Documentation Quiz

1.  What kind of documentation system are we using to cite our sources?
2.  Two types of citations, in text and what else?
3.  For a web source, list info needed to be included.


1.  We will be using MLA format to cite our sources.  (MLA=Modern Language Association)

2.  Along with in-text citations we also need to include a "Works Cited" page, which includes the complete info from all the in-text citations.

3.  For a Web source information needed to be included on a Works Cited page is as follows:  Author, title of page, name of site, name of affiliated institution, and date accessed.

Prewriting Essay 2

In Thomas Kurth's article "In support of fracking: the facts and the science," he makes a very weak claim that fracking does not cause a whole heap of environmental problems and poses and economic benefit.  On top of that, he never even addresses the science part that he includes in his title.  There is no mention of any scientific evidence that would support hydraulic fracturing, which I thought was very interesting given the title Kurth gave to his editorial.  Overall, I thought the author's argument was very weak, and disorganized with very little evidence to back it up.  I wanted to rebut this argument because it is something that I feel strongly about, and I have familiarized myself with the topic.  The main strategies I will be using are to refute the author's weak claims about the EPA, and just make my own counter argument against fracking.  The claim that I will be making is that fracking does pollute drinking water and poses numerous other hazards that make it more of a potential problem than a benefit.  Some initial thoughts that I had regarding refutation was to argue against his statement that the EPA's regulatory activities have been based off of "headlines and populist noise," which I think is completely ridiculous.

Essay 1.2 Self Defense or Self Destruction: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s “Governments should create stricter gun laws.”

             The right to bear arms is an issue that has been at the forefront of American society for many decades.  It is a very controversial topic, with many adamantly favoring it while others are vehemently opposed.   In the January issue of The Ithacan, an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” by Megan Weintraut addresses one view on this debated subject.  She understands that the right to bear arms is a part of our constitution, but as times change she argues that we must view the right to bear arms in a new light.   The basis for the creation of this amendment stemmed from a time when guns were necessary for personal survival; to hunt for food and defend oneself from the British Army.   Today, the need to own a weapon for personal survival has greatly decreased, so Weintraut then asks us the question, “Why bother owning one?”   She uses both statistical reasoning and real world connections, as well as appealing to her audience’s emotions to try and convince us that gun control should be more closely regulated. 

            Right off the bat, Weintraut makes the point that “the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…For protection, we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government” (par 2).  This serves to prove that the need for guns on a personal level has greatly decreased over the past 200 years, and puts the idea of need for a gun into a modern context.  She is using logos to make it clear that this is an important concept to understand when looking at gun control in today’s society. 

            In the next phase of her argument she again uses logos bombarding readers with statistics, making them realize how prevalent guns are in our nation, and of the effects of their proliferation.  She tells us that 70 million Americans are gun owners, and many of them cite the reason for their gun ownership as self-defense, an idea well in line with our constitution (par 2).  The next sentence then reports that Americans own many more guns than other developed nations, accounting for a higher number of homicides.  This shouldn't be the case if most Americans only want a gun for self-defense.  She then adds that, “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par 3).  Here she uses statistics to show that guns and homicide are closely correlated, and that because we have more guns in our society that all other places in the world, more homicides will occur. 

            Continuing the statistical approach, she then intertwines some real world connections to give her argument more depth, credibility and authority. Weintraut is now using ethos to appeal to her audience and get her point across.  She states that “…66 percent of television programs contain violence…the popular video game Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murdering law enforcement (par 4).”  This supports her claim that, “Violence in the media reinforces destructive behavior” (par 4). Having experienced popular culture, this is just one example from a long list of games in which players are rewarded for violent acts.   She contends that the extreme amount of violence in the media desensitizes today’s youth, and that they don’t understand the true danger of guns.  This seems to be a valid claim given the rise in unnecessary violent acts committed by young people over the past decades. 

            Moving on to the main portion of her argument about the government and stricter gun laws, she tells us how easy it can be to own not one, but not multiple guns in the United States.  Out of the fifty states, only four limit the number of guns that can be purchased at a single time.  One gun can be bought every thirty days, to be exact.  This still allows for individuals to stockpile weapons, a scary thought if these arms were to fall into the wrong hands.   Weintraut then talks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, established in 1994 but which expired in 2004, allowing Americans to have access to assault weapons, the type of weapon that Jared Loughner used in the recent Arizona shooting (par 5).  This horrible event created the perfect occasion for her argument. Here, she is using logos, to reason with her audience and show them that it is possible to acquire weapons with tremendous firepower.

            To conclude her argument Weintraut uses pathos to appeal to her audience’s emotional side.  By mentioning the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings, she strives to evoke an emotional response in her readers, hoping to make the issue really strike home (par 5).  By making these emotional, real world connections in the final stage of her argument, Weintraut tries to punch home the fact that the government must more strictly regulate gun control, or more heinous, unnecessary violent acts could be committed. 

            In “Government should create stricter gun laws,” Weintraut uses a variety of techniques to persuade her audience.  Her argument is supported with statistics, application to the real world, and the emotional connection associated with violent acts resulting from guns.  In my opinion, her argument could have been made stronger with more direct claims supported with evidence about the current lax nature of gun control laws.  She skates around the topic for a while before hammering home her main points.   I think it would have been more effective to jump right into the main point of her argument right away. However, I believe she gets her point across in convincing fashion and leaves readers leaning towards her point of view.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.  7 Feb. 2011

Reflection 1.1

At first I was a little unclear about writing the first paper, but once I got typing things started to fall into place and I felt like I had a pretty good grasp of the assignment.  I need to go more in detail regarding things like audience and purpose, and in acknowledgment and response.  For my next draft, I will build on my solid foundation and just clarify about which appeal I am addressing and add a couple more things into my paper.  I also plan on taking out places where I incorporated my own opinion into the paper, I need to stay removed and look at the author's work objectively.

Essay 1. Self Defense or Self Destruction: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s “Governments should create stricter gun laws.”

         The right to bear arms is an issue that has been at the forefront of American society for many decades.  It is a very controversial topic, with many adamantly favoring it while others are vehemently opposed.   In the January issue of The Ithacan, an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” by Megan Weintraut addresses one view on this debated subject.  She understands that the right to bear arms is a part of our constitution, but as times change she argues that we must view the right to bear arms in a new light.   The basis for the creation of this amendment stemmed from a time when guns were necessary for personal survival; to hunt for food and defend oneself from the British Army.   Today, the need to own a weapon for personal survival has greatly decreased, so Weintraut then asks us the question, “Why bother owning one?”   She uses both statistical reasoning and real world connections, as well as appealing to her audience’s emotions to try and convince us that gun control should be more closely regulated. 

            Right off the bat, Weintraut makes the point that “the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…For protection, we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government (par 2)”  This serves to prove that the need for guns on a personal level has greatly decreased over the past 200 years, and puts the idea of need for a gun into a modern context.  She makes it clear that this is an important concept to understand when looking at gun control in today’s society. 

            In the next phase of her argument she bombards readers with statistics, making them realize how prevalent guns are in our nation, and of the effects of their proliferation.  She tells us that 70 million Americans are gun owners, and many of them cite the reason for their gun ownership as self-defense; an idea well in line with our constitution.  The next sentence then reports that Americans own many more guns than other developed nations, accounting for a higher number of homicides.  This shouldn't be the case if most Americans only want a gun for self-defense.  She then adds that, “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns (par 3).”  Here she uses statistics to show that guns and homicide are closely correlated, and that because we have more guns in our society that all other places in the world, more homicides will occur. 

            Continuing the statistical approach, she then intertwines some real world connections to give her argument more depth.  She states that “…66 percent  of television programs contain violence…the popular video game Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murdering law enforcement (par 4).”  This supports her claim that, “Violence in the media reinforces destructive behavior.”  Having experienced popular culture, this is just one example from a long list of games in which players are rewarded for violent acts.   She contends that the extreme amount of violence in the media desensitizes today’s youth, and that they don’t understand the true danger of guns.  This seems to be a valid claim given the rise in unnecessary violent acts committed by young people over the past decades. 

            Moving on to the main portion of her argument about the government and stricter gun laws, she tells us how easy it can be to not one, but not multiple guns in the United States.  Out of the fifty states, only four limit the amount of guns that can be purchased at a single time.  One gun can be bought every thirty days, to be exact.  This still allows for individuals to stockpile weapons, a scary thought if these arms were to fall into the wrong hands.  Only recently, NBA player Gilbert Arenas was suspended for owning more than 500 firearms.  This just goes to show that people can accumulate arsenals of weapons with extreme firepower.   Weintraut then talks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, established in 1994 but which expired in 2004, allowing Americans to have access to assault weapons; the type of weapon that Jared Loughner used in the recent Arizona shooting (par 5).  It is an alarming thought that the American public has access to these types of weapons that were solely made for the purpose of killing other humans. 

            To conclude her argument she appeals to her audience’s emotional side.  By mentioning the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings she strives to evoke an emotional response in her readers, hoping to make the issue really strike home.  By making these emotional, real world connections in the final stage of her argument, Weintraut tries to punch home the fact that the government must more strictly regulate gun control, or more heinous, unnecessary violent acts could be committed. 

            In “Government should create stricter gun laws,” Weintraut uses a variety of techniques to persuade her audience.  Her argument is supported with statistics, application to the real world, and the emotional connection associated with violent acts resulting from guns.  In my opinion, her argument could have been made stronger with more direct claims about the current lax nature of gun control laws.  However, I believe she gets her point across in convincing fashion and leaves readers leaning towards her point of view.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.  7 Feb. 2011

Prewriting Essay One

The basis of the authors argument is that it is too easy for people to acquire guns in the United States, and as a result of this violent things can, and have been seen to happen.  However, I feel like there is another side of this issue that the author fails to address; the process by which these guns fall into the wrong hands.  This tends to happen illegally and creates an interesting aspect to gun control laws.