Project 2 Outline

Helsinki. "Crime Scene" 06/17/2007 via
Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

I was thinking back to my first posts about my writing process.  I remember writing how I was not very fond of the planning process but would rather just write.  Yet, as I force myself to follow the prewriting procedures, I find myself less stressed about the perfection of the paper, and appreciate the ideas I have scattered on the page.

The reading reminded me to include the history and background of the argument.  This is key to my paper since the argument in discussion has been going on for many years but the debates now are different from when they first started.  The texts explains what it means to “respond analytically” (Minnix 122).  This is the main argument of my paper, since I am discussing the contrasting feelings that is creating by the ethos.  My body paragraphs were centered around the text’s idea that the points should yield further discussion.  When bulleting, I had to make sure that the point could be expanded upon.  In my conclusion, “the implications of the analysis” (125) are so important, since the author ends in an unusual way by stating his own opinion after spending the entire paper debating someone else’s opinion.  This idea will be crucial in leaving the reader with food for thought.

I. Introduction
a. Touch on context and background of argument
i. argument’s evolution
b. Introduce Levermann’s overall purpose

II. Thesis
a. Anders Levermann addresses an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering so that he can come across as an expert.  He continually belittles the argument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.
b. Include the contextual values of the argument (e.g. heavy topic, never-ending debate)
c. Focus on the image or persona the author tries to create

III. Body
a. First Paragraph
i. How scientific talk establishes questionable expertise or authority (credibility)
ii. Gives scientific explanation that would be difficult for the common reader to understand
iii. Phrases such as “polar amplification”
iv. Leverman has authority, leaving the audience to question his motivation

b. Second Paragraph
i. How word choice and tone establish a connection to the reader (credibility)
ii. The friendliness and informality contradict stereotypical science journals
iii. Phrases such as “If we don’t want to screw up our climate…”
iv. How this builds trust and makes the audience care (pathos)

c. Third Paragraph
i. How word choice describing the counter arguments creates false assurance in the author’s argument (credibility)
ii. The word “simple” says that the argument is black and white
iii. “The reason is as simple as fundamental…”
iv. Gives the reader an oversimplified view which hurts credibility

IV. Conclusion
a. Strategies are mostly effective but send mixed messages
b. How these strategies affect his solution offered at the end
c. How his argument connects to the ongoing discussion about climate change that no one can agree on

Reflection:

My peer's outlines (those of Jon Wirtzfeld and Olivia Wann) showed me that specificity really helps make a solid base for your paper.  Even if the ideas are not perfect, you know that you at least have enough points and information to carry out your thesis for four to five pages.  By being vague, you may think you have a direction for your paper but quickly find yourself struggling to make your points cohesive with the thesis.  Before I start my draft, I may want to consider my paragraphs to make sure there is enough argument to have an in-depth analysis.