Heidi x Sveta
SEMI-FORMAL REWRITE
With persuasion, one can have the glorious opportunity to rule the world. And as it turns out, history has also proven this to us over many times, demonstrated by things such as Hitler’s charismatic, influential speeches he used to win over the people and Obama’s calm, reassuring voice are both great examples of different persuasion techniques in action. Chances are we used persuasion techniques ourselves on a daily basis as well, such as persuading Dad to buy that cool new mechanical pencil. But persuasion is like making a sandwich; if you leave out any one small ingredient, (such as the bread, for example), it is pretty likely that that sandwich will not taste as good as it could have been. Which is where persuasions three main ingredients come in, called pathos, logos, and ethos. Michelle’s essay was a great example of how these three components can be used to a person’s advantage in persuasion, but a wider spectrum of connections would have made the essay more relatable.
FORMAL COMPARE AND CONTRAST ESSAY
After many essays were read and much thought was allotted, a conclusion was finally come to that Sveta’s essay was the best way to go. Her writing was chosen by Mr. Pangier as an exemplary piece for its wonderful clarity and clever usage of vocabulary, but what I appreciated most about it was that she did not overcomplicate it, and that her thoughts were written in a very clear, concise format. Basically, her writing was like a stroll down a river. Here I will be discussing what I found to be exemplary about her work, what parts I changed in the semi-formal re-write, and also the learning process along the way.
Where Sveta’s writing really shined was in her descriptions of ethos, pathos, and logos and how Michelle, Sveta’s writing partner, used these persuasion techniques to influence her readers. Sveta provided logical descriptions of the techniques were used and made them remarkably clear to the audience and provides quotes from Michelle’s essay as well, which even further fortified her own credibility and trust ability, as seen in this sentence here from Sveta’s essay. “If we disfavor the way an author thinks, it’s impossible to concentrate and agree with a topic of an essay or a story, because people tend to listen to considerate and circumspect explanations.” While Sveta described per partner's usage of ethos, she was also strengthening her own ethos in her essay as well with proof of her understanding of her given piece. This was a great way to build up trust right at the beginning of the essay and made the rest flow smoothly and deemed her very credible, which she kept up till the end of the essay smoothly.
It was actually quite difficult to find ways to improve and refine Sveta’s essay in a way that was not just based on personal preference alone, especially how the essay was already loaded with information in the body and the writing was perfect for everyone to understand well already without little or any refining. So I decided to change just the introduction just into a way that I found was a little bit more interesting by adding more adjectives and just switching up the length of the sentences. I also added some more detail to the idea’s in which she had brought up in her introduction, which already had real life connections as made clear in this line from Sveta’s essay, “Presidents, directors, professors- all of them are known for their ability to make people do anything they want them to do” (Kudrina). I also connected the writing to people whom we deem more familiar, just to make the writing a bit more personal and relatable. Since her essay I found had a little bit of a cold tone, I just made the introduction a bit warmer and less formal.
From re-writing Sveta Kudria’s essay it brought me back to when I was writing by own “Analyzing Persuasion” essay and the struggles in which I had experienced. My learning process was that of recalling old work and processing new, and also reading the immaculate writing style of Sveta with was very different from my own. I learned way more about the way in which I write just from observing the differences in our writing styles as well, and all the errors in which I had committed in the past while I was reading and analyzing her essay. Also, the difference that personal connections make in writing was made very apparent while I worked on this assignment as well; I thought that this was the only part of Sveta’s writing where she could have elaborated on a tad more. But through analyzing her essay I learned how to improve my own writing and the imperfections in it was actually the reason why I choose her essay. Because I think we all learn through present and past mistakes.
Where Sveta’s writing really shined was in her descriptions of ethos, pathos, and logos and how Michelle, Sveta’s writing partner, used these persuasion techniques to influence her readers. Sveta provided logical descriptions of the techniques were used and made them remarkably clear to the audience and provides quotes from Michelle’s essay as well, which even further fortified her own credibility and trust ability, as seen in this sentence here from Sveta’s essay. “If we disfavor the way an author thinks, it’s impossible to concentrate and agree with a topic of an essay or a story, because people tend to listen to considerate and circumspect explanations.” While Sveta described per partner's usage of ethos, she was also strengthening her own ethos in her essay as well with proof of her understanding of her given piece. This was a great way to build up trust right at the beginning of the essay and made the rest flow smoothly and deemed her very credible, which she kept up till the end of the essay smoothly.
It was actually quite difficult to find ways to improve and refine Sveta’s essay in a way that was not just based on personal preference alone, especially how the essay was already loaded with information in the body and the writing was perfect for everyone to understand well already without little or any refining. So I decided to change just the introduction just into a way that I found was a little bit more interesting by adding more adjectives and just switching up the length of the sentences. I also added some more detail to the idea’s in which she had brought up in her introduction, which already had real life connections as made clear in this line from Sveta’s essay, “Presidents, directors, professors- all of them are known for their ability to make people do anything they want them to do” (Kudrina). I also connected the writing to people whom we deem more familiar, just to make the writing a bit more personal and relatable. Since her essay I found had a little bit of a cold tone, I just made the introduction a bit warmer and less formal.
From re-writing Sveta Kudria’s essay it brought me back to when I was writing by own “Analyzing Persuasion” essay and the struggles in which I had experienced. My learning process was that of recalling old work and processing new, and also reading the immaculate writing style of Sveta with was very different from my own. I learned way more about the way in which I write just from observing the differences in our writing styles as well, and all the errors in which I had committed in the past while I was reading and analyzing her essay. Also, the difference that personal connections make in writing was made very apparent while I worked on this assignment as well; I thought that this was the only part of Sveta’s writing where she could have elaborated on a tad more. But through analyzing her essay I learned how to improve my own writing and the imperfections in it was actually the reason why I choose her essay. Because I think we all learn through present and past mistakes.