Week Two 9/3 and 9/5

Monday 9/3 – College closed.

Key issues and Identifying the rhetorical approach in
(1) Savulescu_Ethics of Cloning, and
(2) Morales_Pschological Aspects of Human Cloning

Group Exercise/Class Discussion: Responding to articles using the following questions:

  • Explain how the opening paragraphs engage the reader?
  • Who is the target audience(s)? What supports your position on the target audience(s) you described?
  • What influences the general public’s biases, suspensions, and criticisms in the article(s)?
  • Are the general public’s concerns legit?
  • Are there any ethical issues?
  • Does the writer make concessions that appear skeptical? In other words, does the writer acknowledge the legitimacy of the audience’s concerns without appearing bias or patronizing?
  • Does the writer appear objective, or does the writer take a position? Explain.
  • How does the writer support claims made in the article? In other words, what professional sources or studies are being used as evidence? Are the sources scientifically sound and credible? Explain how?
  • We discussed how “adaptive measures” are used to help convey difficult concepts to laymen audiences. What type of adaptive measures does the writer use? Are they effective? How?
  • How are in-text sources cited in NYT digital science articles compared to printed science essays/journal articles?

HW readings for next week:
Identifying the rhetorical approach in (1)  Morales_Pschological Aspects of Human Cloning