Analysis of Writing Style - Essay Example

Reflection and Analysis Assuredly, I changed so many aspects in changing my controversy writing of increasing fuelprices to the public argument on supporting increase in fuel prices for purposes of controlling global warming. Most assuredly, my second essay on increasing fuel prices sought to draw the controversy manifested in the United States over the proposal to increase fuel prices. It sought to show the audience the different sides of the controversy by deducing the pros and cons of such a plan. On the other hand, my third essay sought to convince the audience to support my view of increasing fuel prices to curb global warming. I did this by specifically demonstrating the benefits of increasing fuel prices in America. Actually to relevantly address different audiences, change the purpose of the paper, change the message of the second essay, and remain in the right context, these adjustments were necessary. Such adjustments include change in my introduction on my second essay, diction, and style of writing (Trinity College of the Bible Web). The adjustments therefore enabled me to address a different audience, convey a different message, alter the context, and change the purpose of the paper. The adjustments reflected my rhetorical choices in my writing process. As a result, my writing was effective in informing and convincing my audience to support the increase in fuel prices for purposes of controlling global warming because of increased fuel emissions. This paper details the reflection on my writing process and rhetorical analysis on my writing process from the controversy essay to public argument essay on increasing the fuel prices in America. Indeed, I was able to change the vision of my audience from a controversy point of view to a convincing position on the need to support the increase in fuel prices as a measure to control global warming. Initially, I took time and space to inform my audience on the different controversies that exist I relation to increasing fuel prices with arguments and counterarguments. I did this by narrowing down my information to the benefits of increasing the fuel prices hence convincing them to support my position by drawing their focus to the many benefits of my position. I equally used facts and background information to appeal the academic audience in the introduction of the second essay. Nevertheless, to address a different audience that may not be that learned, it was necessary to change the introduction. After drawing the extent of the problem and the need for communal involvement, it was easy to change the vision of my audience by proposing my solution. However, I changed the introduction of the third essay by stating unconditionally the existence and adversity of global warming in the modern world to appeal the different audience. Indeed, I the introduction I addressed the audience directly through an open letter and giving them real examples like traffic jams, lateness to school or work, and power of purchasing foodstuffs in relation to increased fuel prices (Kelvin Web). This clearly identified with the audience and set the footing for the next essay. Indeed, I used the second essay to encourage the audience to reason with me as I equally identified with the controversies to the issue. Additionally, after drawing them from a broad view to a narrow view of the problem, I changed my writing style by addressing them through an open letter. This brought their attention to my assertion and the relevant examples on traffic snarls, lateness to school or work, changes in purchasing frequency appealed the different audience and thus the effectiveness of my writing. Hence, the introduction of the open letter strategy in essay 3 was to convince the different audience on the need for increased fuel prices. Indeed, it personalized the issue and thus the follow-up to my claim. Though informal, this approach significantly personalized the issue, drew the audience attention to my assertion, and effectively addressed my new audience with certainty. More so, I had to change the reference to objectivity and expert opinions in writing essay 3 for purposes of identifying with the audience in the most simplified and real way. In fact, while the controversy essay relied on logic and objectivity, the public argument essay sought to defend my position only. As such, it is evident that there was a difference of purpose in the two essays. To remain effective to my audience, I changed the purpose of the writing. Actually, while the initial purpose was to derive all the facts and background information relating to the controversy, my new purpose in essay 3 was to convince my audience to support my claim. Because of this change, I changed my approach to essay 3 in that my concentration went to convincing the audience and that was only possible by only drawing the benefits of one side of the controversy that supported my claim. Hence, I neglected all other facts pertaining to increasing fuel prices in America. Another aspect that defined my way of writing and rhetorical choice is diction. Most assuredly, diction enabled me to address different audiences and the consequent change of the purposes of the two essays (Wheaton College Web). Indeed, in my controversy essay, I applied grammatically correct and academic terms to address my academic audience. This was more significant in establishing logic, relevancy, and credibility with the audience. Actually, the background information and the academic decorum significantly boosted the logic of the controversy essay. More so, I was keen to use neutral diction in essay 2 for purposes of informing without taken sides. This was relevant in removing bias and adding logic to the information. Nevertheless, I had to change the diction in addressing the audience in the public argument essay. I used less academic words, more practical examples, and trusted statistics to change the purpose of the writing to a public argument that seeks to convince the audience to support my view on increasing fuel prices. In addition, the use of verbs like you and I relates me with the audience and hence the creation of an effective communication that achieves the purpose of the essay. I equally used subjective statements that demonstrate confidence that the essay achieved the purpose of convincing the audience to support increased fuel prices (Kelvin Web). The use of rhetorical questions like, “Who amongst us today would not wish to experience new approaches that were safe and innovative and solved humankinds problems?” was relevant in convincing the audience (Brigham Young University Web). As such, the change in diction between the controversy and public argument essay was relevant in appealing the different audiences, realize the purpose of each essay, and establish credibility with the academic audience. Assuredly, the audiences were different. Indeed, while the controversy essay mostly addresses the academic audience, the public argument essay relates to general American citizens that warrant conviction to support the idea to increase the price of fuels for purposes of controlling global warming. My style of writing between the two papers is equally different. The controversy essay manifests objectivity, logic, and scholarly reference for purposes of appealing the academic audience. This style was significant in showing the depth of the controversy and the credibility of the information. Nevertheless, I changed my style of writing while writing the public argument essay. In this case, I used examples, less academic language, the informal letter format, and rhetorical questions. These helped me to convince the different audience to back my opinion. Indeed, this was more appealing to the audience and created a personal reaction to the issue. In conclusion, it is clear that I implemented a strategy that changed my introduction, diction, and style of writing. Because of this strategy, I was able to effectively address a different audience, convey a different message, alter the context, and change the purpose of the paper. Works Cited Brigham Young University. Rhetorical questions. Web 28, November 2012. < http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/r/rhetorical%20questions.htm> Kelvin, James. The Pros and Cons of Higher Gas Prices. Web 28, November 2012. < http://www.nodebtplan.net/2011/05/03/pros-and-cons-of-higher-gas-price/> Trinity College of the Bible. How To Master Diction, Rhetoric, and Style. Web 28, November 2012. < http://trinitysem.edu/Student/LessonInstruction/Rhetoric.html > Wheaton College. Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice. Web 28, November 2012. < http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Services/Writing-Center/Style-Diction-Tone-and-Voice> Read More