Revision: Summary

Malcolm Silva

Professor Holly Guile

English 1010 – 077

12 December 2014

 

Revision Summary: Problematizing, Reflection/Welcome, Exploratory Research

While revising these 3 papers, my goal was to apply what I had learned throughout the semester, primarily with who my target audience was, then by taking the time to word things in a different way to find what suited best, and finally to double check for any fallacies. My personal issues in these 3 items are respectively: I write my opinion, regardless of who is reading it, I don’t like judging others for their opinion, and don’t like that they would judge mine, however, this is a fallacy in itself, what I do has nothing to do with what other must do, especially not when my goal is not always to express myself, but sometimes to convince others; I hate revising my texts, I have often mood swings, and attempt to gather as much information from my daily interactions as possible, in doing so, I will often have an entirely different opinion on a subject matter, or may be in a more aggressive or passive mood than I was when it was first written, so I usually tend to avoid rewrites as it has left other papers disconnecting, this is an area that needed a large amount of improvement over the semeser; the fallacy I am most likely to commit is the fallacy of cherry picking, I very unoften have to deal with others knowing more about a subject than myself, or knowing it well enough to challenge me, so I have become quite apt at cherry picking while “blinding” my rhetorical opponents and usually being successfuly in getting away with it. But I may soon be caught red-handed, so it is to a point where I should be able to move away from the bad habbit.

In reviewing the Reflection/Welcome paper, it felt like I was trying to write a paper for school, instead of introduce myself with a focus on how rhetoric or writing has affected me. This makes me look immature and boring, so, I decided to rewrite the paper following the essential skeleton of the original, so it will still qualify as a revision. I separated the smaller experiences into their own paragraphs, giving more personal detail as to why they were important, and attempting to make less use of presumptuousness in my writing, humility is something I also need ot work on. The paper ended up being half a page longer, but hopefully this allows it to be more personal, more concise, less presumptuous and that it will allow readers to understand me a little better.

For the Problematizing a Significant event or local issue, and the exploratory research papers, my main goal was the fallacy point, checking sources, re-reading the source material to confirm accuracy of statements and confirming that all source material was necessary for the papers development, so as to not simply use a filler article without relevance or point causing the paper to become disconnect. Some few paragraphs were changed, once more in an attempt to be more likeable and less presumptuous to my audience, while also trying to enforce and make my point more concise. Little change wad done on the source material and the application of it, but some conclusions has their wording changed to be more applicable to the paper as a whole, instead of fragmenting it unnecessarily.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.