: The Way Forward’”. My best reading artifact demonstrates my growth as well. One of my original mistakes is referring to a paragraph in “White Reporter Privilege” instead of paraphrasing or quoting. However, now I have corrected that mistake with “When Kang was trying to make the point that white people who wants to understand colored people is making the people that they are studying uncomfortable, I did not relate.” I most likely will not make that mistake again anytime soon. My use of figures has grown too. In the past, I made my own figures because I was uncertain about how to cite charts and tables from other sources. However, with the help of Easywriter and Purdue Owl, I am more confident in citing other people’s figures. I didn’t only grow in citing them. I also grew in using them to synthesized sources. In my cultural criticism essay, I used my own visual in tandem with a visual from “US Travel Answer Sheet” to demonstrate the point that the coronavirus will affect travel negatively. It is easy to see that I have really grown because of this course.
My MLA format has really improved this semester. In most essays I have had no points taken off for items missing in MLA Format. This is how I know I met outcome five. The one problem I had with MLA format was in my Best Writing artifact, when I forgot the header. However, I have fixed that error and learned from it. For the most part, I have followed MLA format very closely this year and had few mistakes, especially when it came to citations. I have effectively used citations to ethically integrate my sources with both in-text and bibliography citations.
I feel like I have successfully accomplished outcome six. There are many great resources that I had access to and used during my time in English 1102. I used EasyWriter, Connections, Purdue Owl, and the Clayton State Library for my research, references, and guides to help me become a better writer. I can now easily find any source I need for my academic writing, and know which references I can MLA format questions. For example, I used Purdue Owl to figure out how I should format my Subheadings without breaking my MLA format and used EasyWriter to figure out how to caption my visuals. I used all of my resources to my advantage to make great essays.
The last outcome, outcome seven, is the one I needed help with the second most. It was apparent in my cultural criticism essay and my research essay. For my cultural criticism essay, I lacked focus in my introduction. However, I learned from my mistake and I focused my research essay more, which worked because I got a “Good Introduction!” from my professor. In my research essay, I was inspired by connections and decided to make some stylistic choices. These included bold subheadings and bullet points. Both of these choices function to increase readability and worked quite successfully in my opinion. I also considered organization more in this course, especially on the research essay. Before this course, I did not pay much attention to organization. However, for the research essay, I chose the Toulmin Method with some Rogerian Method qualities to show the logos used without undermining the average person’s fears. For example, in the rebuttal I said, “While this view is understandable, it is incorrect.” This small sentence shows my understanding and makes the reader more inclined to read what I have to say. I also fixed a lot of grammar errors in my research essay, such as unintended repetition, subject-verb agreement, and spacing errors. For example, I turned, “Every year more than 100 million animals are killed every year for animal testing because of poor regulations all over the world. (PETA)” into “Every year more than 100 million animals are killed for animal testing because of poor regulations all over the world. (PETA)” I also changed some of my word choice in my reading artifact and some capitalization and spacing errors.
I have truly grown as a writer, both in my outcomes and in my revisions. I plan to use this knowledge I gained in my career, college and high school. Even though this is likely to be the last writing class I have at Clayton state, I have learned so much during the past two semesters and I am confident that I will need these skills later in life. I am very grateful that I had the opportunity to explore the world of English at Clayton State, and I will continue to work on my writing skills.
Works Cited
Kang, Jay Caspian. “White Privilege.” The Awl, 14 Nov. 2014, www.theawl.com/2014/11/white-reporter-privilege/.
Lamb, Mary R. and Patricia A. Smith. Connections: guide to first year writing at Clayton State University. 9th ed., Clayton State department of first year writing, 2019.
Lunsford, Andrea A. EasyWriter with Exercises for Clayton State University. 7th ed., Macmillan Learning, 2019.
Purdue Writing Lab. “MLA Formatting and Style Guide // Purdue Writing Lab.” Purdue Writing Lab, owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html.
Student Name
Professor Name
Engl. 1102-15
19 February 2020
Someone Didn’t Like the Taste of Serial: White Reporter Privilege RRR
Kang, Jay Caspian. “White Privilege.” The Awl, 14 Nov. 2014, www.theawl.com/2014/11/white-reporter-privilege/.
In Jay Caspian Kang’s argumentative online magazine article, “White Reporter Privilege” (2014), Kang argues that whitewashing and stereotyping are predominant in Sarah Koenig’s hit podcast Serial. He accomplishes this by introducing the topic, giving several examples of whitewashing and stereotyping, interviewing a main character in the podcast, relating the podcast to colored people daily life, discussing the problem with general media, and quoting an interview Vulture had with Koenig to show she recognizes the problem. The purpose is to point out the problems with the podcast in order to cause people to rethink the way society feels about Serial and Journalism as a whole. The intended audience is open-minded people who are interested in hearing about perspectives different from most of society.
I believe that Kang’s view is reading into the podcast too much. I don’t agree with his claims about whitewashing and stereotyping. I believe that the reason that Koenig reported the story the way she did is because she is reporting a tragic crime, so it is natural to think that her diary would be different than most girl’s diary or her parents’ tendency to be overprotected was caused by her ethnicity because those are all big parts of the state’s case. When Kang was trying to make the point that white people who wants to understand colored people is making the people that they are studying uncomfortable, I did not relate. I also did not feel as if Koenig was trying to make the story “white.” It’s very frustrating to me that Kang can make note of the fact that Koenig’s reporting might have an issue with generalization, but proceeds to generalize about how white reporters do their job. I believe these little things can build a lot of frustration and destroy his credibility.
In Kang’s article, he uses all three rhetorical devices. He introduces and supports his topic with relevant evidence, giving him ethos and logos. For example, Kang says, “In the show’s second episode, Koenig says, ‘Since [Syed] and Hae both had immigrant parents, they understood the expectations, and the constraints: Do well in school, go to college, take care of your younger brother, and for Adnan, no girls.’”(Kang) This makes us trust him more. Then he makes the topic relatable, giving his argument pathos, as a reader may feel the same way and feel empathy or anger. He says, “Who among us…hasn’t felt that subtle, discomforting burn whenever the very nice white person across the table expresses fascination with every detail about our families that strays outside of the expected narrative? … These are usually silent, cringing moments — it never quite feels worth it to call out the offender because you’ll never convince them that their intentions might not be as good as they think they are.”(Kang) If the reader does relate, this helps his argument, but this approach is detrimental if anyone doesn’t relate. He then compares the topic to everyday media, giving him pathos as some colored people can understand these complaints, but losing ethos, as he is complaining about problems that he is practicing at the same time when he describes how white people write a story. At first glance, the reader is compelled to agree with Kang, but on closer inspection, the argument here falls apart. Finally, he gives an example when Koenig herself claims that her works have issues, giving a lot of ethos to the author.
Student Name
Professor Name
Engl 1102-15
15 March 2020
Tails of Woe: Ethics in Animal Testing
When you are getting a flu shot or taking medication, you are probably not thinking about the animals being tested for that product. Every year more than 100 million animals are killed for animal testing because of poor regulations all over the world. (PETA) Animals can be used for a variety of things that people use every day, including research, education, medicine testing, cosmetic testing, and tattoo testing. Instead of being in their natural habitat, happy, free, and with other animals of the same kind, the survivors are put in cold cages without any other animals around them, traumatized by what they have been through and probably will face the next day. In the United States, every drug that needs to be tested rigorously in order to be approved, causing millions of both animals and humans to fall ill or die from these medications. Animal testing needs to be replaced because it is unethical to both animals and humans, it is poorly regulated, and there are many viable alternatives.
How animals are harmed
Animal testing should be regulated more carefully because there is a lack of ethical concern for the animals themselves. Labs are very controlled environments. Humans determine when the animals eat, sleep, exercise, and more importantly, interact with potentially dangerous medications, fumes, and radiation. Often, in order to test a drug, scientists must give the animals a fatal disease or a debilitating condition, greatly decreasing their quality of life. Dogs, rats, mice, fish, birds, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and monkeys are all potential subjects for this harsh treatment. (Archibald 3, PETA), The effects are devastating; there is a huge chance of death, and those who beat the odds may have to deal with psychological trauma, blindness, burns, pain, isolation, and debilitating conditions. Furthermore, some experiments are conducted poorly, causing even more suffering than most animals. All of these animals are forced to participate in experiments instead of being in their natural habitat.
What about the United States? Don’t we have regulation against this mistreatment of animals? We do have the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which aims to provide humane treatment of animals in both transportation and testing, but it is not very extensive and excludes a lot of animals. According to the AWA, animals being included are “… any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, [that] is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” This may seem like it covers a lot of ground, but it doesn’t. The problems with it are as follows:
· It doesn’t include birds or fish, leaving them subject to inhumane treatment.
· It doesn’t include rats or mice breed in captivity for laboratory uses, which comprises 90% of animal used. (Animal Welfare Act, Ferdowsian 2)
· Many laboratories still abuse animal rights.
It is easy to see the various problems with this act. This act affects everyone’s products, pets, knowledge and other aspects of life. While this act does save many animals from being tested on, there should be stricter regulations to ensure that all animals are treated as fairly as a human would be. However, animal right is not the only problem with animal testing.
How people are harmed
There are implications of allowing animal testing to continue as is for humans. Many drugs that works on animals are still dangerous or lethal to humans. In fact, 95% of drugs who pass the animal portion of drug testing fail in the human portion. There is also no scientific basis that animal testing “is reliably predictive of human responses, both with respect to efficacy and toxicity/safety.” (Archibald 3, Bailey1) Figure one demonstrates the point that it is almost
Fig. 1 The predictive value of animal tests for bioavailability of medicines in humans (Archibald 6)
impossible to determine if a drug is effective or safe for humans based on animal testing results. This renders animal testing useless, as a positive animal test may result in a negative human test, and a negative animal test may result in a positive human test. There are many examples of people being hurt or killed because researcher thought a drug was safe during an animal experiment and tested it on humans. One example is how steroids were given to patients who suffered serious head injuries to reduce the risk of death because it worked in animal studies. However, later scientist found that steroids actually increased the risk of strokes in humans, resulting in about 10,000 deaths. (Archibald 4) Animal testing is dangerous, and many more mishaps can occur if it is allowed to stay.
The Other Side
The Solution
Humans, and animals both suffer in the hands of animal testing. Even though there are many alternatives, animal testing still is regulated poorly. While this information is alarming, people are used to animal testing in labs and schools and other places. Therefore, many people are resistant to change, because they fear that progression will suffer. Therefore, best way to move into more modern and ethical approaches to drug testing is to start by having more regulations on animal testing, then limit the number of animal test and increase the number of alternatives, and finally replace animal testing altogether. If we are to move forward, we need to use more ethical and reliable ways of testing our drugs, so patients who desperately need them do not feel guilty every time they think about the process of making and testing the drug.
Works Cited
“Animal Welfare Act.” U.S.C. Title 7 - AGRICULTURE, 2015, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title7/html/USCODE-2015-title7-chap54.htm.
Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Research Is an Ethical Issue for Humans as Well as for Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, p. 1. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0001.
Bailey, Jarrod, and Michael Balls. “Recent Efforts to Elucidate the Scientific Validity of Animal-Based Drug Tests by the Pharmaceutical Industry, pro-Testing Lobby Groups, and Animal Welfare Organisations.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, Mar. 2019, p. 16. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0352-3.
“Experiments on Animals: Overview.” PETA, 11 Nov. 2004, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/.
Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, Sept. 2011, pp. 1–4. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024059.
Stokes, W.S. “Animals and the 3Rs in Toxicology Research and Testing: The Way Forward” Human & Experimental Toxicology, vol. 34, no. 12, Dec. 2015, pp.1297-1303. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0960327115598410