Bitcoin Comparative Rhetorical Analysis WIP

Bitcoin is the most well-known form of digital currency. Bitcoin interests me because it combines a topic I enjoy, Computer Science, and a topic I find interesting, Economics and the emergence of value in money. Bitcoin also interests the world at large, having gained acceptance as a form of payment at many business, both physical and digital.

Bitcoin essentially being a cross between two disciplines makes it an appropriate choice for this assignment. The first article I chose looks at Bitcoin from a Computer Science standpoint, focusing on the implications of the technical implementation of Bitcoin on the anonymity of the system. The second article I chose looks at Bitcoin from an Economics perspective, comparing it to already existing forms of value transfer and storage, namely fiat currency. Given how different these two fields seem, and how frequently they interact, it should be quite interesting to see what different rhetorical choices the authors make.

Antibiotic Resistance: Rhetorical Analysis

Antibiotic resistant bacteria has become the center in a debate over the future of medicine. Resistance to antibiotics threatens the ability to prevent and cure many illnesses caused by bacteria and, if current trends continue diseases that plagued humanity in the past may return to wreak havoc on the human population. Scientists have proposed different ways to combat this issue by either finding ways of preventing the development of resistant bacterial strains or, develop more types of antibiotics as old ones become obsolete. Others are concerned over the consequences antibiotic resistant bacteria can have on the the economy, especially its impact on the health and agriculture industry. This issue is being discussed in a couple of different disciplines which approach the issue in different ways. This can be seen when comparing two articles from different disciplines that are addressing the same issue to two different audiences. The research article “Antibiotic resistance” from the International Journal of Medical Microbiology is written in a high style and, details statistics and mechanics of antibiotic resistance in order to convince a professional audience that proper use of antibiotics can help curb the issue. On the other hand, the finance & development article “Antibiotic Resistance” from the International Monetary Fund uses less complex writing to discuss the economic impact of antibiotic resistance to an audience who would be concerned about the impact on society from these bacteria rather than the details of resistance development and spread. The research article uses statistics and, scientific theory to further its claim over the proper use of antibiotics while the finance and development article cites public health data and, economic consequences to promote increased public investment in antibiotics. Though both articles are discussing possible solutions to the antibiotic issue, the manner in which they approach it, the style of writing and, their potential audiences are significantly different.

The first major difference between these two articles is how they attempt to create a logical argument.. The research article is clearly focusing on a more scientific argument through the use of explicit details. Passages such as “MRSA have acquired resistance to β-lactam antibiotics via transfer of chromosomal cassette elements containing mec genes which obviously have their reservoir in coagulase-negative staphylococci and rapidly evolve by recombination events” describes a scientific mechanism by which particular bacteria acquired resistance to a certain class of antibiotics. Along with passages such as “The proportion of Escherichia coli resistant to third-generation cephalosporins within 6 years only increased from 2% in 2004 to 8.5% in 2011. In more than 90% of these isolates this is obviously based on extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)” which uses statistics on resistance cases, the research article clearly shows that it is more focused on the actual science of the issue thus citing more facts and research to support its claim. The finance and development article focuses on a more economic or, social factors to sway the opinions of its audience. It uses language such as “The global burden of resistance is poorly quantified but is likely to be concentrated in three categories: the costs of resistant infections, the costs of antibiotics, and the inability to perform procedures that rely on antibiotics to prevent infection.” to highlight the most important consequences of the issue and, “Resistance-a natural phenomenon-is accelerating because no single patient, physician, hospital, insurer, or pharmaceutical company has an incentive to reduce antibiotic use. Drug costs are reimbursed by health insurers and third-party payers, but infection control is typically uncompensated.” to offer an opinion into the flaws of current health practices. The finance article looks more at the effects on society and, how current practices are to blame for antibiotic resistance but in many instances lacks the hard facts and data to back its claim. Though both are using logos, the type of logos is fundamentally different as the research article relies on facts while the finance article seeks to use its examples to make a logical observation of current practices which makes its assumptions more believable. Even if the overall subject of both articles is similar, they approach their claims in different ways to present a logical case.

While the research article and, the finance article are making an argument over a solution to antibiotic resistant bacteria, the research article is much more focused on its claim when compared to the extent of the issue the finance article covers. The research articles extensive details on the mechanisms of resistance development and, use of statistics over the spread of resistance strains focuses specifically on the proper use of antibiotics to maintain their usefulness. The focus on just the proper use of antibiotics is seen in the concluding sentence of the article: “Without antibiotic use and misuse there is no resistance development: monitoring of consumption at local level in parallel to tight surveillance of resistance is an essential prerequisite to rational use.” The research articles main claim lies in convincing its audience that the solution to the issue is stricter control on the use of antibiotics. The choice to discuss only this aspect is likely due to the specialized nature of the publication which is heavily focused on microbiology. On the contrary, the finance article discusses a broader range of solutions in order to form a more comprehensive way to solve the problem. The line “Conservation is accomplished by reducing the need for antibiotics (through vaccination and infection control) and their unnecessary use.” show it agrees with the research article on the responsible use of antibiotics but, it continues with “Norms that govern physician-patient interactions and patients' expectations drive unnecessary use. Because physicians face no penalty for writing prescriptions for antibiotics and receive no compensation for spending time to explain why they are not necessary, prescription rates remain high.” to bring up social norms that are escalating the issue. It even touches on a completely different solution in a following passage which states “New antibiotics have been developed, but the cost of bringing any new drug to market is very high. The rate at which new antibiotic compounds are being discovered is slowing. Fourteen of the 17 classes of antibiotics in use today were discovered before 1970. Most innovation involves reengineering existing compounds rather than finding new mechanisms.” where the idea of increasing the pool of antibiotics that doctors can use is described. The finance article addresses multiple fronts of the issue in order to describe a comprehensive solution to the problem at hand. It does this to convince the audience that “Public investment in antibiotics is justified because the lack of effective drugs can create public health emergencies.” The difference of the scope of the articles can be attributed to how they are trying to find a solution to the problem; the research article sets its sight on a well reasoned scientific argument over the misuse of antibiotics while the finance article hope to detail an overall change in policy on how the issue can be tackled.

The research article and the finance article are each written in a style that suits their overall purpose. The research article make extensive use of a passive voice such as in “Besides antibiotics, heavy metal ions, such as copper and zinc, were used in the past as feed additives in a range of concentrations which select for resistance.” which is common for scientific writing. The article is written mostly in third person but, does not hesitate to switch into first person plural for a few short sections such as “We have learned about the evolution and clonal dissemination of particularly resistant strains, and on the structure of mobile genetic elements containing resistance genes.” and “We have learned that antibiotic resistance is natural, and that for particular groups of antibiotics and species of pathogens intrinsic resistance is bound to occur.” The use of the first person plural is used to emphasize a few of the recognized facts that serve as a basis for the authors argument and, to make a sort of connection with the reader. The finance article make use of the active voice much more as can be seen from the excerpt “The United States and Europe are encouraging the development of new drugs.” The use of active voice makes the writing much more concise than a passive voice making it easier for the reader to read. The entire article is written in the third person which gives it an objective tone that might be better suited towards making a case for itself. Both articles are able to make use of styles to improve the effectiveness of their writing.

The language used in each of the articles hints at the kind of audience they are intended for. The research article contains heavy use of specialized scientific terms that would be incomprehensible to an everyday person. For example the following excerpt “Different from our earlier opinions about host specificity of S. aureus particular clonal lineages can rapidly adapt to different mammal and avian hosts which is exemplified by livestock-associated MRSA, namely of those attributed to clonal complex CC398. Spread of this clonal complex illustrates the routes of connections by which antibiotic-resistant strains and mobile genetic elements exchange between microbioms of different hosts and centers of antibiotic usage and the potential risks for human health” contain heavy use of scientific terms such as “clonal complexes” and “microbioms” which is far from the everyday language most people would understand. The target audience for this article would likely be others who are well educated in the subject and, are able to understand the highly specialized terminology used by the author. The use of such language can also give credibility to others in the same field which makes for a more effective argument. Meanwhile the finance article uses a more everyday language to get its point across. This kind of language can be seen from the following selection: “Globally, most antibiotics are used in agriculture-added in low doses to animal feed for growth promotion and dis-ease prevention. As in hospitals, antibiotics have become a lower-cost substitute for good hygiene and infection control, which prevent disease in the first place.” The selection is easy to understand and makes it point extremely clear without having to use complex words. Therefore the target audience of the article must not have an interest in over complex explanation of the issue. The overall claim of the finance article also gives clues as to whom the audience might be as it says “Public investment in antibiotics is justified because the lack of effective drugs can create public health emergencies.” The article is hoping to convince its audience that increased public investment in antibiotics will be beneficial to society as a whole which makes it seem that it is directed towards convincing policy makers who might consider such actions. Policy makers are often not experts on many of the things they may vote on so a simple language as used by the finance article would be more effective at swaying their opinion than an article full of scientific jargon they can not comprehend. Through the language used, each respective article is able to communicate well with its intended audience and make an effective claim on the subject.

The differences of rhetorical styles of the research article “Antibiotic resistance” and the finance & development article “Antibiotic Resistance” shows how each is trying to persuade their respective readers. While the research article makes heavy use of scientific jargon, passive voice and, original research to make a specific claim to a select audience the finance article uses more common language, active voice and, social analysis to present a broader solution to a less informed audience. The rhetoric styles in each increases the effectiveness they have in its respective discipline and serves to improve their chances of success. Through the use of these different rhetorical styles both authors are able to discuss their perspective over the issue of antibiotic resistant bacteria and, offer solutions to this extensive issue through two different disciplines,


Works Cited

Witte, W. "Antibiotic Resistance." International Journal of Medical Microbiology. Elsevier GmbH, 3 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/science/article/pii/S1438422113000829>.

Laxminarayan, Ramanan. "Antibiotic Resistance." Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1641828814?pq-origsite=summon>.

Worstall, Tim. "Why We're Running Out Of Antibiotics Is An Economic Problem, Not A Medical Or Pharmaceutical One." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/05/03/why-were-running-out-of-antibiotics-is-an-economic-problem-not-a-medical-or-pharmaceutical-one/>.

Marijuana Legalization: Rhetorical Analysis

Marijuana legalization is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the past couple decades in the US. Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 drug under federal law, which means that, according to the government, it is highly addictive and has no medical use at all. Research has shown it has medical value, however, and a few states have regulations in place to sell marijuana legally. The public attitude towards the drug has changed in the past couple decades. It is more socially acceptable than it was 20 years ago. Two articles I have found approach the subject of legalization in a very different way. The first article I found is from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology titled "Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source". This article delves into the possibility of having a federally regulated market for marijuana and marijuana products, from the economic point of view. It thoroughly explains the argument both for and against legalization and its economic and sociological consequences. The second article I found was from the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use”. This article delves into the potential health risks of marijuana use. This article presents the evidence in a very unbiased way, showing that there is cause for concern, yet there is not enough evidence to say for sure. Both articles present a unique rhetoric that aid in the understanding in their respective fields. While they both have very similar rhetoric styles, utilizing a lot of graphs, statistics, and numbers, the structure and analyzation of the data is different because they are working towards different goals.

 

The two articles in question have some rhetorical similarities. Both cited a lot of reliable sources, giving them a lot of credibility and effectively adding to the authors’ ethos. They both use a lot of jargon specifically for the field that they are in. Caputo’s article for the Journal of Economics and Sociology uses phrases like “price elasticity of demand” and “excise taxation” (Caputo 475, 485). Volkow’s article uses terms like “cognitive deficits”, while the article also names parts of the brain without elaborating further, which shows the author assumes the reader has a working knowledge of the brain (Volkow 2220). The language makes it clear that the articles were meant for peers in their respective fields.

An important similarity to highlight is the use of graphs, facts, and numbers. Both articles consisted of a lot of statistics to support their argument. These statistics are used to increase the authors’ logos for each of their papers. The heavy use of graphs and statistics can give the impression that the authors are very well informed and did a lot of research. While this is likely true, some of the numbers or graphs could arguably be misleading or out of context. It’s best to analyze the actual figures to see if they’re meaningful, rather than take them at face value. The authors did a fairly decent job at including only relevant numbers for their arguments, but there are some that can be seen as misleading. In Caputo’s article, he explains how the estimates for the value of the marijuana market range greatly (from 2 billion to 9 billion dollars), but for almost all of his graphs regarding prices and how much tax would come out of the price of the product, he uses the higher estimate, therefore his estimates for the tax revenue are high (Caputo 480-481). This can be viewed as a sneaky way to further his argument about a regulated marijuana market. Similarly, Volkow has a somewhat misleading bar graph in her article. We are lead to believe, after looking at it, that an increase in marijuana potency has caused the number of emergency room visits to increase for drug-related injuries. The emergency room visit numbers also include marijuana in conjunction with other drugs, and while it names the other drugs it is referring to (cocaine and heroin), it provides no information on them (Volkow 2223). The potency of those drugs could have gone up as well, or they could have gotten easier to obtain. Also, it does not account for an increased population. The number of drug related emergency room visits would increase with a bigger population regardless of marijuana potency. These points do not necessarily mean the articles should be discredited outright, but analysis is needed to really understand the meaning of a certain rhetorical choice in a paper.


The articles are also organized slightly differently. Caputo’s article is more of a traditional essay, with an abstract, a strong introduction, main body paragraphs that explain his argument in a logical order of thought, and has a conclusion to summarize his main points. This makes it easy to read and understand because people are used to reading articles like this. It very much guides the reader into the points that he is trying to make by following his train of thought. He is trying to persuade a way of thinking by using this organizational style. Volkow’s article is structured slightly differently. It has an introduction but then lists the elements of the argument. There is not much of a train of thought to follow, it is just information in a list. It is an article that is meant to inform about the potential dangers of marijuana, so her organizational structure works.

One of the main rhetorical differences between these two articles is the way the information is analyzed within the text. Caputo writes with the intention to persuade the reader into supporting a legalized marijuana market. Therefore, within the text, he draws conclusions and offers ideas and solutions to problems presented. He describes what must be done in order to create a legal marijuana market, rather than just present information and analyze it. A good example of this is in his paragraph titled Consideration of a Tax Structure, where he talks about how specifically marijuana should be taxed. He talks about the types of taxes the government should have and continues “a tax on quantity (e.g., much per gram) is straightforward to design, easy to measure, and therefore relatively inexpensive to collect” (Caputo 485). This way of writing, again, accomplishes his goal of convincing the reader to follow his train of thought. The data is presented to the reader, as well as the conclusions that he wants the reader to pull out. Conversely, Volkow’s article presents the facts and data and invites the reader to draw their own conclusions about what they are reading. The article lists all of the potential health effects of the drug, but has an entire paragraph that says, “Most of the long-term effects of marijuana use that are summarized here have been observed among heavy or long-term users, but multiple (often hidden) confounding factors detract from our ability to establish causality (including the frequent use of marijuana in combination with other drugs)” (Volkow 2222). It means that there is not enough evidence to prove that marijuana is the sole cause of all the problems listed, which adds to the author’s ethos. A reader will be more likely to trust the credibility of an author if the other side of the argument can be presented. Also, this paragraph shows a lot about the goal of the author. The article, while still trying to persuade, lets the reader draw their own conclusions about the data presented. Volkow does not draw her own conclusions in the paper based on the data and offer solutions (e.g., she does not say “because of this, marijuana should be illegal); the data is open for interpretation, but she still argues that marijuana should be avoided and warns “As policy shifts toward legalization of marijuana, it is reasonable and probably prudent to hypothesize that its use will increase and that, by extension, so will the number of persons for whom there will be negative health consequences” (Volkow 2226). This is more of a passive conclusion, as opposed to the active conclusions and solutions proposed in Caputo’s article. These two rhetoric choices highlight the different goals each paper is trying to accomplish.

The rhetoric choices in the fields of economics/sociology and medicine are revealed to be very different when looking at the same topic approached by each discipline, although they share similarities. Both articles use logos to appeal to their reader; the use of graphs, numbers, and statistics is very heavy. Both articles cite a lot of sources, increasing their ethos. Also, both articles make use of jargon used in their respective fields. However, the articles differed in their structure and analyzation technique. Caputo’s article has a traditional essay structure to easily lead the reader to the point he is trying to make, while making use of conclusive sentences and data analyzation to offer solutions, rather than have the reader come up with a solution and draw conclusions themselves. Volkow’s article is more of a list with no discernable train of thought. She draws some conclusion from the data, but a lot of the data is left open for the reader to analyze and make their own conclusions and solutions. The rhetorical differences between the two disciplines reveal how having two different perspectives on the same topic can profoundly change the what the goal of the argument is, and how it is reached.



Works Cited

Volkow, Nora D., et al. "Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use." The New England Journal of Medicine 370.23 (2014): 2219-27. ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.
Caputo, Michael R. "Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53.4 (1994): 475-90. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.

Rhetorical Analysis: Water Scarcity

A man by the name of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once said “Water is life's mater and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.” His quote is simple yet powerful because of the truth behind it. Water scarcity is a recurring problem all around the world, even in the United States. It is considered one of three major natural resource problems around the globe that harm both Mother Nature and us as a race. I have found two articles where the author’s both point out key facts and data in order to argue that water shortages will soon affect everyone on our beautiful planet if we are not careful and find a solution sooner rather than later. The only difference is the authors write their articles from the view of two different disciplines naturally giving them a different rhetorical approach. The first article “Water Scarcity, Water Reuse and Environmental Safety” (We will call this article 1 for the sake of the analysis) comes from an environmental science angle because of the author’s professional work in that field. The author uses professional organization, a plethora of sources that he has researched and a organization of his ideas in a rapid and skillful way to try and convince the audience about the immediate dangers of the lack water and why we need to take action. Contrastingly, the article “Water Use and Development in Arid Regions” (I will refer to it as article 2) comes from economics and political science. This author uses a more relaxed organization method, less sources referred but more data centered charts, and a less direct approach of his ideas to influence the audience with his solutions to the problem. Overall I think both authors use a great deal of rhetorical devices to show their support of fixing the water scarcity problem but approaching it from two different rhetorical directions can differentiate the same argument on a subject.

First off, I want to talk about article one’s very definitive organization style. Clearly the target audience is a group of scholars in the science and natural resources field that have a strong background in this specific field meaning this is not ideal for an everyday reader such as you and I. Because of this I think the author is trying to influence a sense of urgency over his intended audience. Overall, the author splits up his scholarly article by bringing up different topics and then analyzing that topic with sources and research. Many refer to this style as classification order or topical order meaning the author does this to best suit his argument or purpose. In this case the author goes from a case study about Middle Eastern countries to the impact on water quality and finally finishing with the global environmental repercussions of shortages of water. He does this in a manner to show order of complexity, which is starting with less convoluted arguments and finishing with the more complicated ones. The case study about Middle Eastern countries is an easy topic to begin the discussion on for two reasons. The section overall is short which means its very unlikely someone could get caught up in it. Secondly the topic is a broad overview setting up the rest of the articles, which become more complicated. The second and third topics become very in depth and could become terribly easy to get lost in but they are more intended for those who are truly trying to change the outcome of the problem. I think that the author uses these specific rhetorical devices of organization to not only give himself credibility but also put pressure on the audience to take a stand against this problem.

This map shows the stress levels of water resources in the Middle East

The organization in article 2 is very much different than that of article 1. Article 2 really is focused around a style where, like article 1, the author goes from topic to topic but unlike the first article, this article creates a flow between each point by connecting each one to the previous. Because of this, I think the intended audience is just as scholarly as the audience from the first but leaning more on the economic and political side of the issue which doesn't come across as professional but more of an everyday type read. This author, I think, uses a process or sequential order so that each paragraph continues to build on the last ultimately leading to the conclusion. This is important to know as an audience because each step in the process relies on the previous so in order to follow his position you must be able to understand all parts to fully grasp it. The author of article 2 brings up four major topics to talk about ranging from economic models to regional politics. This wide range of material gives this author credibility because he shows his vast knowledge of the subject. This invokes the audience to realize that this problem affects more than just people who don’t have access to clean drinking water. Overall, author of article 2 approaches this topic in a more casual style than that of author 1 which gives the article a more calming feeling helping to show the audience of the economic and political impacts and solutions of water scarcity.

The second largely noticeable contrast between the two articles is that of the sources and data that they used in their respective articles. Both articles have plenty of referred sources at the end of their articles so that’s no the difference. The difference is that article 1 incorporates numerical data and refers to his sources throughout the article while in article 2, Mr. Allan doesn’t specifically refer to any research and only blends in data in the form of charts. The incorporation of data and specific references gives article one that professional feel I spoke about earlier. It also gives cold hard facts that can’t be easily ignored when persuading the intended audience. The one problem this has is that no matter how much experience you’ve had with water resource management, the facts become overbearing leading to the article becoming increasingly difficult to read if you aren’t careful and take your time. On the other hand article two doesn’t force you to read and comprehend facts because the author does that and regurgitates it back for you. This gives the article a more composed feeling. The charts that the author composes to show his data are very clearly explained in the article as well as on the chart itself with the axis’ and captions. Article 2 uses data to support the author’s argument whereas article 1 uses data as the argument. What I mean by this is article one would still have a pretty strong reasoning without their data but article one would be less effective so I think it takes away from the Mr. Shevah’s credibility. Data and references are both used a lot and effectively but in different styles giving the intended audience an overwhelming-if-not-careful feeling from article one zand refined piece of work from number two.

Lastly, I want to compare the level of thinking required to understand the topics presented although I'm not stating that either topic is non scholarly. For article one Shevah shapes his argument so that it comes across as a very advanced argument and he does this through a lot of narrow diction and acronyms that could be tricky. This shows the audience that, unless the author is making stuff up, he has a deep background in the subject giving him loads of credibility. Shevah goes in depth at a much quicker pace specifically when he talks about the Middle East. I’m sure he could have talked about this for hours but he defines the problem and explains why with no “fluff” involved. Article 2 on the other hand doesn’t organize his article with such said diction instead he uses more commonplace knowledge and words that provides an easier read. He adds extras that probably could be left out which lengthens Mr. Allan’s article quite as bit. This article uses diction that could be understood by almost anyone regardless of their prior knowledge. As I stated earlier, article two requires you to read the whole article to get the central point where article one can be divulged into separate points. Although article one gets to the point faster, it may not be helpful because there could be confusion within the essay. Article 2 kind of slows things down with less expert diction and more explanation but could be seen as adding too much obsolete sentences that don’t help the overall structure of the article.

The two articles I chose to analyze approach the problem of water scarcity with a hope that something will be done to improve the current situation. The two authors come from two different backgrounds with Shevah coming from an environmental and natural resource discipline and Allan coming from an economics and political science history. Because of this differentiation, the rhetorical styles present in the articles are contrasting. Examining this contrast showed a difference in essay structure organization, use of data and references and the organization of the argument as a whole. Because of these differences the articles are shaped very offbeat of each other but at the same time trying to achieve the same goal.


Allan, J.A. "Water Use and Developments in Arid Regions." Onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Receil, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015

Shevah, Yehuda. "Water scarcity, water reuse, and environmental safety" Pure and Applied Chemistry, 86.7 (2014): 1205-1214. Retrieved 20 Apr. 2015, from doi:10.1515/pac-2014-0202

Stem Cells: Natural Science vs. Public Administration

In 1990 the Human Genome Project was initiated as a challenge for scientists around the world to work together towards the advancement of mankind. Thirteen years later the project was completed which was two years shorter than estimated. The significance, of which many thought was impossible, is that we can completely read the genetic blueprint for building a human (HGP). This remarkable project opened many avenues for genetic research, but the one most scholars are fascinated with are stem cells. These unique cells are undifferentiated and have the capability to become any type of cell specialized to that DNA sequence (Stem). Scientists are concerned with utilizing the potential of these cells; however, others are concerned with the policy regulations and moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Though I am not here to dispute the controversy, I would like to shed some light on how scholars participate in the stem cell conversation, whether that be directly or indirectly. Many disciplines participate in this conversation, but I will be focusing on the field of natural sciences and public administration. Both viewpoints of stem cells approach the conversation with a unique style and argumentative conventions. The scientific article “Pioneer Factors Govern Super-Enhancer Dynamics In Stem Cell Plasticity And Lineage Choice” uses a very systematic high style writing approach with scientific language and specialized terminology in order to obtain credibility and portray findings professionally. The public administration articles author “Diversity In Public Views Toward Stem Cell Sources And Policies” writes in a very relatable middle style using everyday diction and societal correspondence to apply to a larger group of scholars. The scientific article isolates itself from the social controversy of stem cells because they focus on advancing the field of research; however, the public administration article focuses on only the debate of stem cell research and policy regulation. In exploring different uses of rhetoric, it is important to take into account the purpose of each article along with the different audiences they appeal to.

In order to gain a better understanding of the rhetoric behind these two articles, we can think about each author’s purpose for writing their article. Broadly, the scientific article is offering newly obtained data to further advance scientific research of stem cells. The author is portraying the idea of “new embryonic fate” that has not been researched in the scientific field to create discussion among scholars and hopefully establish credibility. Using a systematic approach, concrete and straightforward thinking, and specialized jargon, the author establishes strong credibility among scientists. The primary purpose of the scientific article is to offer the new stem cell findings to the world of scientific scholars in hopes of contributing to what is currently known about stem cells. In contrast, the stakes of the public administration article are relevant to a more general group of scholars. The author does this by showing how a loose, middle of the road, and strong regulation policy of stem cell transplants could affect society. Though the scientific article’s stakes were much more detached from how they will directly affect society, the public administration article was much more involved. A unique example “In theory it’s great (referring to stem cell transplant), but as soon as you test it on humans and something goes wrong, that’s a problem” showing how it potentially will affect humans negatively. From looking at the purposes of each article, you can see how the scientific article indirectly participates in controversy of stem cell research while the public administration is directly addressing it.

The scientific article author, Rene Adams, uses a systematic style writing to show a preconceived structure keeping very close to the details of his experiment. The author writes in this way so the audience can take what is learned and apply this to what is already known about stem cell research (Systematics). The systematic approach is most obvious from “Anagen skin was treated with collagenase at 37 °C for 30 min to dissociate dermal cells and then incubated with trypsin at 37 °C for 15 min to detach and generate single-cell suspensions of the epidermal and HF cells. Cells were then washed with PBS containing 5% of fetal bovine serum (FBS), then filtered through 70 μm and 40 μm cell strainers.”, with the constant use of then. This establishes a very linear relationship with his methodology and that each step happened in that order respectively. In contrast, the public administration article author, Edna Einsiedel, uses a more dynamic writing style starting with first person speech, “I think research should go on and it should be supported, although I would be very uncomfortable if there was no oversight. I wouldn’t want just anyone cooking up genetically modified cells” and “We also explored public views on different policy models as a preliminary step towards a large-scale survey on the subject.” then changing to third person, “At the end of each session, participants were given a post-focus group questionnaire, asking them to indicate levels of acceptability for different stem cell sources, as well as what they perceived to be the benefits or drawbacks of stem cell research.” On top of first and third person writing, the author also includes verbatim answers such as “I can support either the middle or permissive approaches because policies at least show government responsibility.” to aid in the relativity of stem cell controversy and the audience. The reader can more easily understand the authors methodology because it includes a random sample of humans, in contrast with the hair follicle cells used in the scientific experiment. This is used to gain credibility among the specific audiences each is writing for. In the scientific article, a systematic style shows organization and accuracy in the scientific work. In the public administration article, a loose dynamic style shows relatability and variation in the response data collected. This means that verbatim answers, and switching in between first and third person tenses is necessary when writing about a public policy, resulting in great credibility.

The author of the scientific article uses scientific jargon, long outputting sentence structure, and he writes in a passive voice when articulating findings; however, the author of the public administration article uses an easier to read specialized word choice consisting of shorter sentences and active voice. To understand how the different authors used different rhetorical strategies, it is important to observe the diction and voice of each article. The scientific article opened with “Adult stem cells occur in niches that balance self-renewal with lineage selection and progression during tissue homeostasis” showing a highly selective vocabulary. This is to establish credibility among other scientists who are involved with stem cells. If they used a much more simpler version of that sentence, such as “Stem cells live in groups that grow together when making tissue” then the author would lose ample credibility. These two sentences mean essentially the same thing, but the jargon must be highly specialized. If the author would have found an advancement in the stem cell field and could not articulate it professionally, then it could be overlooked potentially setting science behind. This is in comparison with the public administration article, where they open with “Studies of public views on stem cell research have traditionally focused on human embryonic stem cells”. If this author had written scientifically, such as “Embryonic development in hESC and iNSCNT aid in public controversy in vitro” would leave the audience perplexed and defeat the purpose of the experimentation. This author articulates his findings with a more general word choice not only to be easier to understand, but so he can also establish credibility among his audience. The reason this matters is because diction of choice correlates with the type of voice each author writes in. Scientific diction brings about a highly passive and distant voice from the article. In the discussion section author one writes ”By contrast, the reporter was silenced in committed TACs, which lack hair follicle stem cell TFs altogether” where only passive voice is used. The key indicator of passive voice is the use of was. If you were to rewrite this in active voice “The committed TACs silenced the reporter” it takes on an entirely different vibe. This creates a large disconnect for what the author is trying to find. His primary goal is to further scientific knowledge, which cannot be achieved without a linear scientific approach. This is necessary for scientific writing because it makes it appear the argument is unbiased as well as detaching from any sources of pathos. However, in the public administration article the author uses only active voice to establish a connection between the audience, the author, and what is being tested. A particularly important example is “They also suggested that this absence of regulation could lead to the abuse of vulnerable people or animals” where you can see the author appealing the the readers emotions. He does this by saying that if there is no regulation then people are potentially vulnerable to improper stem cell transfer which will lead to abuse and eventually death. The author must be involved in the discussion to be a viable credible source. If this was written in passive voice, as the author of scientific article intended, then the overall purpose could not be met.

Rene Adam uses a clear, in-depth level of organization for the stem cell experiment. The reason this is immensely important is so that it may be replicated by other scientists, thus stimulating a mock experimentation. This can test for errors, assuming credibility is not completely established, and explore any uncertainties among other scholars. This creates a thoroughly peer reviewed experiment that contains minimal errors. This article follows the format of a lab write up, but contains excessive sub headings once a new step was being initiated. Instead of saying method for transformation, he uses 11 subheadings for each individual process within the actual transformation exceeding the usual IMRAD formatting. This establishes surplus credibility along with being easily replicated. The organization level in the public administration article contains a more formal use of the IMRAD formatting, but elaborates much more in the discussion section. This is because the author is not focusing on the experiment itself, but what we can learn from the results; however, the author of the scientific article elaborated on the methods because it is focusing on the actual experimentation to allow sufficient replication. These two articles also differ with the length of their introductions. The scientific article has a nineteen paragraph introduction while the other article has one. These reflect the overall purpose of each article. The scientific article is to provide as much detailed information about the topic to gain credibility so his findings will be significant. The public administration article only needs to state that their is a controversy among stem cell treatments to attract the audience's attention and later focus on the implications of the controversy.


When comparing two scholarly articles it is important to look at all the rhetorical differences in order to be knowledgeable about how the perspectives are different. When observing only the surface level of each article, it is impossible to see how each discipline approaches the same topic from different viewpoints. To fairly understand what the articles were written for, you must dissect the different use of rhetoric, including purpose, voice, diction, organization, and writing style. Though being involved in the conversation of stem cells, the scientific article uses a more sophisticated, highly specialized approach full of scientific language and elaborate methodology to establish credibility among scientists and portray his results; however the public administration article uses a more general approach using easier to read sentences and elaborate conversation to establish credibility among scholars and share his results in the form of a discussion focused article.

Works Cited

Adam, Rene C., Hanseul Yang, Shira Rockowitz, Samantha B. Larsen, Maria Nikolova,
Daniel S. Oristian, Lisa Polak, Meelis Kadaja, Amma Asare, Deyou Zheng, and Elaine Fuchs. "Pioneer Factors Govern Super-enhancer Dynamics in Stem Cell Plasticity and Lineage Choice." Nature. Nature Science, 18 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

Einsiedel, Edna, Shainur Premji, Rose Geransar, Noelle C. Orton, Thushaanthini
Thavaratnam, and Laura K. Bennett. "Diversity in Public Views Toward Stem Cell Sources and Policies." ProQuest. Humana Press, 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

Mariijuana Legalization: Rhetorical Analysis Medical vs Economic

The legalization of marijuana in the US has been a slow process, but a steady one in the past 10 years. 19 states have decriminalized marijuana, which means, if caught, the offender will get fined a certain amount of money. Only 4 states have full legalization. I chose this topic because it is very interesting to me how alcohol and cigarettes are legal in the US (having arguable worse health effects), and marijuana is illegal. Seeing all of the tax revenue that alcohol and tobacco generate, it would make sense to pass regulations for marijuana and reap the many benefits, one of which is a lot of tax revenue.

The two articles I have chosen on this topic are from the economic/sociological viewpoint, and from a medical viewpoint. Both articles have a unique rhetoric that distinguish them from their respective fields. Their language can reveal a lot about their arguments. These articles and their rhetorics matter because it shows the attitudes of the drug among scholars that view it from different angles than the rest of the country.

Work in Progress: Rhetorical Analysis

For my topic I have chosen to write about how water scarcity around the world affects businesses and global human issues coherently. In all honestly I just find this topic very interesting because water is a basic necessity and everyone needs it to live. Humans can only go about three days without drinking water depending on the circumstances. That doesn’t even begin to count all the other things it effect it has on other things such as mother nature.

The two articles i have chosen to analyze are very contrasting of each other but at the same time they are similar. One article is very professional and seems to come across as a report or a study given to an environmental agency while the other source focuses on the economic and political value of water by using more easily understood diction and graphs to show that, in itself is a whole new topic to think about when considering water shortages. This should be important to you, as a reader because it shows how author’s writing styles can more deeply show their views on a topic through their tone, diction and other rhetorical devices.