Revision Matrix

Text from my
initial WP
submission:
(a phrase,
sentence,
paragraph, idea,
move,
punctuation, piece
of evidence, etc.)

An observation
or question I
received from De
Piero or a
classmate:

The change(s) I
made to what I
initially wrote:
(ie, the change[s] I
made to column 1)

How this
change impacts
my paper:

we can assert that

economic news
reports are dataoriented and
unbiased, their
essential information
is concentrated in its
head-part, and all
these features save
readers time reading
them. (thesis
statement)

What do you mean

by head part?

we can assert that

economic news
reports are dataoriented and unbiased,
they arrange their
essential information
towards the
beginning, and these
features save readers
time reading news.

Using data to prove

the authenticity of
news seems to be a
norm throughout
economics news, and
to explain this
phenomenon we need
to look at who is the
audience

You're shifting gears

here from
data/statistics to
audience. Worth
starting a new
paragraph here?

In addition to their
efficacy of conveying
information, data are
also used due to their
appeal to the audience
of economic news.

Thesis statement is a
guide of the reader,
which can provide
an overview of my
articles arguments
for the reader early
on. Therefore, its
sentence-level clarity
is very important.
Besides some little
changes, I mainly rephrase my second
argument in order to
make it clearer and
more
understandable.
I found that my
original analysis in
this paragraph is
messy and unclear,
therefore I decided
to start a new
paragraph and
change its focus to
audience only. To
make it work, I rewrite my main
argument of this
paragraph in order to
achieve a smooth
transition from my
previous paragraph
to this one. I think

Maybe, for a tenyear-old child, these

numbers do not make
any sense at all,
whereas, for those
who are interested in
and have motives to
know things about
economic world,
these numbers speak
far better and faster
than plain words.

Flow/organization
concern: Im having
trouble understanding
how this sentence (in
which you introduce
rhetorical actions)
builds off/onto the
previous/next
sentence.

Therefore,
frequently using
data makes
economic news
article a distinct
genre because it is
a successful
rhetorical method.

I'm wondering if you

could
characterize/describe
the types of data used
in all of articles. If I
could get more of a
broad overview of the
similarities and
differences of the data
that they use, I think I'd
be able to make more
sense of this
paragraph.

To predict the
prospect of economy
by analyzing data in
depth may be a job of
professional
economist, however,
to understand the
economic status
according to the
magnitude of numbers
(such as GDPs,
market indexes) is a
common ability.
Therefore, oftentimes,
numbers speak far
stronger and faster
than plain words in
economic world.
Also, among three
economic news
reports, using data,
such as Chinese
economy growth rate,
Shanghai
Composite/Hang Seng
indexes, mentioned
above, brings strong
credibility to the
article itself because
the sources of these
data are national
departments and
agencies or reputable
economic
organizations.
Moreover, according
to Laura Bolin
Carroll, the use of

such effort can result

in a clearer structure
that can help readers
to understand what I
am arguing.
I rewrite this part of
analysis in a more
concise and clear
way. In such way, I
can make connection
back to my main
point of this
paragraph (which is
stated in previous
matrix) and
contribute to a better
flow in this
paragraph.

I started a new
paragraph to analyze
the advantage of
using data to
complete my overall
analysis about
concept dataoriented. Since I
want to prove using
data is a successful
rhetorical method in
this paragraph, I
think analyzing what
data are used and
why audience trust
them is a good
strategy. Also, to
write it in a new
paragraph can
separate my different

data is a rhetorical
action called logo
(52), which appeals to
an audiences
intellectual side.
Therefore, using data
can contribute to the
reliability of the news.
This is an objective
opinion about the
outlook of Chinas
economy. The
author of this
article
intentionally cited
the title of the
person from whom
he quoted for the
sake of
highlighting
credibility

my entire paragraph
arguing economic
news is unbiased

Is objectivity related to
credibility? Is this a
larger argument you
could make here? In
this paragraph or
maybe even your whole
paper?

This is a pessimistic
opinion about the
outlook of Chinas
economy.
Nonetheless, the
author did not attempt
to use it to counter
other opinions or
support his own.

sub-arguments from
one another which is
helpful both for me
to elaborate my idea
in an organized
manner and for
audience to follow
my article.

As you said, whether

objectivity is relate
to credibility can
refer to another
argument, and I
think arousing such
question in this
paragraph is an offtopic move because
my main argument
in this paragraph is
that economic news
introduces
economists opinions
in an unbiased
manner. So, in order
to avoid deviations
from my very
essential argument, I
choose to get rid of
this distracting part
of analysis.
This comment is in
I divided this
Introducing idea one
reference to the whole
paragraph into two
at a time so that the
paragraph:
parts: the first
reader can follow the
When I see thiseven
paragraph addresses
trail of my argument
before I start readingI
the truth that
more easily. Also, by
think, Ahhhhhhh!
Attack of the page-long
economic news
doing so, it more
paragraph!
quoting economists
clearly demonstrate
.
opinion in an unbiased the logic behind my
manner, and the
analysis, (from
second one explains
observing and
the reason of doing so.
describing what
happens to

since the last

financial crisis and
6.9% for 2015, but
conclude at three
totally different
topics. The
Economic Times
tends to make a
conclusion, saying
that property
investment seems
to slow down
Chinas overall
economic growth.
CNN shows the
result of
CNNMoney survey,
forecasting the
future growth rate.
The New York
Times lists a series
of data,
demonstrating
that the Asian
market is still
unmoved.

Despite three article

is revolving around a
same topic, they are
structured in different
ways, endowed with
different textual and
rhetorical features,
and composed of
different moves
and contents in order
to effectively
communicate with
their own intended
audience.

Theres a lot going on

here. How do all these
ideas fit together? Why
bring all of them into
the discussion? If I'm
(your
reader/"audience")
having trouble
understanding why, it
might be useful for you
to explain how/why
you're using them in
more explicit detail.

Tianyi, I think your

thesis statement is
pretty solid but I'd like
you to make it even
clearer and more
precise -- how is it
structured differently?
What textual features
will you be analyzing?
What rhetorical
features? Which
moves?

since the last financial

crisis and 6.9% for
2015. Also, when we
look at the title of
each article, the
similarity becomes
even more manifest:
China G.D.P.
Growth at Slowest
Pace Since 2009 ,
China posts slowest
annual economic
growth in 25 years.,
China's economy
grows 6.9% in 2015,
slowest pace in 25
years.

Despite three article is

revolving around a
same topic, they have
different features
persuading their
different intended
audience. Two
academic writings
have a strict limitation
on their format,
By giving me a more
language, and appeal
specific overview early
to the audiences
on, I'll be able to read
with more purpose, and intellectual side, while
the non-academic
thus, get more out of
your paper.
writing, the opinion
article, has a relatively

explaining why it
happens).
The main argument
in this paragraph is
that the most
important
information is
included at the
beginning of the
news article, so
analyzing how each
article concludes
goes off my topic in
this paragraph.
Giving more
examples and
analyzing how my
idea is reflected in
three articles in more
details, such as
comparing titles, can
reinforce, instead of
weakening, my
argument.

my original thesis
statement is too
general, I think
specifying in more
explicit detail what I
am going to argue in
the following can
provide a more
precise and clearer
overview of my
paper for readers.

straightforward
structure,
causal/conversational
style and inclined to
appeal to the
audiences emotional
side.
The geology article
is written to
declare and
interpret the latest
findings about
global warming;
the economy
article attempts to
analyze the
effectiveness of
the Kyoto Protocol
on reducing the
global greenhouse
gas emission; and
the opinion article
is meant to
counter the
skeptics argument
that the global
warming has
stopped. Since
three pieces are
written in different
rhetorical
situations
(exigence and
audience), their
approaches to
persuade their
audience are not
similar, either

Academic papers
tend to employ small
black font, narrow
line space, and

I feel like it'd help me to

know this early on in
your paper -- this is an
"overview" paragraph.

I weaved this
paragraph into my
introduction.

As you commented,
this is an overview
paragraph. Moving
this to my
introduction should
make more sense
because readers need
these information to
understand my
following argument
and analysis.

Is this that important?

I decided to remove
this paragraph from
my paper.

I re-examined this
paragraph and found
what I was arguing
is not a very typical

difference between
academic and nonacademic writings.
The font and line
space settings is
relatively personal
and not a good
example reflecting
that authors made
moves for their
intended audience.
Also, this part is no
longer included in
my new thesis
statement, so, for the
sake of flow and
coherence, I decided
to get rid of this
paragraph.

sometimes
bullets/dashes to list
evidences. This move
makes the paper
become visually
clear, compact and
organized. In
contrast, the opinion
article has an
inclination to leave
some space for the
reader. The goal is to
make the reader feel
free and relaxed.
After all, people
seldom read it for
academic or other
serious purpose.
This sounds really
interesting, but I'm not
sure what you mean
here, Tianyi.

My original analysis
Such reason-afterI rewrote most part of about the structure of
argument structure
this paragraph and add
non-academic
seems to simplify the
a brief analysis about
writings is too vague
process of proving
and confusing. So, I
You didn't tell me much the structure of the
about what the
and explicitly bring
non-academic article I
decided to rewrite
the result to the front structure is -- how does read:
them, putting the
it unfold? And why does
of the reader. As a
emphasis of analysis
it unfold in the way(s)
The
structure
of
the
result, though the
more on the structure
that it does?
opinion article can be
structure is loose, it
and its reason. By
divided into two parts:
still successfully
doing so, this
introduction of two
furthers an effective
paragraph can better
opinions
and
discourse with their
support my
contradiction against
own audience. The
argument.
the one the author
reader can easily
does not agree. No
receive messages
specific part
from the author
designated to give
because this structure
scientific justifications
is straightforward and
or background
meets the expectation
information was
of ordinary people
included, because the
to perceive

information in daily
lives

Also, as mentioned
above, the writing
style of this article
is emotional and
relatable.
Sentences such as
O.K., I (), Of
course, there are
(), Most of us
hope that ()
and Alas, I think
() (Muller, 2)
reflects a very
conversational
style, which
facilitates the
audience to think
from the authors
side. Since they
end up spending
so much time in
the authors brain,
the article garners
their empathy.

author was more

willing to simplify his
structure to make his
article a more
understandable and
friendly reading for
audience. Authors of
non-academic
writings have more
freedom over the
structure to further
effective
communication with
ordinary readers.
Could this be a part of
your earlier paragraph
on writers' styles? Or
could this paragraph be
moved right after that
paragraph -- could that
help you achieve more
flow?

I moved this part to

one of my earlier
paragraphs:
However, when
objectivity is not
authors first concern,
using first personal
language becomes a
move strengthening
authors power on
persuading the public.
Sentences such as
O.K., I (), Most
of us hope that ()
and Alas, I think
() (Muller, 2)
reflects a very
conversational and
emotional writing
style, which facilitates
audience to think from
the authors side.
Since audience end up
spending so much
time in the authors

This part mainly

analyzes the effect of
using first personal
language, so I think
move this part from
my original
paragraph, in which
pathos is the topic,
could help me
achieve more flow
and fortify the main
point I want to argue
here as well.

brain, the article

garners their empathy
making them more
likely to agree with
the authors opinion.