Text from initial

WP
Most arguments
are composed with
specific audiences
in mind, and their
success depends, in
part, on how well
their strategies,
content, tone, and
language meet the
expectations of that
audience

Observation or
question I received
Id advise you to
refrain from
using free-
floating quotes
(ie, sentences that
start and end with
a quote).

I found that Why

is it so Hard to Stop
Sports
Concussions? was
the most convincing
because of the way
Stephen Piazza used
rhetorical features
and convinced the
reader of his
argument.

What rhetorical
features,
specifically?

When comparing
three different
articles on the topic
of sport-related
concussions, I
recognized similar
and also different
tactics used to
educate and
convince the
audience.

And what
reader/audience?
Arent they
designed for
different
audiences?

The change I made How this change

impacts my paper
Lunsford in the
Adding this allows
article
the reader to see
Everythings an
where I am
Argument
referencing this
explains,
from and it also
becomes much
clearer what my
purpose of putting
the quote in is. A
free floating quote
like I had looks
very random with
no explanation.
I found that Why This change allows
is it so Hard to Stop me to make an
Sports
argument that is
Concussions? was backed up with
the most convincing fact. Before this
because of the way
change I was
Stephen Piazza used basically stating
rhetorical features
something with no
such as analogy and example or
logical appeal to
explanation, which
convince the reader makes it not really
of his argument.
credible.
The two scholarly
This change was
articles are aimed
necessary in order
toward a highly
for the reader to
educated audience,
understand what I
while the nonwas even talking
scholarly article is
about. I had
directed at a more
originally just
broad and younger
listed the articles
audience. The three with no
articles I analyzed
information except
on concussion
their titles, which
prevention were,
gives the reader no
Why is it so Hard to useful information
Stop Sports
to help them
Concussions? a
understand my
scholarly article,
argument.
Sport-Related
Concussion:
Evaluation and

The first scholarly

article I examined
was Why is it so
hard to stop Sports
Concussions?

One of the
rhetorical devices
Piazza uses is
analogy. One of his
big arguments is
comparing the
human brain to that
of a woodpecker.
He uses an analogy
to create an image
in the readers head
to something they
can actually
picture. He also
cites a study on why
a woodpecker can
peck without any
concussion and see
if the result can
somehow help the
prevention of
human
concussion.

This topic
sentence is super-
vague. Whats
about this source
did you examine,
and how does that
pertain to your
argument?

Management, also
a scholarly article,
and Concussion
Prevention a nonscholarly article.
The first scholarly
article examined
was Why is it so
hard to stop Sports
Concussions? in
which Piazza uses
several devices to
contribute to his
successful
argument.

This seems like a

very small change,
but it changes the
tone of my entire
paragraph.
Originally I began
with a sentence
that does not
introduce my topic
of the paragraph in
any way. This little
change allows the
reader to
understand ok
this is what the
paragraph is going
to be about.
whats the specific One of the
These sentences
rhetorical devices
link between
are written right
Piazza uses is
sentence 1 and
before a quote
analogy. One of his from the
sentence 2?
most effective
Whatever that is,
woodpecker study
arguments is using
considering
and before this
the analogy of the
putting it into the
change they did
human
brain
to
that
start of sentence
not flow well
of a woodpecker.
2.
together or make
He uses this analogy sense. This added
to create an image
connection
in the readers head between sentences
to something they
allows for better
can actually
understanding and
picture.
a linked idea.