Time flies by quickly, and I still remember the first day of this Writing 102 class. We had to introduce ourselves to others which was very uncomfortable for me. I attended this class with fear and anxiety because this was a small class compare to my other classes in lecture halls. I knew we will be doing three major papers, which is what I fear the most. Papers are time-consuming and difficult to write. However, completing these three papers and passing the portfolio is my final goal. Luckily,  I managed to finish all three papers with fairly good grades.  Throughout the semester, I worked on writing different types of papers including rhetorical analysis, argument paper, and research paper. Since I had experience in writing all these three types of papers in my WRT 101 class, I did not have so much trouble of writing them. Grammatical issues, however, is still my weakness. I am glad that we had grammar lessons, even though I still struggle at grammar afterwards.

After attending this class for a number of times, I found attending this class to be very relaxing. This class has lots had active students who are willing to participate during the class. Unlike my WRT 101 class, I like this class a lot more. When the class is actively engaged in the conversation, we will not have those awkward moments where the entire class is silent after a question is asked to us unlike my WRT 101 class.

After spending the entire semester in this class, I feel studying rhetoric is the most important lesson that I learned. Even though other lessons such as writing cover letters or learning common grammatical errors are important, I feel they are not essential to my personal development. During this class, we went over different elements of rhetoric such as ethos, logos, pathos, and Kairos. By studying these elements, I can break down each claim into different pieces and analyze them better. By studying different fallacies, it teaches me to always question the validity of the claims that people make. By studying rhetoric, I am able to identify whether or not a person’s words are worth trusting. Rhetoric clarifies the world for me.

In my e-portfolio, I recently updated and edited my rhetorical analysis, argumentative essay and research paper. After reviewing my paper and the grammar mistakes that you marked, I fixed some grammatical mistakes and clarified places where you marked as unclear. Also, I changed my background to a different color. And I revised my “Home” tab to be more interesting and detailed than before.

https://stonybrook.digication.com/wrt_102_eporfolio/Welcome/?&

Dear Author,

After reading your stem cell research paper, I believe you have done a great job on informing and analyzing the arguments that both sides hold. In your introduction, you started off with a myth that is related to stem cell and it catches my attention and makes me want to keep reading. After a brief introduction of stem cells, instead of using statements to declare your thesis, you asked a question instead. I really like this thesis because it engages a “conversation” with the readers instead of simply stating. Through the entire paper, you are constantly moving back and forth between each side of the controversy. This is a very interesting way of organizing the paper because it generates an image of the battle between two sides. For example, when you first started saying that embryos are essentially humans, which discourages stem cell research. Then starts to refute this idea in the following paragraph by asking whether or not embryos really count as humans. The paper is always build upon the thesis and do not have any irrelevant information. . Aside from the organizations, you implement various sources and explains why these sources are credible by using appositives to introduce the author.  Also, instead of summarized and rephrasing your thesis, you offered a possible solution which answers the “so what” question. 

Overall, your paper is very well focused and organized. I have to say I can’t find any flaws in this paper and it is beyond my ability to improve it.

Best Wishes,

A Reader who admires you.

I went to a concert on Sunday, so I posted a picture of the concert tickets on my Facebook page. My intentional audiences are my friends because I wanted to share my excitement of going to that concert. Even though I got zero comments, I still have two likes under that post, which is nice. I chose Facebook as my social outlet to post this picture because this is the only social outlet that I use. Moreover, I believe Facebook is very casual and it records important dates of my life. This is image is complemented with a text which is: “It’s been a long time since the last one….” By adding this caption, I wanted to imply that this is the second time I went to G.E.M. concert. Initially, I posted the concert tickets to provoke jealousy in my intentional audience, then by using the captions, I can further enhance this feeling to the extreme which make myself somehow superior than others. I believe this really is the general idea behind posting stuff on social media. This image has the necessity of posting in the first place because G.E.M. is a famous Chinese singer. Also, it is just simply worth of posting online because going to concert is an unusual experience unless you are super rich. There are not anyone in particular that I don’t want this image to be viewed because it is just a picture that shows I am going to the concert. I believe this is something that everyone would post and it does not offend anyone.

To Whom It May Concern:

I’m writing to express my interest in the dog walker position available at West Village. I hold a high school diploma and is still pursuing my bachelor’s degree in Astronomy at Stony Brook University. I am interested in pursuing a career that will allow me to practice my interpersonal skills to help me prepare with my future careers. My passion in animals and great cardiovascular endurance make me the perfect candidate for this position.

While I am still in high school, I enrolled in a special program offered to me which is veterinary medicine. My four experience in this program allows me to have an adequate knowledge about animals and able to take appropriate actions upon emergency situations. I have also been a gym lover. I workout at least twice a week, which grants me the stamina I need to walk dogs for hours without panting. During my past summer breaks, I worked at restaurants as a cashier who is also responsible for other duties such as taking orders and frying food. As a result, my multi-tasking skills are well-trained. A strong multi-tasking skill is desired when I have to walk more than one dog at a time. Last but not least, I had experiences with walking my own dogs before! I own a husky and a Shiba Inu for almost 5 years already. I always take them out for a little walk after the dinner. I am confident to say that with all the skills and the experiences that I acquire, I am the perfect candidate for this job.

Most importantly, I love animals with passion and enthusiasm. After spending times with my dogs with care and love, I am eager to share my love with other adorable dogs that were left out because of their busy owners. It is my obligation to bring joy and happiness into every households that have a pet. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Zhi Chen

“The Real Problem With Video Games” is an Op-Ed article written by Seth Schiesel, a staff writer working for The New York Times, discussing violence caused by video games. In general, he argues that there is no significant factual evidences that indicate the relationship between video games and violence in real life. He started his article with a common misconception that most people hold against video games, which is “simulated violence in video games begets violent tendencies in real life” (Schiesel). He also used real life incidence, the school shooting in Parkland, to enhance his counter-argument and establish the appeal to logic. In the article, he writes, “In the wake of the school shooting in Parklan… the nation debated gun control, [Mr.Trump] went on to implicate video games in particular: “…the level of violence on video games in really shaping young people’s thoughts.”” (Schiesel). Not only does Schiesel use factual evidence to support the counter claim, he also uses the quote from a famous person which improves his credibility. In the first half of the article, Schiesel builds up the counter claim, then he refutes it by using a research result, “they found that 37 percent of attackers…only 12 percent exhibited an interest in violent video games” (Schiesel) By using this statistical data from the department of education, Schiesel proves that playing violent video games does not have a direct relationship with players’ behavior in real life.

However, Schiesel claims that video games do have an impact on causing “toxic behavior to which players too often subject one another when gaming together online” (Schiesel). In summary, his main point is even though virtual gaming does not show a direct effect on real life behavior, it does provoke cyber-bullying. He states, “The racism, homophobia and misogyny prevalent in many online game precincts can amount to emotional abuse” (Schiesel) When people are gaming online, they become confident and bold in their actions due to protections of the screen in front of them. Players begin to not consider the consequences of their actions and the pain that they caused to others.

In this argumentative essay, my topic is to argue whether or not people should continue to develop artificial intelligence. My current stand on this topic is: yes, I believe people should continue conduct researches and improve artificial intelligence. I chose this topic because A.I. has been a controversial topic in the current society mainly because of Professor Hawking. Professor Hawking warns people that A.I. could destroy humanity. However, what really caught my attention of this topic is the Go game between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol. I was shocked by how the A.I. is able to defeat one of the best Go player in the human race. And it is at this moment, people really start to panic and fear the power of A.I..

I think this is an important topic right now because many people concern whether or not A.I. could really annihilate humanity like Professor Hawking says. After doing several researches, I conclude that A.I. still does not have the potential to become a superior “species” than human, and there are several important applications of A.I. in the modern world.

Medical field is one of the most important area where almost all strengths of an A.I. are utilized. A.I. is used to scan and analyze patient’s body and look for potential diseases. And they are also a powerful tool to analyze psychosocial online posts, which evaluates the effectiveness of online interventions.

A.I. is also a great tool to substitute human for dangerous explorations. One classic example is space exploration. No human has ever been to the Mars right now, but artificial intelligences have. NASA sent Rovers on Mars to take photos so we could see the environment on Mars. A.I. is also capable of analyzing the soil on Mars which allows us to have a better understanding of the geology on Mars.

One argument that a person who is against the development of A.I. holds is A.I. could dominate the planet. However, studies have shown that this is not really possible for the next several decades. Researches have shown that A.I. currently is still designated for one task, like AlphaGo is created only for Go. In order for A.I. to surpass human, they will need to be able to think in a multidimensional way, which will not happen shortly. Even if A.I. obtains a intelligence that is superior than human, it is not a guaranteed that they would want take us over.

In this article, Sedaris shared a story when he was a kid. After finish reading this story, the storyline turned out to be something that I was not expecting. In the beginning of the story, Sedaris characterized the Tomkey family in a mysterious way. At first, I thought the Tomkey family will be a kind-hearted family, but they are not well socialized with others in the community. After going through a sequence of events, the author will realize that they are very beautiful inside. Ironically, the Tomkey family is characterized as rude and impolite in the end. In the story, the authors says “I would have to shift gears and find pleasure in hating them” Sedaris 1). The way that author view the family changes from a favorable impression to hatred.

I do not really like this story because the ending does not match with my expectations. More importantly, instead of ending the story with a happy ending, the story ends with a frustrating emotion.  Personally, I do not like stories that do not have a happy ending because it leaves an unpleasant feeling after reading the story. Even though I do not have a positive impression of the story plot, I do really like the way that the story was told. Sedaris started the story with a general background of his family and then moves the focus to the Tomkey family. He then slowly builds up the mysterious feeling of the Tomkey family. Sedaris writes ” I could have done it on weekends, but friendship would have taken away their mystery” (Sedaris 1). Since the readers are reading the this article in a first person point of view, this statement really enhances readers’ curiosity. With all the curiosity build up in my mind, the author reveals the true personality of Tomkey’s family through Halloween.

When I first moved to America, I have always wondered what will my neighbor be like. One of the first impression is how neighbors do not have a very close interactions with each other. This is very different from my home town because whenever a new family moves to my home town, we will all come over and welcome them. However, I feel people in America do not really like to interact with others in the community. Due to my past experience, I have always wondered and hoped my neighbor would be a kind person. However, I have actually met them even though they just live right next me. And, until this day, I still do not know their name nor their faces.

Name: Zhi Chen

Course: WRT 102

Instructor: Karlianne Seri

Date: 2/9/18

Throughout American history, America has always been a place for people who seek for opportunities. In the modern world, people with different ethnic backgrounds are joining the big family. However, most people do not know the responsibilities that come along when they become an American citizen. Theodore Roosevelt gave the speech “The Duties of American Citizenship” in Buffalo, New York, 1883, to persuade and encourage the citizens of America to fulfill their duties as being an American citizen. In the speech. Theodore Roosevelt criticizes those who are not participating actively in politics and those who intentionally avoids to engage in their civil duties. Theodore Roosevelt delivered his speech in a coherent and thorough manner in order to achieve his purpose. He was able to persuade the audience and encourage them to engage in politics through the use of appeal to emotions, logical reasoning, and credibility.

Throughout the speech, Roosevelt employed the use of logical phrases. The objectives that he wanted to approach is to trigger his audience to think logically on what he said and draw a conclusion that would agree on his ideas. One example of appeal to logic in the speech is “Nothing worth gaining is gained without any effort.” This is a very obvious quote to make people agree on because everyone knows that you would not do a good job on any particular field if you do not put in enough effort. Not only did the simplicity make this quote powerful, the placement of this phrase in the speech also has a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of the speech. The follow up statement, “If freedom is worth having, if the right of self-government is valuable right……then one and the other must be retained exactly as our forefathers acquire them”, describes how one could not gain freedom without putting in any effort. By introducing a more general statement before stating a more specific statement, audience is able to make parallel connections with the previous statement. Therefore, it is more likely for the audience to agree on his idea of citizens should engage actively in politics in order to deserve the rights they currently have. Moreover, this follow up quote also appeals to logic. Comparing to the previous phrase, this phrase carries out a similar meaning. By assuming on the fact that everyone wants freedom and equality, Roosevelt took a step further and relates to the early Americans who fought the revolutionary war. As an audience, they would go through the process of self-reflection and question themselves. Then, they would most likely draw a conclusion of I should put in effort in order to earn the rights and privileges they have. The use of logical thinking is essential because the audience would reflect on what was been told and make their own conclusion. This is process is extremely significant because no one’s words are more trustworthy than their own thoughts.

Aside from using quotes are generally targeting the appeal to logic, Roosevelt also focused on increasing the credibility of his work to make his words more reliable to the audience. He strengthened his speech by using the fame of respected people and delivering his own personal opinions. One example quote that incorporates the element of the appeal to credibility is “If freedom is worth having, if the right of self-government is valuable right……then one and the other must be retained exactly as our forefathers acquire them.” Not only did this quote triggers logical deductions to the audience, it also increases Roosevelt’s credibility of his work. By mentioning the honored American revolutionists, Roosevelt made his words more reliable by referring his ideas to another a group of people, who the general public usually trust. In addition to borrowing others’ credibility, Roosevelt amplified his own credibility by expressing his own opinions on the topic. For instance, he said “I do wish that more of our good citizens would go into politics……do it in the same spirit with which their fathers went into the Federal armies.” In this quote, he combined the both his opinion and those who are trustworthy, which in this case are the founding fathers. By inserting his own opinion in the speech, the audience is able to hear personal opinions from the speaker rather than speaking in a third person point of view. It increases his credibility as a speaker because by judging on his personal beliefs, the audience would have a better understanding of his personality, which would let them have a closer relationship with the speaker. Moreover, Roosevelt shows the capability of understanding what he is arguing about by giving out his own thoughts. Not only did those quotes strengthen his credibility, his identity at that time period also had a major impact on his reliability. At 1883, Theodore Roosevelt is still an assemblyman in New York. However, he was known for fighting against corruption in politics. The fact that he gave this speech in Buffalo, New York is also a factor to his success because local audience already have a positive image of him fighting against the corruption. When Roosevelt combines multiple statements that express his own feeling and relating to credible people, his speech would become trustworthy to the public.

Roosevelt was also aware of human nature that people would be more likely to resonate with the topic or even act on impulse if the speaker was able manipulate their feelings. The emotion that Roosevelt primarily focused on is the sense of guilt and patriotism. In multiple parts of the speech, he emphasizes the excuses that most Americans are using to avoid any active engagement in politics. One example in the speech that described appeal to emotion is “The people who say that they have not time to attend to politics are simply saying that they are unfit to live in a free community.” In this quote, Roosevelt purposely points out the major excuse that people use when they were being criticized by the in-activeness in politics. Majority of the people claim that they are too busy to engage in political events. However, Roosevelt directly criticized those people to provoke a sense of guilt in the audience’s mind. After the audience reflect on their past actions, they will most likely feel ashamed of their behavior and become easier to convince. However, I do believe that this phrase might have some negative impact because the phrase is overly straightforward and can be criticized to use scare-tactic fallacy. Since people have different personalities, some of people might be easy to convince by direct criticism, but some people might be very stubborn and develop a reverse psychology in their mind. As a result, the quote becomes very ineffective to those people. Also, when he provokes guilt through criticism, some people are convinced not because they went through introspection, but they are driven purely by their emotions. As a result, this statement becomes a fallacy for some audience. In addition to guilt, Roosevelt provoked patriotism in the audience which would develop an inner pride. For example, it states “In a free republic the ideal citizen must be one willing and able to take arms for the defense of the flag.” The flag is generally being a symbol for the country. By describing the action of defending the flag, all the patriots would feel emotionally attached to his follow up arguments. Moreover, by provoking the sense of pride in the audiences’ mind, it is more likely for them to resonate with Roosevelt’s arguments.

Another factor that makes his argument tremendously persuasive is through the use of analogies. Throughout the speech, he makes a parallel connection of the country to smaller groups such as an organization or a family. By using analogies, audience can have a better connection with the topics that Roosevelt is discussing about. In the beginning of the speech, he compared the role of a citizen in the country to the role of father in a family. Roosevelt stated that,” No man can be a good citizen who is not a good husband and a good father…… no amount of attention to civil duties will save a nation if the domestic life is undermined.” In this particular set of sentences, he is comparing a person’s role in the family in transition to the role of a person in a country. By making a proper transition from a smaller community to a larger community, audience could make parallel connections between these two ideas, and understand the fact that everyone has certain obligations to fulfill and contributions to make as long as they belong to a community. Not only did the aspect of logical analogies make his claim more persuasive, the mix use of appeal to emotion in this quote also amplifies his argument. By praising the responsibilities that most people were able to fulfill in their domestic life, Roosevelt was able to make them feel proud of what they have already accomplished. Based on that prerequisite, Roosevelt extended the idea of fulfilling duties in a domestic perspective to the national perspective. Since most audience are pleased with the previous statements, they will most likely agree on his following statements.

The speech, “Duties of American citizenship”, is a tremendously persuasive speech because it integrated all aspects of rhetorical elements. Most people now are unaware of their responsibilities as an American citizens and this does not only include immigrants, but also those who were born in the United States. If the speech were to give in the modern world, I believe his ideas will be spread widely across the country through the use of modern day technologies. In the present day, there are multiple methods, primarily the social media, for information to spread which will most likely to have more people listen to his ideas. Most people in the current generation is slowly losing the interests in politics and this speech could definitely be one of the tool that alarms people the obligations that they have to carry out.

The main purpose of the speech “Duties of American Citizenship” is to persuade the public to participate actively in politics. The speech is targeting all the citizens across the United States who inactively involved in politics.

This speech was given in Buffalo, New York, 1883. The speaker is Theodore Roosevelt. Even though Theodore Roosevelt had not become the president of the United States, he was an assemblyman in New York. He devoted his early career fighting against corruption in the government. Therefore, he already has some credibility before giving out the speech.

The speech incorporated all appeals to logic, credibility, and emotion. By using statements that would appeal to logic, Roosevelt intended to guide the audience to come up with a conclusion that he desires. For example, “Nothing worth is gained without making any effort” Rather than being told directly by the speaker, it is more likely for the audience to trust the conclusion they come up with. Also, Roosevelt expressed his own personal opinion in the speech. Instead of using third person point of view, Roosevelt used the first person point of view in several parts of the speech. For instance, “I do wish that more of our good citizens would go into politics……do it in the same spirit with which their fathers went into the Federal armies.” The audience is able to judge Roosevelt’s personal beliefs, then trust him more because the audience have a better understanding of his personalities. Roosevelt also tried to provoke patriotism and guilt in audience’s mind. For example, “In a free republic the ideal citizen must be one willing and able to take arms for the defense of the flag.” By doing so, the audience is more likely to resonate with his claim.

After comparing these three appeals, I feel Logos is the most influential element for the audience. Not only did Roosevelt use logical statements, he used many analogies throughout the speech. By comparing the nation to a smaller community such as family and clubs, audience could make parallel connections between these two ideas. For example, “No man can be a good citizen who is not a good husband and a good father.” By agree on the previous statements, in a domestic perspective, audience is most likely to agree on the follow up statement, which is in a national perspective.