Considering Types

In this blog post, I will look at different types of public argument, and discuss which would be bet suited for me.

"Arguments" (via Zazzle). 

I think that the style that will work best for me is the proposal argument. It doesn't really appeal to me to compose an argument that offers no solution. I want to offer help to people with diabetes who are looking for alternatives to artificial sweeteners. Since I think I want to do a cooking show, I think that it is most likely to propose an option.

I do not want to compose a position argument, because I do not want to tell people that sweeteners are good or bad. I just want to help them explore other options.

I don't think that refutation would be good either because I don't really want to take a side. I think that diabetic health should be taken seriously, and it doesn't create any progress to just call out a side of an argument.


I think that the only other type that I would even consider writing would be a causal argument. Why were artificial sweeteners created? Why do people eat them? What causes people to be skeptical? I think that it is interesting to look at the root of the problem because it can lead to the problem being solved.

Reflection:
I read Bailey's Rhetorical Plan, Bailey's Considering Types, Stef's Rhetorical Plan, and Stef's Considering Types. I think that both of them made good calls on what will work for their projects and what won't work for their projects. Reading their posts reassured me that I feel confident about the type of argument that I will use.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this blog post, I will identify my plan of action rhetorically, which will make the process of writing project 3 easier.

"Making a Plan" (via Examiner). 

The audience for my argument, as identified in earlier posts, will be diabetics over 15 years old consume artificial sweeteners.

It is hard to know what people know about a topic. I will assume that my audience knows that artificial sweeteners are readily available and consumed. I will also assume that my audience knows that there is some controversy surrounding the safety and impacts of artificial sweeteners. Since my audience consumes artificial sweeteners, I will assume that they view them as safe.

The values of diabetics will be health-oriented. These are people who put a lot of time and effort into what they eat, and making sure that their blood sugar is at the correct levels. I will have to translate the research into easy to read, because these are just your everyday people.

I want to provide research that shows alternatives to artificial sweeteners, so that the diabetics can make their own choice. If their choice is still artificial sweeteners, that is fine, but I want them to feel educated.

Since the topic is food, I think that visuals are very important. If you are trying to make people want something healthy, you have to make it look good too.

My audience is listening to my argument because they want to be informed, and empowered to make their own decisions. I think that my argument will expand their knowledge, and they will consider alternatives.

My first idea for the argument is a cooking episode. Here is an example of a cooking episode that provides information with a demonstration. Here is another example of a cooking show that is informative. This genre informs and shows an example recipe. This could be posted on a blog or internet website. This is more informal, and uses the visual of actually making a healthy low sugar recipe. Rhetorical strategies are presented verbally.

Another idea would be a narrated video with slides and text. Here is an example of a narrated slide show. Here is another very similar one. This genre is visual, but not a demonstration. This could be posted on youtube or a blog. This is a bit more formal than the cooking show, and uses the visuals of a slide show. Rhetorical strategies are presented textually and visually.

I would like to see people motivated about diabetic cooking. I want people to find alternatives to sweeteners. I would also like to see people using sweeteners in addition to alternatives, if that's what they want.

People could wonder how good the low sugar food actually tastes. In this case, I would invite them to try the recipe that I present themselves. People could say that there is no problem with cooking with sweeteners, in this case I would urge them to try the recipe, but not stop eating what they want. Lastly, people could think that my recipe is disgusting, and in that case, I would tell them that they don't have to eat it.

Analyzing Purpose

In this blog post, I will take a look at the purpose of the argument that I will be participating in for project 3.

"Purpose" (via vimeo). 

As a result of my public argument, I want people to stop telling other people what to eat. I also want people to stop trying to get the government to mandate what people eat. I want companies to have to put on their labels whether or not something contains an artificial sweetener, so that people can make the decision for themselves.

Likely results from my argument: people feel informed about artificial sweeteners, don't feel like I tried to make them eat sweeteners or not eat sweeteners, agree that they want their food labeled so that they know if they are eating sweeteners, see why the government shouldn't mandate artificial sweeteners.

Unlikely results: agree with my argument completely, feel like they should or should eat sweeteners based on my argument, get angry after reading my paper.

For example, people could agree that they want their food labeled so that they can decide if there are sweeteners. If this happened, companies could possibly put on the label, "contains an unnatural sweetener." I feel really annoyed when I buy something that has a sweetener because companies slip in sweeteners and they're called crazy names and I have no idea what they are. This could cause less people like me to waste money and feel annoyed at companies.

Like I said in a previous post, the people who would be most interested would be diabetics and women over 30. This is because they are main consumers that I have personally noticed. These people should want to be informed about the pros and cons of sweeteners so that they can make their own decisions. I think that diabetics shouldn't feel as though they have no other options for enjoying food except having sweeteners. Of course, if that's what they want, they should have it, but they should know their options.

Analyzing Context

In this blog post, I will take a look at the context of the argument that I will be participating in.

"Context Matters" (via ContextFM).

The key perspectives in the debate over artificial sweeteners is that they should be consumed, or they should not be consumed. There are many other opinions that branch off from those two ideas.

Among the perspectives, the major disagreement is over the impact on the body. There are studies showing both ways.

A possible point of agreement is that artificial sweeteners have no health value. Another point of agreement may be that they should be consumed in moderation. The second point may be harder to prove, because there are many people who do not consume them in moderation.

The ideological differences between the groups are centered around "naturalness." There are people who think that science is progressing and improving food, and there are people who are hesitant to accept it because it is "unnatural."

The perspective of the anti-sweeteners asks people to stop eating sweeteners, while the perspective of pro-sweeteners asks the reader to make their own choice.

The fact that many people consume artificial sweeteners, and the fact that the FDA allows artificial sweeteners helps my argument. Also, the perspective that the general American population consumes artificial sweeteners helps my argument. I chose these because people using them in their coffee every morning shows a lot.

I think that there are definitely studies that show that sweeteners are bad for you, but I don't see that as a threat because my argument is not just a black-and-white argument where I say "yes bad," or "no, good."

Reflection:
I read Lia's Blog and Grace's Blog.  I'm definitely interested in their arguments because I have opposing views to both of their papers. I think that a paper is more interesting when it has a view other than your own because the whole time, you're like, "are they gonna pull this off?"

Audience and Genre

In this blog post, I will identify the audience that I will be trying to reach in the presentation of my argument.

"Personalize" (via AlleeCreative). 

One target audience for the argument over artificial sweeteners are diabetics. Diabetics would be interested because these are the people who have to look for alternatives to sugar. The magazine Diabetic Living, the website Diabetes Forecast, or the website Diabetes Self-Management would all be places to publish. In this case, a magazine article, a website article, or even a video that could be uploaded to the site would all work. Here is an example of a diabetic article centered around what to eat.

Another target audience would be women over 40. I chose this group because I see a lot of older women over 40 using over sweeteners. A lot of my mom's friends use them, and also after working in a restaurant, I also noticed that the majority of users were older women. This audience could be reached on Women's Day Magazine, the Dr. OZ Show, or Women's Health Mag. This would mean that the piece could be written as a newspaper article, TV segment, or magazine blurb. Here is an example of a health article published for women.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In this blog post I will share the link for my annotated bibliography for the third project.

"Bibliography" (via SpiGlobal). 

Here is the link to my bibliography.

Narrowing My Focus

In this blog post, I will hone in on a few questions in order to gain focus.

"Focus" (via Veda House). 

The questions that I choose were:
Have any countries "banned" artificial sweeteners?
Are there any celebrities that have strong feelings about artificial sweeteners?

I thought that the first question was important because it is important to include a global perspective for an argument. For example, if artificial sweeteners are banned in 3 countries, it would be a good fact if arguing why they are bad.

I chose the second question because I thought that it was interesting. People love knowing about famous people's opinions. Like how Jenny McCarthy is anti shots, and people only care what she's saying because she's famous.

Questions About Controversy

In this blog post, I will announce what debate I will be participating in.  Also, I will identify for questions about the controversy.

"Questions" (via Thernantic). 

I will participate in the debate over artificial sweeteners.

Who-
What companies are against artificial sweeteners?
What companies use which artificial sweeteners?
Are there any celebrities who have strong feelings about artificial sweeteners?

What-
What are the facts/ studies proving artificial sweeteners are bad?
What are the facts/ studies proving artificial sweeteners are ok?
Is there any evidence that artificial sweeteners are better than regular sugar?

When-
When were artificial sweeteners first widely used?
When did they start manufacturing "diet" soda?
When did evidence against artificial sweeteners first come out?

Where-
What other countries use artificial sweeteners?
Have any places "banned" artificial sweeteners?
Where were artificial sweeteners first used?

How-
How were artificial sweeteners discovered?
How do they impact the industry?
How are artificial sweeteners reported on?

Reflection on Project 2

In this blog post, I will reflect on the process of writing my second project.

"Pink Flamingos" (via iphotos). 

1. In the revision from rough draft to final, I listened to the suggestions of my peers, and the textbook. I definitely changed my intro and conclusion. I realized that my intro was boring. I also fixed some structural errors and grammatical mistakes.

2. I reconsidered where my thesis should go. Before, I had it in the second paragraph, but realized that it was more effective in the first, which is where a thesis typically is.

3. The changes were due to suggestions- not because I didn't have confidence in myself, but because I realized that the suggestions in the book and my peers probably suggested the changes for a  good reason.

4. My revisions did not make me any less credible as an author. The purpose of the article is to teach people who are new to my field, and I just would want to write the best essay for them to read.

5. Having a more interesting essay will make the reader more interested and excited about studying nutrition. A boring article could make a student second guess their choice. No one wants to realize that what they're studying is boring.

6. My peers helped me with sentence structure and style. As a writer, sometimes you write things that make sense to you, but someone else reads it and it sounds like gibberish. For example, I had written a sentence in my introduction that I thought was really great, and my peer said that I should split it into two different sentences.

7.These changes will help my reader because it is hard to get the point across if they can't even read my essay because some sentences don't make sense. It takes away from my credibility.

8. I am pretty used to writing essays because it is what I did when I was in high school, so I didn't really have to remind myself of conventions.

9. Reflection helps the writer clear up thoughts. It is hard to feel a certain way about your essay unless you analyze yourself as a writer.

Reflection:
I read Chris' Blog and Bailey's Blog. Reading their reflections we reassuring because they went through some of the same struggles that I did. Chris made changes in his essay in order to provide clarity to the audience, which I also did. Bailey made changes to ensure that she properly addressed her audience. These are both things that I improved on as well.

Project 2

In this blog post, I will share the link to my final project 2.

"Project Outline Logo" (via Icon Shut).

Here is the link to my second project.

Punctuation, Part 2

In this blog post, I will present 3 more sections from the punctuation part of Rules for Writers.

"Punctuation" (via BambooCreative Inc).

1. Quotation Marks- This section covers proper use of quotation marks. It is important to remember that when using a very long quote, you do not use quotation marks because you're going to use an indented format. Also, single quotations are used (like 'this') when there is a quote within what you are quoting.

2. End Punctuation- This section goes over the end punctuation, such as a period, question mark, or exclamation point. A good point that the book makes is that when you are saying that so and so asked you a question, that is a statement, so there would not be a question mark at the end.

3. Other Punctuation Marks- This section covers everything else that is considered a punctuation mark. This includes dashes, parenthesis, brackets, ellipsis, and slash. The slash is used mainly to separate lines of poetry. The ellipsis is a set of three periods and is used to show that you are deleting words in a sentence.

Paragraph Analysis 2

In this blog post, I will provide a copy of my project 2, but it will contain my own analysis instead of peer review.

"Analysis with Magnifying Glass" (via AppianInsight).

Here is the link to my analysis of project 2 google doc. My paragraphs are logically organized, but could be improved to have smoother transitions. For example, in one paragraph, I end the paragraph with a quote, and that definitely need to be changed. Typically, my opening sentences work well to introduce topics, but like I said, the ending sentences can generally be improved.

Revised Conclusion

Similarly to the previous post, in this blog post I will rewrite my conclusion from scratch.

I will definitely use my new conclusion instead of my old one. The old one was similar because I knew that I wanted to focus on "so what." My old conclusion was way too short, and didn't cover all of the points that the new one does.

"Economic Weekly" (via RBS). 

New Conclusion:
When analyzing an act of public argument, it is important that you cover all of your bases. Doing research on the author is crucial because it can give you insight into their credibility and any biases that they may have. Looking into the target audience can show you why they use the techniques that they do to prove their points. Also, look at the strategies that they use. Are they focusing on one more than the other? Why do they use the ones that they do? In the field of nutrition, you must look at all sides of the story in order to provide the most unbiased argument as possible.

Old Conclusion:

When rhetorically analyzing a public speech in the field of nutrition, it is always important to look at it from all angles. Does it cover all sides? Does it present studies? What strategies does it use? One thing that we can learn from Alison is that we can’t agree with a writer just because something is trendy. A good nutritionist does not follow trends, they follow facts.  

Revised Introduction

In this blog post, I will write a completely different introduction than the one that I currently have.

I do think that the new introduction is successful because it has a more interesting opening sentence. However, I want to have the two paragraph introduction format, because I feel like it is more specific to the essay that I am writing. I will definitely change the opening sentence.

"Idea" (via Forbes). 

 New Introduction:

Would you still eat at your favorite restaurant if you knew that they were lying to you about what they put into your food? If you answered no, and Chipotle is your favorite restaurant, then you are in some trouble. In the article, "Chipotle is Being Sued Over Its Anti-GMO Advertising. Serves Them Right," the author, Alison Griswold uses rhetoric to convince the audience that the company deserves the lawsuit. She also criticizes the audience for avoiding GMOs, assuming that all of her readers think that they are bad.

Past Introduction (2 paragraphs):

Arguments in the field of Nutritional Science are always fueled by the latest breaking news, or fads of what to eat and what to avoid. The reason behind all of the arguments over what one should digest are all of the studies conducted by researchers, scientists, and universities. Rhetorically, authors who write in this discipline write articles that take a strong stance towards one side, and they can often leave out counterarguments. There is really no excuse for this, because you can find studies proving and disproving the safety of eating just about any food- except for things that the general public knows to be harmful (like eating swimming pool chlorine tablets).

In this instance, we will explore the rhetorical strategies used in an article about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A GMO is a food that was not grown “naturally.” Instead of collecting seeds occurring naturally from a plant, the plant is modified in a lab. GMOs can also include animals, like a chicken or cow. The purpose is to grow food that is bigger, grows faster, and can be grown less expensively. Some view this as “frankenfood,” while others see this as a way to feed our overpopulated planet. There are arguments for and against GMOs. For example, the FDA regulates GMOs, and they claim that all of the genetically engineered foods that they approve are safe for consumption¹. On the other hand, there are people who view GMOs to be unsafe for consumption- the majority of countries do not accept GMOs as safe².

In the article, “Chipotle is Being Sued Over Its Anti-GMO Advertising. Serves Them Right,” the author takes a crack at forcing a one-sided view on the reader, while also accusing them of fearing genetically modified foods. This is an example of how people in the field of Nutritional Science tend to write opinionated articles, without addressing the opposing argument. The author of this article, Alison Griswold, is a journalist for the website Slate. She writes for the “Business and Economics” section, but takes a focus on restaurants, food, and fast-food chains.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this blog post, I will reflect on my rough draft of project two.

"Lythrum Reflection" (via Wikimedia). 

I read Mathias' Blog and Lia's Blog, and provided feedback.

My thesis does not appear in my first paragraph because it fit better towards the  end of the second. I needed some time to explain and give background information before I just jumped to a thesis. As long as the reader isn't automatically assuming that the thesis has to be in a specific place, then they will be able to find it. The thesis does not just use broad terms like "pathos, ethos, logos."

I decided to organize my essay by introducing the thought of teaching a student, introducing my topic (GMOs), introducing the article that I am using, and work through the rhetoric in the article. My paragraphs need to be cleaned up a bit, but they all serve a purpose.

I did not address pathos, because I didn't think that it was relevant to my paper. However, I wrote about the other rhetorical strategies.

I discussed why the author used the strategies that she did. I may go back in and say why she didn't use the ones that she left out of her article.

I used some quotes in my paragraphs, but I think that I could add a few more quotes in just to back up my own arguments with evidence.

According to my peers, I did leave my reader wanting more. One of my peers mentioned that she was left wanting more analysis of the quotes that I used, so that is probably what I will focus on when I make my revisions.

Punctuation, Part 1

This post will review some helpful instructions on punctuation, and how the advice can improve writing.

"TIPID" (via ShopTpet).  

1. The comma- the most helpful information in this section was "Use a comma between coordinate adjectives not joined with and. Do not use a comma between cumulative conjunctions." I personally forget that you don't have to put a comma after "and" when you are writing a list. The rest of the section was fairly obvious, for example use a comma when you are listing items.

2. Unnecessary commas- this section is similar to the previous, but the point is when not to use commas. The best advice was "Do not use a comma between compound elements that are not independent clauses." The example was to not use the comma in the following sentence, "Marie Curie discovered radium, and later applied her work on radioactivity to medicine.

3. The apostrophe- this is something that I am sad to say that I have never mastered. I find myself looking up the correct way to use apostrophes. One that I always get confused about is "its" vs. "it's." It's means it is, and its means it is possessing.

Reflection:
After reading Mathias' Blog, I was able to help him with an issue of needing a comma. His original sentence is "Maybe something big is happening so you tune in to watch the news." I suggested that he added a comma after "happening."

After reading Lia's Blog, I was able to help her with having too many commas. Her original sentence was "Barnett presents a series of propositions: agriculture consumes too much water, so the water will eventually run out or at least become very scarce, which then will increase prices of these agricultural goods, since it will cost more to produce them, and this food is sold to all of the nation, which makes this a nationwide issue." This sentence had so many commas that it became confusing and hard to understand. I suggested that she break it up into two separate sentences, so that she didn't have to use so many commas.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here is the rough draft of my second project, the rhetorical analysis paper.

"Title" (via PerfectlyRoughDraft). 

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In this blog post, I will be selecting a quote from my article that I will be using project 2, and under the quote, you will find my paraphrase and summary.

"Pharaphrase" (via EnglishTOEFL). 

Original text:
"I’m just going to say it: Chipotle had this coming. When the chain first announced its anti-GMO push in April as part of its mission to sell “food with integrity,” we argued that dropping GMOs was the wrong way to go about it. The case against GMOs is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud" (Alison Griswold via Slate). 

Paraphrase: 
Chipotle deserved the lawsuit. Slate knew that Chipotle's switch to non-GMO campaign was the wrong way to solicit responsibly sourced food. Society has an irrational fear of GMOs (Alison Griswold via Slate). 

My Summary of the Original Source: 
Chipotle deserved the lawsuit because campaigning non-GMO is simply reinstating an unreasonable fear. 

Project 2 Outline

In this blog post, I will present and outline of my second project, and also touch on some helpful advice from Writing Public Lives.

"Project Outline" (via circles4). 

The most helpful piece of advice in "The Sections of the Paper" section is the introduction because it was the part I was most unsure about. The writing advises that you leave the bulk of the paper to analyze the rhetorical strategies, and use the introduction to give just enough background on the topic. Another good piece of advice is to develop an analytical claim. A paper will be boring if you just state facts. There needs to be a little bit of controversy in the paper in order for your reader to find it interesting.

Introduction: I will start by addressing the broad section of the prompt, which is the idea of teaching a student who is new to your college how someone in our field makes a public argument, and how they do this rhetorically. This will be mostly be done by showing my paper as an example of how to rhetorically analyze. I will also touch on the background of the article: author, context, audience, so on.

Thesis: My thesis statement will be towards the end of my first or second paragraph. I have decided that I want to use the second, more detailed thesis that I wrote in the previous post.

Paragraphs (including analytical claim): I'm thinking about making my analytical claim revolve on the strict opinion of the author, and her one-sided argument. My paragraphs will probably be shorter, and I want to use each major topic as a paragraph, and the smaller paragraphs that follow will give textual support. Definitely a more complex and interesting body style instead of (like mentioned in class) paragraph 1-pathos, 2-ethos, 3-logos.

Conclusion: Like the reading says, I do not just want to re-run my essay points to pull it all together. I think that my conclusion will be touching back on the idea that you're explaining to a new student. I would like to end with some advice or tips to leave my reader with.

Reflection: After reading Stef's Blog and Joy's Blog. I definitely saw a wide variety from the two. Stef's outline was much more detailed than mine, and Joy's was much less detailed. I think that the more detailed the outline is, the easier it will be to write the rough draft.

Draft Thesis Statement

In this post, I will share some thesis statements that I have constructed based on the Student's Guide reading.

"Chipotle" (via Forbes).

Arguments in the field of nutrition are often fueled by facts and evidence, because there are science and studies available as evidence. Rhetorically, authors become opinionated and don't always show both sides of the story, especially if it opposes their side.

In the article, "Chipotle is Sued for Non-GMO Advertising," the author takes a crack at forcing a one-sided view on the reader, while also accusing them of fearing genetically modified organisms. This is just one example of how people in the field of nutrition tend to write opinionated articles, without addressing the opposing argument.

Of my two statements, the first is very broad, and the second actually talks about the article in my project. I definitely like the second more, but it is hard not to make broad and generalized statements.

I read Lia's blog and Hunter's blog. Lia's thesis statements were more specific, and Hunter's were more similar to mine. I think that it is tough to craft a thesis statement for this project because you have to address the text you will be talking about, and also the question of rhetorical style/strategies.

Analyzing My Audience

In this post, I will identify the audience in which the author of my project's article is trying to address.

"Audience" (via Pixabay). 

This article was written for American people. It is specific to Americans, because the incident of Chipotle not using non-GMOs occurred in America. It is meant for the general public (consumers). The audience's beliefs are, prior to reading this article, that they can trust food companies to mean what they say. They also believe that they shouldn't be lied to, because what they eat is important to them.

The assumed position that the audience will take would be the author's side. The author wants them  to get pissed off at Chipotle for false advertising. A possible counter-side would be not caring. Maybe they are loyal Chipotle customers, and don't really care about what goes into the food, because it tastes good! In response to the opposing side, all the author could really say is "do you really want people lying to you about what goes into your body?"

The readers want to know how a customer found out that they were using GMOs, the verdict of the court case, if GMOs will harm them, and most importantly, "Can I get anything out of this?" If someone thinks that they also have a case against Chipotle, will they be rewarded?

The author is trying to relate to readers by taking their side. It is very, very clear that the author is mad at Chipotle, that's the whole reason why she is trying to make everyone else mad. If her article was in defense of Chipotle, she would have to prove why this is best for the people too.

The ways in which the author relates to the audience are through her opinion. For example, she has opinion even in her title, "Chipotle is Being Sued over Its Anti-GMO Advertising. Serves Them Right." Right there, she is taking the side of the consumer, which means that she is relating to them.

I read Stef's blog and Grace's blog. After reading my peer's blogs, and after discussion in class, I realized that the reason for this blog post was to write about me. When I write my paper, I will be addressing new Nutrition students, and demonstrating analyzing a rhetorical situation.

Cluster of Chipotle Sued over GMO-free Advertising

Below, you will find an image of a cluster map that I created, using the website Coggle. If you would like to see the image in a larger form, click the hyper-link under the image.

"Chipotle Sued over Non-GMO Advertising" (via Coggle). 

This map shows rhetorical aspects of the author's argument including strategies, audience, and cultural setting. The map is very useful because it allows for organization of ideas, and it is nice to go back to the map while writing, in order to clear up any ideas.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in Chipotle Article

In this blog post, I will analyze the rhetorical strategies used in Chipotle Sued Over GMO-Free Advertising.

"Ethos, Pathos, Logos" (via BlendSpace).  

This article builds trust with the reader by using examples, and hyperlinking to outside sources. The article uses quoting from the sources to gain trust. For example, the author quotes Chipotle directly, "Chris Arnold, a Chipotle spokesman, points out that the company has “always been clear that our soft drinks contained GMO ingredients, and that the animals from which our meat comes consume GMO feed.” But, he continues, this "does not mean that our meat is GMO, any more than people would be genetically modified if they ate GMO foods.” (via Slate). The use of sources and information allows the reader to believe what the article says, and directing to outside sources builds credibility because the reader could go out and  further explore the topic. 

This article appeals to emotion because it is about people like you and me, and when things pertain to the reader, they care more. For example, they repeat "Non-GMO," which makes you think about your own safety. Also, the article states, "So as long as you're worried, they're happy to reassure" (via Slate). The use of the words "happy" and "worried" definitely draws out emotion, which makes the reader question their own feelings. 

Logos is used in this article by using hard facts. As mentioned above in the Ethos section, the author does not leave out any hyperlinks or quotes. The article also uses clear transitions, and logical paragraphs, which add to the logos aspect. There aren't really any historical records that would apply to this argument, because Chipotle hasn't been around for that long. The article does a good job of applying logic, because there is a court case in question, which is where most logic comes in to play.  

I read Bailey's Blog and Grace's Blog. My peers have articles that vary in rhetorical strategies. An article is most effective when it is well-rounded, because it is believable in more ways than just one. I learned that a most articles will touch on each one, but have a central focus, which may depend on the genre.

Analyzing Message in "Chipotle is Sued for Non-GMO Advertising"

In this blog post, I will take a look at the message that the author tries to get across to the reader in the article that I chose for project 2.

"Chipotle Logo" (via CourageConnection).

The most relevant bullet listed in the reading is "respond to a particular occasion or text." This is because the entire article is about the author taking a side because Chipotle was accused of advertising for something that was a lie. In addition, "express an idea or concern." The author expresses a concern for consumers who are being lied to, and also companies that use "trendy fears" such as GMO to hike up prices.

The least relevant is "analyze, synthesize or interpret." There is really nothing complex about the topic to be analyzed. The author presents the information that Chipotle lied, they're wrong, people should be mad. Also, there is nothing that the author presents as "misunderstood," like stated in one of the bullets. The only thing that may be seen as misunderstood is what consumers are actually eating.

There are primarily two layers to the message. The first layer is that companies are lying to you about what is going into your food/product/good. The second layer  is that they are lying to you because you are freaking out over anything that may not be good for you.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In this blog post, I will explore my own cultural values and beliefs in contrast to norms assumed in the article that I have chosen.

"Belief Venn Diagram" (via Wikipedia). 

I share the belief that businesses should not lie to consumers. Truth be told- I will continue to eat at Chipotle anyway (am I a bad person?). I think that businesses should be ethical on their own, without government standards, and I agree that Chipotle is in the wrong by lying to consumers.

I believe that GMOs should be avoided, but I do not put any large amount of energy into avoiding them. In addition, there is NO WAY that I am going to spend $3 on the all-natural cucumber, when I can have the regular one for $1. I don't think that I value non-GMO as much as the author assumes that I do.

This article is written for the culture that I am a part of, which is American culture. This article was also written for the culture in today's time.

I read Lia's Blog and Hunter's Blog. I think that both of my classmates were able to draw out important cultural values, and it was interesting to see their take on it. I think that they are similar to me, because they both seem to know what they value culturally.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In this blog post, I will explore some research that I've done on the cultural setting of the Chipotle article that I will use in project 2.

"American Culture" (via F1StudentNetwork).

The importance of honesty plays a big role in this text. In addition, business ethics plays a role, which may even lead to the laws that are in place that restrict a business from lying to consumers about the food that they are purchasing and eating.

The text addresses these issues directly. The opinionated author is not afraid to assume the cultural values, and throw someone under the bus if they don't mind the values. Even in the title, the author demonstrates hate towards a company that may be taking advantage of consumers.

The text is 100% supportive of the cultural beliefs of non-GMOs and business ethics. They do not defend the company that may have messed up regarding these topics what so ever.