Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
Pages:
3 pages/≈825 words
Sources:
Check Instructions
Style:
APA
Subject:
Literature & Language
Type:
Other (Not Listed)
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 10.8
Topic:

Rhetorical Analysis of Germline Editing

Other (Not Listed) Instructions:

As we know, the same story can be told in multiple ways, depending on the author’s (speaker’s) purpose, the audience, and the context in which the story is being told.  Even when communicators are sincerely working their hardest to present accurate information, they will make choices that direct our attention in particular ways, and lead us to make particular inferences.

 

A rhetorical analysis answers the question:  What is this rhetor (communicator) DOING? and  HOW are they doing it?  What linguistic techniques are they using to create the effects they are aiming for?  Very often, we don’t notice the rhetorical techniques or subtle biases that are present in a text.  We don’t realize how we are being lead to consider certain ideas and not others.  This is especially true if we only read one source on a topic and have nothing to compare it to.   This comparative rhetorical analysis assignment requires you to engage your analytical reading skills to their maximum capacity.  

 

 

Your Task:  Just as with Paper #1, this project will be completed in multiple stages (submitted as homework assignments) You will see an example of every stage so that you know what is expected. 

 

You are going to analyze a set of 2 writings about the SAME TOPIC  that is of particular interest to you (academically, professionally and/or personally).   For example, if you are studying Psychology, you could examine two writings about teenagers and depression.  If you are studying environmental science, you could look texts addressing the impact of fires on forest ecology.  

 

You are NOT going to write a traditional argumentation or research paper, however.  You will NOT be taking a stance or presenting a solution to a problem.  You do NOT need to reach any conclusions about the topic addressed in the texts you choose.  Instead, you will analyze and compare the Rhetorical techniques employed by the writers of the texts that you have chosen.

 

You can choose to compare texts from two different genres and/or from the same genre but written for different audiences.  For example, here are some text pairs that could work well:

 

  • A peer reviewed academic journal article VS  a popular magazine/newspaper article
  • A public policy/legal/professional document  VS a popular magazine/newspaper article
  • Two popular magazine/newspaper articles appearing in very different publications (for a conservative versus progressive audience, for example)

 

Just as with Paper #1, the final draft will be approximately 800-1000 words

Other (Not Listed) Sample Content Preview:

Rhetorical Analysis- Germline Editing
Student Name
Institution
Affiliations
Date
Rhetorical Analysis- Germline Editing
While germline and gene-editing related research has taken a significantly progressive pace in the past decade, various sophisticated, safety, validity, legal, ethical, and societal perspectives issues in bioethics are yet to be resolved to allow significant success these required fields. Ma et al. (2019), in an editorial article titled "The first genetically gene‐edited babies: It is "irresponsible and too early," note that a scientist's (Jiankui He) declaration of having created the world's first instance of a genetically modified baby during the 2018's 2nd International Summit on Human Genome Editing (ISHGE) in Hong Kong raises a series of questions. Complementing the same, Neuhaus' (2018) narration/response essay titled, "Should We Edit the Human Germline? Is Consensus Possible or Even Desirable?," published under The Hastings Center, argues more controversial perspectives using an appeasing formal tone as to why the germline/gene-editing advancements are yet to be practical. While Ma et al. endorse scientific/basic medical research infancy as the key contributors towards the necessity for added safety and validity tests, Neuhaus takes He is contraventions of scientific/ethical norms as more of a guidance and governance problem within the summit's administrations and other organizations portraying the lack of real enforcement power.
Ma et al. (2019) suggestions on this topic are generally intended for other scientists and medical practitioners in this specific field and others with significant knowledge in the same (2). While both articles recognize the infancy and unsafe aspects of gene editing in babies, Ma et al. have a more structured work with several subheadings that indicate the sophisticated nature of this field. Ma, Zhang, and Qin build their credibility by introducing the China Academy of Medical Sciences' perspective on the validity of He's work. The NHC even term He's behavior as "illegal behavior that will be verified and punished." Ma et al.'s confident tone is further complemented by the subheadings that have generally structured every vital detail regarding the CRISPR/CAS9 techniques thoroughly. Ma et al. further support the non-validity of the CRISPR/CAS9 techniques' use compared to other gene-editing tools and reported data in the CRISPR system in past decades. From basic research comparison, off-target/unprecedented effects of He's work to analyze the unknown nature of the perfect gene to target in humans, Ma et al.'s work has convincingly transitioned in a coherent approach to handling this unclear situation.
Throughout their work, Ma et al. draw attention to the vital role of scientific evaluation or their ethos depend on various scientific procedures in any admissible scientific development or advancement, alongside the societal and et...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
Order

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to progressive era:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!
Order Now