Revised Conclusion

For this blog post I will publish my old conclusion paragraph from my project 2 draft along with a new and totally revised conclusion paragraph.  I will then explain why I think the new conclusion paragraph is better than the original.

Apple_logo_Think_Different. "Apple logo Think Different vectorized". 31 January 2011 via Wikipedia Public Domain 

I believe that my new conclusion paragraph is an improved version compared to the original.  I still restate the thesis of my rhetorical analysis, but I do so in a more concise manner.  I compose all of the strategies that the author used in his text and stating that he used them to propose his message.  Overall, I still mention how the author provides information in his text that is not persuasive, but still gives the readers the ability to answer whether or not the process of de-extinction is ethical.

My Original Conclusion Paragraph:

After viewing the way Cohen changed his tone throughout the article while still providing clear transitions between sets of texts, new students who are studying sciences are able to have a better understanding of the controversy. By adhering to the cultural values and ideologies of the audience, the article explored the beneficial and costly aspects of the process of de-extinction with the emphasis being placed on the way Cohen conveyed his purpose. Rather than read about his opinions on the issue, the different viewpoints on how de-extinction can in fact have helpful characteristics, it can also have detrimental ones too. Cohen did a good job of delivering important information that could help readers choose the stance they could take on this issue, whether or not they believe the process of de-extinction is ethical.

My New and Revised Conclusion Paragraph:

Cohen does a fine job of not persuading his readers into choosing one position over another, but instead relates to both sides in this issue. He separates the prominent topics involved in this controversy and explains the difference between each of them. The key takeaway from his text is using an informative tone to connect the different sections with one another. It includes positive and negative aspects to the issue which gives a reader the chance to view a position they may or may not favor. By showing the ecological effects de-extinction can have along with the philosophical and utilitarian perspectives, Cohen successfully explained the purpose of his text. The varying information put together gave readers the ability to formulate an opinion of the overall issue, whether or not they believe de-extinction is an ethical process.

Revised Introduction

For this blog post I will publish my old introduction paragraph from my project 2 draft along with a new and totally revised introduction paragraph.  I will then explain why I think the new introduction paragraph is more successful than the original.

Burton, Felix. "Neon, sign, "CHANGE"'. 1 September 2006 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic 

The change in appearances of the my introduction paragraph is one for the better, in my opinion.  To start off, I provided brief information about the process of de-extinction to give readers knowledge about what they will read in the rest of my rhetorical analysis.  Instead of trying to write about the same reasons about why Cohen wrote his article, I briefly stated what the purpose of his article was and how it would be informative for readers.  I changed the thesis statement by only rearranging its format so that it would flow easier than before.

My Original Introduction Paragraph:

The concept of de-extinction is a recent idea that has been thought of in the age where scientific advancements have occurred. The author of text I have chosen to analyze is Shlomo Cohen. As a professor in the department of philosophy at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Cohen has taught different ethics courses during his time there. Along with being a professor in philosophy, he has published journals about ethical and philosophical topics. As he stated in his article, Cohen specifically says that the purpose of his article is to inform readers of the different viewpoints of the issue rather than report his own bias. Cohen goes on to describe the general meaning of what de-extinction is, “‘De-extinction’ refers to the process of resurrecting extinct species by genetic methods.” I will use information in this article to give new students who are majoring in the sciences an explanation of how this text is rhetorically constructed and situated. Cohen informs his readers about the ethics of de-extinction by appealing to the values and beliefs shared by the audience. Along with setting a tone and providing clear transitions between sets of texts, Cohen then analyzes the different effects that de-extinction would have on this world to give readers the ability to decide whether or not this process is ethical.

My New and Revised Introduction Paragraph:

The idea of bringing extinct species back to life seems like an idea that is far-fetched. This science-fiction like concept has recently gained attention in the science community. De-extinction is a process that brings extinct species back to life by using genetic engineering methods. Such methods include either cloning the DNA of the extinct species or selectively breed specific species in order to have the resembling species be as similar to the original species as possible. Advocates and critics disagree with one another over whether or not it is ethical. I have read through different sources regarding this issue, but I have chosen one text in particular. Shlomo Cohen, the author of text I have chosen, has an accomplished track record in his field of study. As a philosophy professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, he has taught different ethics courses along with publishing journals regarding ethical and philosophical topics. The purpose of his article is to inform readers about the ethics of de-extinction by presenting the different viewpoints of the issue rather than report his own position. The text is rhetorically constructed and situated in a way to appeal to the values and beliefs shared by the readers. Along with providing clear transitions betweens sets of texts, Cohen uses an informative rather than a persuasive tone in his text to help readers decide whether or not the process of de-extinction is ethical.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

For this blog post I will explain what I have learned from the reading the comments my peers made about my project 2 draft.  I will also answer questions from the Student's Guide on page 69.

Howcheng. "The reflection of Mount Hood in Mirror Lake". 17 April 2006 via Wikipedia Public Domain 

I the read project 2 drafts from Jason Wittler and Mark Mellott.

Questions from page 69:

Who, specifically, is going to be reading this essay?  Or who am I trying to reach with my argument?  (My instructor, my classmates, members of my academic community, members of the local community, etc.)
The main audience of my rhetorical analysis is new students who are majoring in the same field that I am.  Since I am in the sciences, students who also study this field might be intrigued by reading about a controversy in the scientific field.  The point of me writing my rhetorical analysis is so these new students can get a glimpse of what a rhetorical analysis in the field of science looks like.

What biases might my readers have?  Am I respecting their opinions while also achieving my own purpose?
The viewpoints of the my paper's readers may vary since two different approaches/sides are explained in the text I have chosen to analyze.  The two sides in my text includes people who think the process of de-extinction is ethical and the other side which thinks the opposite.  My text does a good job of providing perspective from both sides of the issue and the author does not present his viewpoint in order to persuade readers to prefer one position over another.

What are their values and expectations?  Am I adequately meeting those expectations?
Since my rhetorical analysis is revolved around science, students who study in this field usually expect claims to be backed up by evidence.  In my paper, I provided a few different quotes to help give scientific readers the ability to view information with evidence from a different source.  For my final draft of my rhetorical analysis, I might include an additional source in order to give more powerful and effective claims and support for those claims.

How much information do I need to give my audience?  How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their expertise?
The topic of de-extinction does not easily come into the minds of many people.  I included enough information in my analysis in order for readers to have a basic understanding of what my topic is about.  The different cultural values and ideologies that I explain in connection with the text I chose to analyze provided further information for readers so that they can view different viewpoints on the issue.  Giving too much information about my topic may leave readers to be more confused rather than informed about the positions involved in my controversy.

What kind of language is suitable for this audience?
I did not use language that requires students to search for different words' meanings.  Instead, I used general scientific terms that have been seen throughout school leading up to the university level.  By not using advanced analytical or scientific language, readers of my paper will have an easier time navigating through my paper without being deeply confused what it is they are reading about.  

What tone should I use with my audience?  Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft? 
The tone of my analysis did not include words that would be used in personal narrative.  Instead I stayed within the confines of language that seemed formal enough for readers to have an understanding that it is an analysis of a scientific text.  For the majority of my paper, I believe that I used this tone.  By using a tone that seems childish and ill-informed, readers would not have a better understanding of the controversy I was talking about.

Clarity, Part 1

For this blog post I will use the Rules for Writers book and read information under the Clarity section.  I will choose four topics in this section in which I can learn more information about them, which can ultimately help me improve my own writing (project 2).

Files, Adam. "Clarity - Zedd". 31 October 2014 via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain 

Topic 1:
The first topic I have chosen to learn more about is "Prefer active verbs".  After reading about which types of verbs are involved in writing (passive or active), I have realized that when I write my rhetorical analysis, it would be better for me to utilize active verbs rather than passive.  I found this information to be helpful from the reading, "Active verbs express meaning more emphatically and vigorously than their weaker counterparts -- forms of the verb be or verbs in the passive voice" (112).  The idea of needing an emphatic meaning in my paper is not a new idea for me, but in previous English classes, I have used a good mix of passive and active verbs.  What is a bit surprising for me is the difference in the use of verbs can change the tone of the paper that someone writes.

Topic 2:
The second topic I have chosen to learn more about is "Emphasize key ideas".  I already knew that placing emphasis on the key ideas in a paper was an important way to get the message across.  What I found surprising was the difference between coordination and subordination.  I did not know the difference between the two and after reading this section, I find that knowing what they mean can help me in my paper.  To summarize, "Coordination draws attention equally to two or more ideas" (141).  "To give unequal emphasis to two or more ideas, express the major idea in an independent clause and place any minor ideas in subordinate clauses or phrases" (142).  After closely reading about the difference between, I now know how to effectively use them in my rhetorical analysis.

Topic 3:
The third topic I have chosen to learn more about is "Provide some variety".  I find that I sometimes follow the PIE method too closely and feel that I have to approach individual paragraphs in my papers a different way.  After reading this section, I found the key takeaways were varying sentence openings, utilize different sentence structures, and occasionally invert sentences.  I found it surprising after reading this section that I could use them in my paper and possibly make my paper seem more appealing to read.

Topic 4:
The last topic that I have chosen to learn more about is "Tighten wordy sentences".  I find that I sometimes use long sentences in my papers.  Not that this information is new to me, but seems a bit more surprising is that, a shorter sentence may actually improve the quality of the information provided in an area of the paper, rather than include long pieces of information that may seem to drag the paper in a more ineffective way.  Simplifying information in a paragraph may not seem like a good approach to presenting a reader with all of the information you want to provide them with, but may be a more useful and concise way to get around the topic in a paper.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

For this blog post I will write a brief paragraph that will help my peer reviewers when they view my draft of project 2.

Masur. "Copyright". 21 September 2012 via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain

I will post my project #2 draft at the end of this blog post and there are a few things that can help you as a peer reviewer for my rhetorical analysis.  The controversy I am talking about in my project is whether or not the process of de-extinction is ethical.  I will include body paragraphs that analyze the different cultural values and ideology that is embedded in text and how these views are shared by the audience.  I would encourage you as a peer reviewer to point any out any mistakes that are in my analysis.  Mistakes include any grammatical errors, stylistic errors, or pointing out if there are any viewpoints of mine that might have bias towards favoring one position over another.

My Rhetorical Analysis

Reflection:
After reading Jason Wittler's and Mark Mellott's drafts I have learned a few things about the four Clarity topics that I have chosen to view in greater detail.  As for learning about "Prefer active verbs", I found that the main passive verb that I used had the word "are" in front of it.  I have learned that it is practically inevitable to not have a passive verb in our paper.  I realize that is recommended to use active verbs and stay away from passive verbs.  Although I have passive verbs in my paper, along with the papers I have read from my peers, we do not have them in excess in our papers.  For example from Mark Mellott's rhetorical analysis draft, he had an example of a passive verb, "Another important piece of information when considering the position and reasoning presented in this article is the context in which this article was written." From Jason Wittler's rhetorical analysis, he had an example of a passive verb, "The audience may or may not be aware of the inner workings depending on their closeness to the sport, but almost everyone was caught up in the speculation of whether or not a 37 year drought would come to an end."

For the topic of emphasizing key ideas, I believe we all did a good job of making sure that we did that in our papers. Giving readers the ability to view the key points in our papers is crucial as it is, in my opinion, almost as important as stating the thesis. Here is an example from Mark Mellott's draft, "He does include brief coverage of the opposition to WIPP and fails to critique the arguments of this half of the controversy, but he does refute their claims in a non-descript way." Also, here is an example from Jason Wittler's draft, "She isn’t trying to create the next wave of anti-horse racing in America but how she weaves the patterns and word choices blends into a fabric that caters to everyone."

As for reviewing the "Provide some variety" section, I also found that we all utilized this approach in our papers. Variety is key, is it strays from the commonality of writing a paper that sticks to the same conventions. Here is an example from Mark Mellott's draft, "A scientist will overlook lack of credibility and emotional appeal if the argument has a logical format." This is an example of a complex sentence. Here is an example from Jason Wittler's draft, "With almost no validation for expertise in the area of horse racing, Pia Catton deftly navigates the issue by choosing some of the most renowned figures in the industry." This is also an example of a complex sentence.

The last topic in the Clarity section that I reviewed was "Tighten wordy sentences". I would like to fix the few occurrences that I have in my paper that have a sentence that is too wordy. Again, I believe sometimes, having wordy sentences in a few cases, is inevitable. My peers did a good job of tightening their wordy sentences by having shorter and more concise sentences. Here is an example from Mark Mellott's draft, "A scientist is not easily convinced by an endearing tale or emotional appeal." This sentence does a good job of being concise at by avoiding the look of being wordy. Here is an example from Jason Wittler's draft, "The chase for the Triple Crown is the number one draw that horse racing has in the United States." This sentence does a good job of explaining the importance of a horse race without going too in-depth into what it is about.

Project 2 Outline

For this blog post I will plan out my project 2 rhetorical analysis.  I will include information on my introduction, body, and conclusion paragraphs.  In the introduction paragraph I will have my thesis statement to help set up my argument for the entire paper.  For each body paragraphs I will have my analytical claims as well as support for each of them.

Xhienne. "A SWOT analysis, with its four elements in a 2x2 matrix". 30 September 2007 via Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2.5

Introduction:
I will start out with a sentence or two providing basic information about the topic in my analysis.  I will mention the author along with the audience prior to issuing my thesis statement.  The thesis statement I have chosen is: Cohen informs readers about the ethics of de-extinction by appealing to the values and beliefs shared by the audience.  Along with setting a tone and providing clear transitions between sets of texts, Cohen then analyzes the different effects that de-extinction would have on this world to give readers the ability to decide whether or not this process is ethical.

Body Paragraph 1:
I will begin with a topic sentence to describe one cultural value and ideology that is embedded in the text, the possibility of de-extinction helping to promote ecological values.  I will use brief quotations from the section of the text that talks ecological axiology.  While including the rhetorical strategies of how Cohen uses tone and the appeal to the values shared by the audience, I will have quotes that include the benefits that de-extinction will bring from the ecological standpoint and how ethics is involved.  I will try to incorporate the PIE method, providing the point of my paragraph, then illustrating it by using a quote from the text, and finally explaining the connection between the point and the illustration.

Body Paragraph 2:  
Just like the rest of my body paragraphs I will start with a topic sentence and describe another cultural value and ideology that is embedded in the text.  For this paragraph, I will talk about the deontological argument that people owe to de-extinction to species and how we should view species' rights.  I will analyze and paraphrase the information the author provides in this section of his text.  I will end the paragraph by relating back to the topic sentence.

Body Paragraph 3:
I will start with a topic sentence and describe another cultural value in the text.  This one will describe the factors associated with positive utility (referring to utilitarian aspects).  I will analyze and paraphrase the positive factors that the author describes in this section of his text.  To conclude the paragraph, I will use the information from the entire paragraph to relate it back to the topic sentence.

Body Paragraph 4:
I will start with a topic sentence and add onto the factors associated with utility.  This time, I will describe the factors associated with negative utility.  I will analyze and paraphrase the factors that the author describes in this section of his text.  To end the paragraph, I will use that information to relate back to the topic sentence.

Conclusion:
I will briefly restate the thesis in a different way while still mentioning how Cohen used rhetorical strategies to talk about the cultural values in his text.  I will also summarize the main points that I made in analysis.  To finish the essay I will leave readers with the option to view my analysis along with the actual text and give them the opportunity to decide whether or not they think the process of de-extinction is ethical.

Draft Thesis Statements

For this blog post I will share with readers the different thesis statements I have come up with regarding the second project that I will write.  I will explain to readers the level of difficulty of the development of my project.

Koslowski, Roger. "Serifs within the Thesis typeface family". 30 November 2006 via Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0  

Thesis Statement 1: 
In his article, Shlomo Cohen provides clear transitions between sets of texts which sets a tone that appeals to the values and beliefs shared by the incoming students who study in science.  By using these strategies, Cohen compares the different effects that de-extinction in the world to have these students decide whether or not they think the process of de-extinction is ethical.


Thesis Statement 2:
Shlomo Cohen informs readers, students studying different sciences, about the ethics of de-extinction by appealing to the values and beliefs shared by them.  Along with setting a tone and providing clear transitions between sets of texts, Cohen analyzes the different effects that de-extinction would have on this world and gives readers the ability to decide whether or not this process is ethical.


So far I believe these two thesis statements are good starting points to writing my rhetorical analysis.  I include the author and how he uses rhetorical strategies to present the audience (students) the controversy.  These strategies will help readers decide whether or not de-extinction is ethical.  The fact that I have already narrowed down my rhetorical strategies and know what the rhetorical situation of my text is, I believe this will make writing my analysis easier.  What might be difficult is how I will connect the strategies to comply with the message of the article and ultimately give readers the ability to choose one side over the other.  Writing without bias may not be too much of an arduous task and with practice and preparation before writing my analysis, I think that I can do a good enough job of analyzing the text and keying in on the specific strategies used by the author.

Reflection:
I read Jason Wittler's and Nicole Nelson's blog post's talking about their thesis statements for project 2.  I found that both individuals had thesis statements that stayed on point and talked about what kind of information they will talk about in their project.  By reading both statements, this can help me when choosing mine by reminding me to make sure that I briefly include the author of my source, the audience that the text represents, and what kinds of rhetorical strategies he/she uses to convey the purpose of the text.

Analyzing My Audience

For this blog post I will analyze the text I have chosen for my next project and answer six questions from the Student's Guide on page 49.  The main focus of this post is to identify the audience of my text.

Splintercellguy. "Audience Frontier Fiesta, 1950s, Audience at a Frontier Fiesta show". 1 August 2013 via Wikipedia Public Domain 

What are their beliefs and assumptions?
Since the audience for my second major project that I will do are new and incoming students for science majors.  Perhaps the reason they chose a major in the sciences was because they already have an interest with issues regarding the scientific community.  If not, they might be intrigued by the possibility of learning about the controversial issues in the sciences.  For the individuals that already have a sense of what is occurring in the scientific community, their beliefs and assumptions regarding the controversy I have chosen may vary but have one outlook in common.  I assume, rather than formulate their own opinion if de-extinction is ethical or not, they would want to view the different sides in the issue and see the facts for both sides.  Scientists in my opinion should not provide bias on many situations but instead should provide analysis for all aspects of an argument and keep their personal beliefs to themselves.

What kind of language is appropriate for them?
Due to students majoring in the science field, scientific language should be the best way these students read the text.  They should take into consideration the diction the author uses, but more importantly have an easier time understanding the science that goes into the text and why it is important to be able understand the text in a different view.

What are their sociopolitical and economic backgrounds?
The answer to this question would be difficult to determine.  As a student, most people's goal is to learn valuable information to help them in their life whether it is growing an individual or helping them in their future careers.

What will they want to know?
Students in the sciences would want to learn more about the science involved in the issue.  Specifically, in my text, the environment and the ecology of the planet is often talked about.  I believe students would want to know/read about the scientific keywords that help give them the opportunity to make their own decision in whether or not they think de-extinction is ethical.  Gathering more information on how, if the de-extinction actually occurred, would change the science/the way the planet functions.  Overall, they would want to facts rather opinions on the controversy.

In general, how can they be be persuaded?
From what I have read, the author does a good job of not showing his bias toward one viewpoint over another.  Based on that, he does provide a  direct method of persuasion.  If the readers, in their own minds, after reading the text favor one position over another, then I believe the author wrote a helpful text.  Essentially, without physically persuading the readers, the author provides in-depth information that includes a strong use of diction and the ability to appeal to readers.  This can be helpful in having the readers eventually hold more value for one viewpoint over another. 

Cluster of The Ethics of De-Extinction

For this blog post I will provide a cluster map providing analysis for my next project.  I will talk about the key rhetorical strategies used in the text by the author/speaker, the specifics of the text's rhetorical situation, and the cultural values and ideology embedded in the text.

Danski14. "Iscosahedral water cluster 100". 19 May 2012 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported  

For the cluster map I provided here I explained important aspects of the text I have chosen for my project.  I talked about the important rhetorical strategies the author used in the text to have his message and purpose be addressed (whether or not de-extinction is ethical).  From that point, I explained the specifics of the text's rhetorical situation.  This included the author, the message and purpose, the context of the text, and who the text is written for (audience).  After providing this brief information, a reader can have some sort of idea of the issue I will talk about in my next project.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Ethics of De-Extinction

For this blog post I will provide answers to questions that deal with how the text I have chosen for my next project appeals to credibility or character, emotion, and logic.  I will use descriptions of rhetorical strategies from pages 183-6 of the Student's Guide to provide my answers.

Arbeck. "Credibility Trust Provenance data". 1 May 2013 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported 

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on page 183 can you recognize in your text?
Word choice and appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience.

How and why would the author use these strategies?
The diction that author chooses to use is helpful in his way to give readers a better "visual" of the idea of de-extinction without physically giving them real pictures or data of the issue.  Specifically, the author titles the sub-topics in the text in a way to seem challenging for many people to read and instead would have them be intrigued by what it means.  For example, the sub-topics are, "Scientific Précis, Ecological Axiology, Deontology and Justice, Playing God, Utility, De-Extinction, Aesthetics, and Ethics".  By doing this, he then provides the information under the sub-topic which then ultimately gives the reader to ability to view the information and then decide whether or not they agree with what he is saying.  Since the text talks about the ethics behind de-extinction, the author appeals to the values and beliefs by constantly referring to the notion of de-extinction having many unethical qualities to it.  He does this relating the audience of this text and provides information on the unethical process by persuading the reader (this would most likely occur after the reader has read the entire text) without actually stating his viewpoints on the issue.

How do these strategies affect the audience's perception of the author's credibility and character? 
By utilizing these two bullet points alone, the author adds to his character by showing his different examples of showing how de-extinction nay seem more unethical than not.  Word choice alone adds to the ability of having readers choose what they believe, either supporting the idea or not after reading the text.  Appealing to one's audience is an important quality someone should have if they want to their point to get across and eventually have many people agree with what they are writing.  Since many people have ethics and do not want to stray from them, the author would successfully have a high number of people read this text.  

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text's overall message?
As mentioned from the previous question, having credibility gives the author the ability to more explicitly spread his message in the text to its readers.  The more compelling the information is, the more people will enjoy reading a text and eventually come up with conclusions regarding its message.  This is something I believe the author has done a good job at.  He makes the information compelling to read and gives the readers an easier time to make their own choices about the issue.

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact his or her credibility?
The author, in my opinion, did not specifically state his viewpoints on this issue and therefore does not worsen his credibility about the issue.

Appeals to Emotion

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on page 184 can you recognize in your text?
The items on the bulleted list I could recognize from the text includes tone, and the repetition of keywords.  The author does not repeat the keywords many times, rather he places a significant meaning to them.  He mentions them and then reflects back to the reader's own thoughts about them.  The keywords in the text go as such, "Keywords De-extinction.Environmentalethics. Bioconservation.Biodiversity.Speciesrights.Respect forlife.Geneticengineering.Cloning".

What emotional response is the author attempting to create?
The author tries to create a serious feel to this issue in the text.  He shows how if it were to actually take place, how would affect the world.  Essentially (in my own words) he says "How would you react if extinct species came back to life?  Would you be scared?  Or would be angered by the fact that such a thing could happen?"

What is the actual result?
I believe if people were to actually respond to this text that they would feel this same emotional response, a seriousness that this issue should not be taken lightly.  It would seem easy to say that this idea is like science fiction, but the possibility of it actually happening may seem more likely than the idea of it being science fiction.  To that extent, people would have serious concerns and conversations over the legality and moral dignity of following through with such a process.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
I believe that readers understanding the serious feeling in the text is effective for the audience that reads it.  The text is not designed for young children to make a spectacle of.  Rather, it is intended for people that are serious about maintaining morals in the world and not crossing them by having the possibility of de-extinction coming true.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?
Given the fact that the author writes this text to be for the purpose of maintaining a seriousness about the issue addressed, I would say the credibility of the author stays strong around the audience, since they too feel strongly about analyzing the issue at hand more closely, rather than making quick judgments saying de-extinction should occur in heartbeat.

Appeals to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list of appeals on pages 184-5 can you recognize in your text?
The author utilizes effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, and ideas well.  Along with this he uses clear transitions/connections between sections of text.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies? 
By using both strategies in his text, the author tries create an audience response by seeing if a majority of people first of all agree with what he is saying, let alone responding to it by showing their opinions on the matter.

What is the actual result?
I believe the author executes these strategies quite well because he creates a flow in each section leading to next connecting the idea of the ethics behind de-extinction.  Along with the connection between sections of text, the ideas mentioned in each individual paragraph gives the reader a glimpse of reality if the possibility of de-extinction became true.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
These two strategies I thought were the most important for the entire text.  The ability to connect topics together to formulate viewpoints (either in support or disagreement with de-extinction) for the audience to come up with, is effective.  The informative, but different, yet connective sections of the text prove to be what I think the "hole-in-one" accomplishment in the text.  Flow is key in writing.  I believe the author does a good job of refraining from stating his viewpoints and instead connects different components of the text together.  

Which items on the list of logical fallacies on pages 185-6 can you recognize in your text?
I may be wrong, but from reading the text multiple times, I feel that the text does not contain any logical fallacies.  The text does not attack any individual or any individual thought stated in the article.  It does not assume that a connection between two events is caused by another.  It does not explicitly use an analogy between two similar, yet very different topics.  It uses specific rather than a few generalized examples to make a broad conclusion.  It also does not draw a conclusion from an assumption that may be unrelated.  The text for the most part contains specific and informative information that is helpful for readers when analyzing it.  The author did a good job of providing a "journalistic" approach when writing the text.  He did let himself include any assumptions that would make him seem untrustworthy. 

What effect does the use of these logical fallacies have on the reader?
Since I believe there are no logical fallacies involved with the text, I cannot fully answer this question.  However, if there were logical fallacies in this article I could see them being either false analogies or hasty generalizations.  The reason I would choose these from the rest is because if the author made the mistake of including them, different connections are made in the text with the purpose of comparing similar issues of ethics, yet being totally different.  If hasty generalizations were made, it would be easy for the author to include a limited amount of examples to make a broad conclusion about the message of the text.  Instead the author does a good job elaborating on the specific examples he presents in the text and leaves readers with the decision of which conclusions they can make about the message, should de-extinction occur, would it be too unethical to actually take place.

Analyzing Message in The Ethics of De-Extinction

For this blog post I will answering questions regarding the message and purpose found in the text that I have chosen for next project.  Based on questions from page 182 from the Student's Guide I will compose answers based questions regarding those questions.

SuPich. "Message-icon-grey". 3 October 2013 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication 

Out of all the bullet points on page 182, which seem most relevant to your text's message and purpose?  Why?
Some of the more relevant bullet points for my text would include moving the readers to feel a certain way, exploring a topic, and reflecting on a topic.  As for moving the readers to feel a certain a way, the author does this by providing information on the different ethical issues that are found with the de-extinction of species.  He presents the facts about the different issues that could occur with this process and provides insight on what would happen if this process were to in fact take place.  This has the readers feel either strongly about not supporting the de-extinction process or feel slightly in support of doing it.

As for exploring a topic, the author provides helpful analysis on the ways de-extinction would be unethical.  It would involve a process that would bring back deceased species to life, and if it were to actually happen, could destroy the Earth.  There are different sub-topics that revolve around the main topic/idea of de-extinction.  Some of those ideas include the respect for the lives of animals and humans that are currently alive.  Others are pointing out we can play a "role of God" referring to the ability that we have that can clone DNA material and create a species that almost identically reflects the already extinct species.

The third bullet point that I thought is most relevant to the text's message and purpose was reflecting on the topic.  The topic being de-extinction, readers are left the chance to explore this process in greater detail or reject this idea by finding it to be a hazard to society.  The reflection is important because rather than having the author do that, readers are in control to see the different ways this process is unethical and can perhaps inform more people about how this process is more dangerous than beneficial.

Which bullet points do not seem relevant to your text's message and purpose?  Why not?
The bullet points that I thought did not seem to relevant to my text's message and purpose included persuading readers of something, expressing an idea or opinion, and advocating for change.  The reason these do not seem relevant is due to the fact that author explicitly mentions more than one time in the text the purpose of the text is to not persuade readers to favoring one position over another, but to read facts about both sides and decide which to favor from there.  The author provides the ways the process of de-extinction seems unethical and does not express his personal view of whether he agrees with this notion.  As for advocating for change, this is no change advised in this text.  There is only information provided to readers for them to have a sense of what this process would do if it were to take place.  

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across?  If so, what are they?  If not, why not?
The author goes from sub-topic from another to provide more and more information for readers to view when comparing to the overall topic, the idea of de-extinction.  As he specifically describes the sub-topics and what would happen to the world if de-extinction to occur, more information than not provides negative analysis of the kinds of ways people would be upset with the idea.  The sub-topics previously mentioned in the first question help answer this question.  It shows if de-extinction was possible to create, the sub-topics would bring upon the important point how a majority of people would be in such disfavor of the idea, that the process would most likely never have to ability to take place.  

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

For this blog post I will provide answers to questions that relate the the text I have chose to our own cultural assumptions.

Armato, John. "Assume". 18 June 2008 via flickr Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic 

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written?  Why have they endured?
Many people in some sort of way have ethics.  Whether it is respect for people or simply not causing violence, most people have morals.  The text separates different topics in which the ethics of de-extinction is studied.  The idea of de-extinction itself would have many people not favor it due to the nature of such an act simply not being ethical.  Most people who have morals do not want to destroy human life and destroy the Earth and environment we live in.  The text provides information in which de-extinction challenges the morals that we as people have and does not provide many ways to show how such a process would prove to benefit society more than it would hurt it.  Regardless of religious beliefs or the idea that people have different viewpoints, everyone can agree that placing species on this planet that would most likely destroy human life, is a belief shared by practically every human being on this planet.  These ideas have endured thus far and will most likely endure throughout human existence because the idea bringing anything back to life, in this case species that would mostly cause harm, is an idea many people disagree with.

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share?  Why not?
One idea addressed in this text was the ability for the DNA of extinct species to be almost identically cloned to the actual species in order to re-create the species themselves.  The idea of using science in a way to affect lives, whether they are alive or deceased, can be an belief that has certain people wholeheartedly disagree with.  I myself am not an expert in why certain people do not believe in science, but that is their opinion and belief, and they have every right to believe in that.  The idea of resurrecting anything back to life, may have many people be on the fence about that issue.  Most people do not like associating themselves with death, and would rather let the deceased rest in peace.  For this reason, the idea of de-extinction would most likely be unfavorable for many people.

If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture?  What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?
I believe the text is written only to inform readers of the benefits and dangers of de-extinction, rather than completely being written in a culture different from our own beliefs.  The way this text connects to reflect our culture is by showing the way of how people show respect for life.  Generally speaking, most people do not want to harm life, and for that matter the world we live in, just to accomplish something that would likely result in even more destruction than thinking about the idea on its own.  What we cannot see in our culture is the majority of people that do not care for the life and safety of people and would rather benefit themselves.  Though these types of people exist in this world, many of them do not affect the world in a negative way, thank goodness for this.    

If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?
This text was written for a time period that did occur long ago.  Since it involves cloning and being able to use recombinant DNA technology, these ideas alone signify that this text is written for an audience that "lives" in the current world of information.  This being said, the social values and beliefs are different from roughly 15-20 years ago to present day compared to 50+ years back.  I believe more people are conscious about the Earth and the respect for human life than the morals and beliefs people had back in previous time period.


Reflection from my peers' blog posts
After reading the blog posts of Jason Wittler and Mark Mellott, I have learned that we all have passion for the topic we are writing about.  It is easy for us to be over-engaged in what we are talking about that we accidentally state our own bias/opinions about the topic.  Instead, we all stayed on task and provided the best brief analysis of the issue surrounding the topic that we could have.  A good lesson I learned is, keep the bias to yourself and use that urge of wanting to use it in your paper to instead provide readers with an even better and more informative paper that allows readers to understand the message of the paper without seeing any sort of support for one side throughout the paper.  Regardless of the topic that we are writing about, the goal is the same for all of us.  We want to give way to the fact that there are two, maybe more, sides to the issue, and explaining the different positions and how they can affect other people's opinions is one of the best we can do when writing our second project.  

Analyzing My Audience

For this blog post I will answer three questions that people might ask when analzying a text's relationship to its social or cultural setting.

Werther, Jacopo. "Cyril Ponnamperuma analyzing a moon sample". 16 March 2008 via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain 

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in text?
The role of ethical beliefs plays a large part in the text I have chosen to analyze.  The belief that humans can bring extinct species back to life may seem like a dangerous idea for some people.  Some people who study this controversy find that the advancement in technology and being able to use it and accomplish something that has never been done before, to be of utmost importance to them.  For many people, the idea bringing back species that lived in a different era on Earth, is not only a hazard to the existence of people, but can affect the environment that we live in.  Included with the dangers this idea brings, the lives of species that are currently alive are put in jeopardy.  The idea of cloning frightens many people.  It requires genetic engineering of DNA in order to produce species almost, even sometimes, identical to the species that once existed.  Another important idea is also expressed in this paper, what is more important, the idea of respect for species?, or the idea of respect for people?  Another, perhaps more important issue found in this article considers the "role of God" people play when considering the use of genetic engineering to brink back life.  The possibility that humans can bring back a species can affect the future life of this planet is an idea that may seem more violent and incautious than help the way we can improve biological integrity.    

Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly (by directly mentioning and responding to them) or indirectly (by presenting a scenario or narrative that addresses them)?
This text address the beliefs and cultural values directly.  It separates out the issues of this topic with different sections which includes the scientific purposes of de-extinction, the ecological axiology associated with it, and is de-extinction justified.

 What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.?  Is it critical of these aspects of the culture?  Is it supportive?  Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?  
As noted earlier in this blog, the values and beliefs that many people hold leaves the idea of de-extinction to be widely accepted a slim chance.  The text is critical of the issues presented in it as it provides insight on what would happen if these beliefs and values were neglected and the possibility of de-extinction happened.  Rather than supporting or not supporting the use of de-extinction, different arguments are made regarding the different sections in the paper with the intent to inform readers about what de-extinction would do.  More so than not, the text points out the unlikeliness of de-extinction occurring.  The fact that it would most likely have overwhelming dislike from many people shows how this text does not try to modify the relationship between the text and the values that many people hold.      

Cultural Analysis of The Ethics of De-Extinction

For this blog post I will analyze the piece of text that I have chosen for my next project and search for cultural messages.  I will read my text and follow a few steps.  They will include: previewing, skimming for cultural references, skimming for cultural values, re-reading and narrowing my focus.  I will also a few questions regarding my text in its entirety.  For my blog post itself, I will answer a question that regards the argument made in my text and how its audience can support it.

Offnfopt. "Trilobite under magnifying glass icon". 7 June 2015 via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain

Here is a question proposed from Chapter 4 from Writing Public Lives:

Finally, looking back at these passages, freewrite for a moment about the connection between the cultural keywords, the passages that you have listed, and the thesis.  How do these keyword help support the argument that the author is making?  Why might an audience be more likely to support this argument if its is connected to these values?

As a note I chose source 2 as the paper I will be viewing in a closer meaning for the entirety of this project.  The thesis of this paper is to consider the ethics behind the de-extinction of species while following the dimensions.  Due to de-extinction being a controversial issue, it often times tests the the limits of the ethical beliefs.  The keywords found in this article include: de-extinction, environmental ethics, bioconservation, biodiversity, species rights, respect for life, genetic engineering, and cloning.  The argument the author makes is not to favor one side over another (supporters of de-extinction of species vs. non-supporters), but to inform readers the ethics of the idea of de-extinction itself.  These keywords go into deeper meaning in the paper itself showing the effects of what de-extinction would do to either for human advancement in technology or the harm it would do the environment and species that already exist.

Though not active controversy, the audience that has heard of the idea of de-extinction will vary.  Some will support the idea and others will not.  The extended information found in the paper will give readers the ability to view this idea in a different perspective.  Since this idea brings many issues with and many people finding that it would unethical, there would be more disfavor of this idea for people that closely pay attention to this issue.  If the idea itself would change in the sense that some its ideas regarding more damage it would bring than the benefits, perhaps more people would support the idea.  In the present day, more people are becoming more aware of taking care of the planet and prolonging life, if the ethical issues were to diminish or be present at a smaller rate, people would look into supporting the process of de-extinction.  

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

For this blog post I will choose three different texts that serve as examples of acts of opinionated public speech by someone in the field of science.  I will analyze the rhetorical situations (author/speaker, audience, and context) in the three sources that I will use.

Paul Thompson. "Fairbanks speaking in front of a crowd at a 1918 war bond drive in New York City". 16 November 2007 via Wikipedia Public Domain

	Author/Speaker	Audience	Context
Source 1	Richard Draijer, Young de Graaf, Marieke Slettenaar, Eric de Groot, and Chris I. Wright All authors are doctors (PhD) in the fields they study. Those fields include biology, physiology, and the medical field.	The primary audience is people that have background knowledge of science based around biology, physiology, and chemistry.  A secondary audience can be anyone that has interest in the benefits of red wine and how ingredients found in it provides health benefits to people who consume it. Also important to note, this article is extremely helpful for individuals that have high blood pressures and want to study information that can help their medical situation.	The journal article that is being used as this source was published in 2015.  The purpose of this article is to inform readers how the consumption of a nutrient found in grapes and wine lowers blood pressure for hypertensive individuals (people that have high blood pressure).
Source 2	Shlomo Cohen He is a professor of philosophy at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel	The audience is for people that have knowledge about cloning extinct species.  Along with these individuals, this article is written for people that interested in the ethics of having species becoming de-extinct.	The article was published in 2014.  The purpose of this article is to bring the ethics perspective to the idea of having extinct species coming back to life through biological technology.
Source 3	William Glen He was a former editor at Stanford University Press, a former scientist and historian at the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park.	The audience for this article can include people that have knowledge about scientific topics, and any person that has a particular interest about the extinction of dinosaurs.	The article was published in 1990 from the magazine, American Scientist, specifically Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 354-370.  The purpose of this article to inform readers of the specific conditions on Earth during the periods when dinosaurs roamed the planet.

Source 1: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/5/3138/htm

Source 2: 

http://download.springer.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/static/pdf/538/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11569-014-0201-2.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs11569-014-0201-2&token2=exp=1437705140~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F538%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11569-014-0201-2.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs11569-014-0201-2*~hmac=cd9db637691e1fac366bc6201c8c250ba11e71c86775cf12e579968f4129959f

Source 3: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/pdf/29774121.pdf?acceptTC=true

Developing a Research Question

For this blog post I will come up with research questions that include debates and arguments being made in the field of science.  I will enjoy trying to research answers to the questions that I produce in this blog post.

David Hume Kennerly. "Carter and Ford debate domestic policy at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia (September 23, 1976)". 4 March 2007 via Wikipedia Public Domain

Research Question 1:
Is red wine good for your health or not?

I would enjoy finding an answer to this question because often times I listen to doctors stating their cases whether red wine is healthy or not.  Many people have different answers to this question, and although there is no right answer, sources that include data to support this claim is what truly interests me.

Research Question 2:
Can we clone extinct species?

I am interested in reading into whether we are able to resurrect extinct species.  I am more intrigued by the science that goes into into this question and whether or not it is even scientifically possible to answer this question.  I am interested to see the different opinions people have when it comes to answering this question.

Research Question 3: 
What killed the dinosaurs?

We all know dinosaurs went extinct.  What I am more interested in, is how.  Was it conditions on Earth during the time they roamed that eventually got out of hand that caused their extinction?  Or was it a giant meteorite that destroyed most of life on Earth?  I am interested to see what kind of analysis people put into answering this question, or at least attempting to answer it.

Publishing Project #1

Here is the link to my project #1:

https://drive.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/file/d/0B8GVzWmGX4V3cjVFcjFfdDZ6Vm8/view?usp=sharing

Reflection on Project 1

For this blog post provide a quick reflection on what I have learned from completing my first project for this class.  Included in my reflection will be answers to specific questions.

Prabhu B. "Reflections on still water are an example of specular reflection". 19 July 2007 via Wikipedia CC BY 2.0

What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Card project and how did you deal with them?
At first, when I began researching for sources to be used in my quick reference guide, I found more sources that were from a much longer time ago (10 years may seem like a lot for this topic).  Then as narrowed my search for specific information that I would use in guide, I was able to find sources that were more credible than others.  Another challenge that I faced was being able to find different major speakers in my controversy.  Instead of using individual people as examples, I used major organizations/businesses/group of people as the major speakers in my guide.  Though this may not be the conventional way of including people in a paper, I found that including a group or group of individuals seemed to provide better analysis in my paper.

What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
Once I was able to find a good amount of sources after researching my controversy, I was able to incorporate many great viewpoints into my paper from these sources.  Providing different viewpoints into a single paper, in my opinion, is a helpful tool to give readers a more informative view of what it is they are reading.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project?  Why?
I found summarizing the main points made in each source that I used helped me use specific topic statements that could then include information separated into small paragraphs.  Utilizing small paragraphs in individual topic sections, I thought, helped give readers to opportunity to view different points made by different sources that could combined into a topic section that is informative while at the same time keeping it quick and to the point.  Providing specific statistics in a many of my sources helped formulate a stronger argument in my paper showing how vaccines can be seen to have a beneficial use rather than a destructive one.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project?  Why?
In my first draft of the quick reference guide, I included a figure that contained a graph showing different religions involved with the use of exemptions from vaccinations.  After giving this idea some thought, I believe it was necessary that I did not include this figure, let alone the section it was in because it seemed to stray away from the other topics in the guide, and did not flow well with the rest of the paper.

How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you've had in the past?
The only similarity I found by doing this quick reference guide is that the English teachers I have had in the past let me choose individual topics revolving around a recent controversy.  They also let choose my own sources rather than give me and my peers limited options that they thought would be helpful.  I learned starting in my later years in high school that the more freedom I was given to write about what I thought was important to the country, rather than my teachers choosing for me, helped me think in a larger view when it comes to writing about what is important to me.

How was the writing process for this project different to other school writing experiences you've had in the past?
The only minor difference that I experienced in this project than others in the past was the previously my teachers had students utilize different sources in our essays, but never specifically told us to write a quick reference, and instead just called them essays.  I view a quick reference guide as a more informative and at the same time a simple way to provide readers with helpful information.

Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework?  Why or why not?
My goal is to work in a research laboratory the entire time I am an undergraduate student.  While I am researching and learning from a professor, my ideal goal is to publish a paper.  By already completing the first project I have already gained helpful skills that would make my writing influential and impress professors with my ability to incorporate many sources and utilize them to help me publish a scientific paper.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

For this blog I will use the longest paragraph in quick reference guide project to identify the basic grammar patterns that are found in it.

Brett. "EnglishGrammarCategories". 23 February 2009 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported 

Here is a link to my annotated paragraph from Project #1 which identifies basic grammar patterns.

What did this activity teach me about my own writing?
I was able to learn how I thought my paragraph included all the basic grammar patterns (different parts of speech, different sentence patterns, subordinate word group, sentence structures, and sentence purposes) but only found out that I had to revise it to use of all of them.  It taught a me a valuable lesson in how you think you have completed your paragraph after reading it a few times, but closely viewing it an extra time is all that is needed to help make a paragraph look even better.

Are there grammatical elements that you want to spend more time exploring or improving upon?
I feel confident about finding good examples of different parts of speech and sentence patterns, but I want to work on being able to incorporate more parts to my paragraphs where I include patterns such as subordinate word groups, sentence structures, and sentence purposes.  By consistently utilizing all of the grammar patterns, my writing will only improve.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

For this blog post I will provide hyperlinks on two projects that my peers wrote and explain what I have learned about my project either from reading comments that my peers wrote on my project or by commenting on my peers' projects.  I will assess what I wrote for my project and describe ways on how I plan to revise my project.

Polimerek. "Peer Review". 22 August 2005 via Wikipedia Public Domain

The projects that I read from my peers Tripp Twyman and Nicole Nelson.

What do I hope to achieve with this essay?  Am I trying to persuade the reader of something?  Inform them of a particular perspective?  Lead them to take a specific action?  How might they know what my goals are?

The main point of my project is to inform readers of both sides of my controversy and what people from both sides are saying regarding the controversy.  Whether they support the issue or not, the goal of my project is to provide information with showing little to no bias.  Perspectives from both sides include phrases quoted to show how this controversy is important for people to be informed about.  Some key points that I bring up might lead readers to search more sources of information to find out even more beneficial information.  Readers can view the goal of my project by viewing the different topics included and how all the information is concluded at the end to give readers the option of acknowledging the information and getting a better sense of why the issues I bring up gives it the credit to be called a controversy.

What are the requirements of the assignment?  Do I meet them?
The prompt includes the requirements I must meet in my project.  For the most part I meet the requirements.  Although, I want to revise my work so that I can fulfill the requirements in a better fashion.

Am I making an argument or simply stating the obvious?
I would say that my project includes a bit of stating the obvious, but that is partly unavoidable.  I instead tried to make a case for both sides in my controversy so that I can leave readers with the availability to make argument/case themselves in what they think should ensure in the future regarding the controversy.

Does my essay have a thesis?  Is it easy to locate?  Does it reflect my purpose and argument?
My thesis for my project is: "Analysis in this guide will present the facts and viewpoints of both sides of this controversy. It will provide information on how schools are dealing with parents who have their children exempt from vaccinations, how lawmakers and doctors, specifically doctors informing many parents about the benefits of having their children being vaccinated, and parents who are against having their children follow the requirements."  Readers can find my thesis being the last two sentences of my project, which concludes the introduction paragraph.  It reflects the purpose of my project, to provide readers with information regarding vaccination requirements for children and how individuals either accept or reject them, without showing little to no bias.

How do I support my thesis?  Do I make specific claims and use compelling evidence?
I provide examples from different sources, such as lawmakers and their legislation, and show how the evidence correlates with the thesis, showing the truth behind vaccination requirements.  The evidence provides statistical data the give perspective for both sides of the argument to be seen.

Are my ideas developed?  Do I progress through my argument carefully, patiently, and with enough detail?
I believe my ideas might be overdeveloped as I provided ten sources to in my project.  My project is eight pages long, which might seem to long for a quick reference guide.  Even though I might have overdone my project, the ideas I bring up provide details that can help readers become more knowledgeable about this controversy.  Figures, which include graphs, and other statistical data give readers the extra step to understanding the issues I am talking about.

Integrating a Quote

For this blog post I will chose one particular quote from one of my ten sources that I used for controversial analysis quick reference guide.

Tortillovsky. "Quotation marks-comillas". 22 February 2007 via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain

The magenta colored part of the quote is the signal phrase, where introduce the authors of the journal article along with the publication date of the article and what page I am quoting from (in CSE style).  The blue part of the quote is the actual quotation where I use quotation marks to indicate the beginning of the quoted sentence along with the quotation marks at the end of the sentence.