Synthesis Chart

   ____________Resources  Opinions Sexual Activity  Subjects
Eisenberg et al.-     p.2            p.2-9                                  p.2-3         

Horn-                                       p.10                 p.4              p.8

Eisenberg et al.-     p.5                                                      p.4
(2)

Butler et el.-           p.8                                                     p.4,15

IMRaD Topic Proposal

The topic I have chosen is students' thoughts on condoms being provided in their dorm(specifically Catlett residents).

-Do these students think it is a positive or negative thing?

-Are provided condoms causing more students to use them than if they were not provided?

I am going to design a survey with multiple questions that I will hand out to student residents of Catlett. I plan to include both average residents as well as resident assistants. A survey seems more fitting than an interview because conversations about contraceptives and sex-related topics may make people uncomfortable or possible lie. It will be anonymous, with the survey asking only their year, gender, and major as background information. Some questions I would like to include for analysis are how having condoms out in the open makes them feel, if they have grabbed any, if that makes them more likely to use them.

IMRaD Comparison

The differences between the IMRaDformat and the argument-based paper we generally wrote throughout highschool English classes are numerous. One of the main noticable differences is the organization. IMRaD is a very technical writing that separates each section as its own entity; it also has a section called the 'abstract' that is basically a summary of the entire report. Argument-based research paper from highschool would focus on luring the audience in more gradually feeding them more information, rather than give away the whole argument at the beginning.
Also, both types of papers have main focuses, but the approach to presenting them differs even more than I just mentioned. This is obvious in the introductions of each. The introductions of the typical argument-based research papers are long, since they are intended to give background and state the purpose as well as 'hook' the audience. IMRaD intros are short and to the point, sometimes being only a sentence long. 
The styles the papers are written shows a difference too. IMRaD lets the information speak for itself, presenting it in a clear form where the facts are obvious with little to no opinion added. When a research paper is argument based, the facts will be presented but the author's analysis and input will have greater weight in the content.

Commercial Outline

Purpose: To motivate, or perhaps lure, the audience into wanting to save the animals
 
   How?

• Sympathy
• Animals
• Cute & fluffy, suffering
• big puppy right away 
• staring directly at camera
• Camera
• slowly zoom in to animals
• slow, emotional transitions
• Script
• "Every day innocent animals are abused, beaten, and neglected"
• "They're crying out for help"
• Emotional diction
• Music
• played right away
• Sarah Mclachlan's song "In the arms of an angel"
• music appeals to emotions
• telling you you could be the "angel" for the animals
• Pressure
• Caption
• "Call now to join the ASPCA" in text
• Phone number on bottom throughout
• web url on bottom also
• Dialogue
• "$18 a month, only 60 cents a day"
• "Right now, there is an animal who needs you"
• Time Limit/Gift
• "Call or join within the next 30 minutes and you'll receive this welcome gift"
• 'free' t-shirt, wristband, and picture of animal

     Effective?

• Successful in motivating/luring people (purpose)
• Successful in effectiveness (at first)
• When I was younger and this first came out, my sisters and I would almost be in tears after this commercial, wanting to help the dogs
• Began to be overplayed, became cliche, still achieved purpose, but lost effectiveness for the company over time

Commercial Prelim Analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjZ5dld2qHs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjZ5dld2qHs

The purpose is to persuade the audience to become a supporter of ASPCA by making them feel sorry for the cute animals. This commercial has a quite obvious approach. Opening with sentimental music in the background, singer and spokesperson Sarah McLachlan speaks in a slow, smooth voice while petting an adorable labrador. This creates a mood, appealing largely to the pathos of the audience. The mood resonates throughout, as the presenter attempts to draw sympathy from the audience through heart-breakingly sad puppies and kittens and a continuation of "In the Arms of an Angel." Sarah McLachlan explains that with eighteen dollars a month, "only sixty cents a day," you are saving them. The animals are even displayed being rescued by people, just as Sarah says that with your *small* donation "you'll help rescue animals from their abusers." Who wouldn't contribute just that much toward such a good cause ?
As if feeling good about yourself was not a good enough reason to donate, there is a gift incentive that comes with a new membership. New supporters get a "free" t-shirt, bracelet, as well as a picture of an animal that is in a shelter, but only if they register within the next 30 minutes of the commercial. This time limit rushes the audience in their decision, urging them to help the animals right now by signing up without looking into the company much or thinking about if they want to spend their money this way.
Overall, I believe this commercial is effective for the most part. I remember when I was younger and watching these, I would beg my dad to let me become a member, as I wanted to be able to save the puppies. It grew old, however, when it would play every commercial break. By the time I got older, I still felt sympathetic, but I was not as motivated to join.

Sample Paper Analysis pt.2

Source 4:
Strengths- They make an effort to explain the quotes. The inclusion of voice was interesting. Academic and non-academic descriptions are organized clearly and are compared.
Weaknesses- Many times they only used one source per paragraph. Introductory paragraphs all have the same idea, just repeated. Frequent use of "I" was distracting, especially in the introduction.

Source 5:
Strengths- This paper has various sources to help with credibility and reliability of the conclusions. Transitions from paragraphs and topics were done well. They gave many details for examples.
Weaknesses- Language is very repetitive. Their use of 2nd person, especially in the conclusion sounds demanding rather than like an analysis. Certain quotes were long and lost the attention of the audience.

Source 6:
Strengths- The organization is clear and pleasant. The author relates to the audience. Their sources are strong and useful to their purpose.

Weaknesses- Some of the headings did not fit the formality of the paper. The conclusion is quite short compared to all the analysis done in the rest of the paper. Even though their resources were helpful, they did not have many.

Sample Paper Analysis

Sample 1:
Strengths- Introductions to quotes were usually sufficient. Transition sentences were strong. Organization was clear enough for each section.
Weaknesses- The explanation after some quotes was lacking.  Author switches between an educated diction and colloquialisms. They did not relate the rhetoric to why, specifically, a political scientist would make the choices they did, and instead would repeat past statements.

Sample 2:
Strengths- They interviewed two people, which can help with credibility of the conclusions drawn. I could not find many more strengths, so I added to the weaknesses.
Weaknesses- They included unnecessary parts of the interview. They also logged the conversation rather than reporting his conclusions from it. Organization was scrambled, with little analysis. References were not labeled/formatted correctly. Also, the introduction paragraph is misleading of the topic of the paper. Diction was quite informal at times.

Sample 3:
Strengths- Thesis is strong and clear. Organization is clear and labeled, subheadings are used well. Compared their sources and examples to come to strong conclusions.
Weaknesses- Sometimes talked about the concepts of her sources instead of the use of rhetoric. As a result, some quotes were not great examples. Conclusion was fairly short, especially compared to the previous sections.