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.