Reflection Paper

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

18 December 2014

Reflection Paper

From learning the use of rhetorical devices to creating the perfect thesis for a research paper, all that was taught and assigned throughout the English 120 course has contributed to how I write today. In the beginning of the semester I had difficulties in the very process of writing (creating an argument, editing, revising, etc.). I didn’t have much trouble in thinking of ideas on what to write about, picking out evidence, or creating a thesis, it was writing all of it out that I dreaded and would cause me to push away the assignment until the day it was due. This would, of course, lead me to not look over and edit any of my writing. However, this has changed over the course of the semester as I have learned the beauty of “shitty first drafts”. The point of this was to simply write as the first step of any writing assignment. Don’t think about grammar mistakes, run on sentences, or even proving a point, just write any idea you have on the topic and go with the stream of your consciousness. While this is something I need to continue practicing, it has allowed me to simply start writing which has always been the largest obstacle for me and it has also deepened my understanding of my topic (such as what I know and what is missing in my writing) because there is no such thing as a perfect first draft. Through the use of this method my writing has improved in terms of clarity compared to the beginning of the semester.

Another difficulty I had in the beginning of the semester was rereading and revising my work. On the rare occasion that I did edit my work it would be to fix obvious grammatical errors. However, it was through the research paper assignment that helped me start breaking the habit of submitting my work after the first draft. As the assignment consisted of many parts beginning with picking a topic, creating a thesis, then gathering research material for evidence, and proving the thesis, my research paper grew and developed over the constant revision in all the components of the paper. Initially, my research paper was going to focus on how the social connotations of GMOs led to the strong opposition towards its existence in American society. However, after going over my research and rereading my body paragraphs I found myself focusing on an entirely different topic which was the effects of GMOs on health and the environment rather than its social effects. In the end I rewrote my thesis and ended up with a more solid topic that I felt more comfortable writing about. Even with this new topic I would find aspects in my writing that I could improve on such as expanding and focusing more on certain points or eliminating sentences that are redundant and unnecessary. Overall, through the research assignment I learned how much there is to gain from simply looking over my work.

Improvements in my writing is also clear through my pre and post assessment based on the Diana George article “Changing the Face of Poverty”. My pre assessment contained many confusing and broad sentences that made a neither effective nor strong argument to prove my position, not to mention very obvious grammatical errors. In my post assessment I made many changes in my analysis, thesis, and topic sentences so that my argument is more concise and understandable which strengthens my position on the issue and thus my overall response. Although there are still many areas in my writing that I need to improve upon, the various writing assignments and lessons in the semester have enabled me to overcome many difficulties that I entered the course with.

Research Essay

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

18 December 2014

GMOs: a Potential Solution to All Environmental and Health Concerns

Over the past decade the United States have been weighing the pros and cons of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Genetic Modification is the transfer of genes between distantly related or completely unrelated species such as the insertion of animal DNA into the genetic code of a plant species. This is different from traditional/cross breeding which involves taking the best genes of like species to produces plants or animals with the optimum traits for a specific species. Genetic modifications on plants have been practiced for around a millenia and recently on animals and even disease organisms. The aim of GMOs are to make enhanced crops that are able to improve our health, such as foods that contain cancer-fighting chemicals and are allergen free. While there has not been any proof that genetically modified foods negatively impact human health, many argue against GMOs because of the lack of scientific knowledge on its long term effects on human and environmental health, along with the negative connotation of gene manipulation. However, as modern society is in a technological age where such biotechnology is available to improve and increase the nation’s or even global resources (which is capable of solving issues such as world hunger), why not make use of such means instead of denying all its possible benefits.The potentials of genetic modification and transgenic organisms outweighs the possible risks.

Since the commercialization and practice of genetically modified crops in 1996, studies have shown that greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere has decreased compared to the farming of traditional crops. Greenhouse gases are the primary reason for global warming as they trap in radiation from the sun causing the warming of the planet and with increased concentration of greenhouse gases, warming increases. Global warming is a major issue that creates a chain effect of problems in the environment. With the warming of the planet sea level rises due to the melting of glaciers and this causes extreme temperature and weather changes everywhere around the world. These changes endanger many species of both animals and plants that cannot adapt to such environmental alterations. Agriculture plays a role in the worsening of global warming because of the many greenhouse gasses that are emitted from the spraying of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides. In a study that started from 1996-2004 researchers have found that genetically modified crops grown around the world that contain the pest resistant gene “has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by fourteen percent” (Brookes et al.). This is “equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads” (Brookes et al.). Considering how the current state of the environment will only continue to worsen as time progresses these pest resistant crops can be a way to delay the advancement of global warming not to mention emitting less pollution into the air especially if all transgenic crops had this pest resistant gene. This illustrates how GMOs have the potential to improve if not maintain the health of the environment.

In addition to improving the environment the practice of growing transgenic crops can greatly improve the human health with the reduced usage of pesticides. Pesticides have been used for decades and while they have been beneficial in terms of increasing food production the negative side effects of pesticides are of great concern. While the ingredients of pesticides are thoroughly tested in order to be approved by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and are legally required to label their ingredients before commercial distribution this does not mean that the ingredients are non-toxic and safe considering how they are made to kill. When pesticides are sprayed it almost never just reaches the intended crops. Wind, the primary transportation method of pesticides can be blown in rivers and other farms (Hicks). Pesticides are also absorbed into the plants, soil, and other organisms and the remainder  is carried by water that runs through the soil (Hicks). Asides from obvious human exposure to pesticides (consumption), pesticides are inhaled and absorbed into the skin which heavily impacts the health of farmers who do not have proper equipment that protects them from pesticide exposure. In the U.S alone there are around sixty seven thousand cases of pesticide poisoning a year and many more unreported (Pimental et al.). Some side effects of pesticide poisoning includes nerve damage, liver disease, asthma, lead to blood, depression, and abdominal pain (Hicks). This goes to show how large of a difference transgenic crops can bring to both producers and consumers. With pest resistant crops the health and lives of people who are at risk of pesticide poisoning can greatly decrease and would only continue decreasing with the increase production of these transgenic crops. Furthermore, in comparison to the damage pesticides cause including the whole range of water, land, and air pollution and the potential to directly deteriorate our health, genetically modified crops, which have not shown negative effects to either human or environmental health is actually a source that is capable of improving both aspects of society that are in great need of improvement.  

Genetically modified crops can create a reliable food source for the growth of the human population. For around a decade there has been a steady 3.4 billion acres of farmland worldwide and for the last decade the human population has been in a delicate balance between the amount of farmland and the amount of people in the world which results to about double (now it is slightly more) the amount (Moon et al.). From 2004-2006 the world’s population was nearly exactly 6.8 billion which is double the amount of arable land. However, at 2012 and (now) 2014 the human population has reach around 7.3 billion and will only continue increasing (Moon et al.). It has been predicted that the human population would reach to 8 billion by 2020 (Moon et al.) and with a large possibility that the acres of arable land will remain as it is due to limited space, there has been a growing concern of whether or not the world has enough resources to feed the forever growing human population. To add on to such concerns is the issue of global warming which also continues to worsen has increased the difficulty of growing certain crops due to climate change. Genetically modified crops may be a solution if/when such a problem arrives. In 1992 (before GM crops were officially introduced commercially) scientists were able to create drought resistant corn (Pastori at al.) and in 2000 drought resistant potato plants were genetically modified (ET et al.). While there are many more issues aside from drought global warming clearly does not simply heat up the earth but causes other extreme climates, majority of crops are lost to droughts. In case of such extreme conditions genetic modification has created a reliable food source even if it is only potatoes and corn to counteract in such situation.

Furthermore, aside from losing crops to climate change there is also the growing issue of invasive species that bring diseases to crops. One case is the Florida orange which has been infected by a disease brought by an invasive species in 2005 and eighty percent of the state’s citrus trees have been declining since (Voosen). However with the use of biotechnology there are now genetically modified versions of the trees that contain genes from spinach and successfully fights off the disease (Voosen). It is also unlikely that orange trees can continue to grow in Florida unless they are all genetically modified. There has also been early forms of genetically modified diseases in the early 1990’s researchers were able to create papaya plants that were resistant to a disease called ringspot virus which prevented the plants from producing any crops (Voosen). Researchers created this papaya by inserting bits of the “virus’s DNA into the plant’s genetic code” (Voosen). In both these cases genetic modification proves to be necessary in saving and strengthening plant species from uncontrollable diseases that can potentially wipe out an entire food source in one state. With the increase of environmental concerns, the need for crops that grow quicker, larger, and stronger are crucial for future generations.

Animal transmitted diseases has been an issue that has been impacting human health throughout modern, historic and prehistoric times and has been largely out of our control however genetically modified animals shows potential to eliminate these diseases. In one recent study a group of researchers brought up the idea of genetically modified mosquitoes (GMMs) “for the control of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases has been proposed in malaria-endemic countries, such as Nigeria, which has the largest burden in Africa” (Okorie et al.). They surveyed 164 scientists in Nigeria to ask for their opinion on the possibility of releasing genetically modified mosquitoes throughout Africa (Okorie et al.). Many encouraged the study of using transgenic techniques to stop mosquitoes from spreading diseases however there was also a large concern over controlling the population of GM mosquitoes and the “unknown consequences” of GMMs mating with other mosquitoes (Okorie et al.). While there are many factors to consider, the very fact that genetic modification is capable of creating mosquitoes that don’t carry diseases, which actually  lead to thousands of deaths each year, can improve the quality of life in areas such as Nigeria where there is always a high chance of catching the disease. This also opens up a gateway of possibilities for other organisms that carry diseases such as ticks and lyme disease, wild birds and influenza, mammals and rabies. Genetically modification has the capability of controlling things that couldn’t have been controlled before and in this case it could mean a future free of animal transmitted diseases.  

 Genetically modified animals not only show promise in securing human health but a food source that is reliable and could improve the environment. One would be genetically modified fish which has the power to become a food source in place of the depleting population of fish due to overfishing all over the world. Many transgenic fish today are not designed to be eaten and are either sold to be displayed in aquariums or in laboratories for testing. While this may seem to reap little benefits genetically modified fish can lay a huge role in improving human health for the are “used in many laboratories all over the world as models for understanding the mechanisms of growth and development, and disease resistance, or for studying human diseases” (Muir). If that isn’t enough there is always the possibility of consumable genetically modified fish in the future. While this is far from happening as there are many risks similar to those of GMMs, the potentials to genetically modified fish are great. Transgenic fish can not only grow thirty five times faster but grow larger, have better resistance to diseases, provide more nutrients and have a higher tolerance to the cold (Muir). By having fish with disease resistance less insecticide, fungicide, and antibiotics would be used, lowering the amount of pollution which also lowers costs for farmers (Muir). Additionally, if GM farmed fish are monitored strictly and wasn’t able to escape, native species of fish, the biodiversity, and aquaculture would have a chance to improve now that humans have a difference source to fish. It would become a reliable food source considering how the production of GM fish could be controlled. Transgenic animals are far from reaching their maximum potentials however with the ever advancing biotechnology GM animals can be a solution to countless matters impacting human society.

GMOs are not only limited to crops and animals but also genetically modified diseases. In 2012 there was a case where a six year old girl with leukemia tried an experiment out of desperation where doctors injected her with a genetically modified version of the AIDs virus to kill the cancer cells in her body (Grady). The treatment  was successful and was able to go into complete remission six months later (Grady). This case illuminates the possibilities genetic modification can provide for the health industry and patients with deadly diseases or cancer. With further tests and perhaps alterations of other diseases genetically modified versions of diseases can be a treatment that can fight off an unthinkable amount of illness. While this was an extremely risky experiment that almost took the life of the child this was able to open up doors to treating and helping the lives of people with terminal or what was thought of as incurable diseases.

Opponents argue against GMO’s because some studies have shown that genetically modified foods can cause a rise in food allergies. In one case a girl named Caitlin Shetterly “claimed that GMOs caused her allergies” (Lim). After her consulting her allergies with a doctor, who claimed that it may be linked to GM foods, she stopped eating any GMOs and eventually her allergies were gone (Lim). In a study conducted in the UK a year after the country allowed genetically modified soy to be imported by the US, researchers have found that allergic reactions to soy increased about fifty percent compared to the previous year (Smith). While there has been many speculation and support towards this argument for over a decade there still hasn’t been concrete evidence proving the fact that genetically modified foods causes allergies in the human body. In fact, due to the complexity of plants and living organisms and the unreliability of tracking new food allergies of large populations it is impossible to truly prove whether or not GMO’s can cause food allergies. However, there are many reasons to why it is neither likely nor logical for this to be true. For one, genetic engineers are paid to “‘add genes of known structure and function to crops’” (Lim) and “no commercially available crops” would have been purposely genetically engineered to contain allergens (Lim). Not only would there be no reason for scientists to engineer crops for the purpose of giving people allergies (unless the plant/seed already contained properties that had allergens) but the FDA (food and drug administration) would not allow for such hazards to pass into the hands of the public, risking the health of millions of people. Additionally, another reason why it is not likely that allergies are caused by genetically modifying crops is because one of the goals and purposes of GMOs is to remove allergens that are naturally present in certain crops such as tree nuts and soy. Since 2008 there has been news of the possibility of GM hypoallergenic peanuts as scientists have now targeted the proteins that cause fatal allergic reactions in peanuts (Rowe). There is no reason for scientists to work against their goal to purposely harm the health of people in society. Overall, while it is a valid concern there are many more reasons to why GMOs wouldn’t cause new food allergies.

Another argument people make against GMO’s is that growing crops and animals that have been genetically altered in a laboratory is unethical. Many “believe that the laws of nature cannot and should not be violated, that the basic structure of the created order shouldn’t be tampered with” (Schulman). While this is true that manipulating the genes of living organisms to our liking is unethical, there is a greater good that can come out it. As the human population is growing exponentially and tons of food sources are decreasing due to overexploitation. Whether it is harvesting, fishing, or hunting of natural resources it is done at unsustainable levels. This has led to the extinction of thousands of species and the destruction of biodiversities that maintain the function and health of the planet. Genetic modification may not be the best possible answer to the problem of world hunger and the dwindling of the nations resources however it is a safe food source that can grow faster, larger, stronger, and even contain more nutritional value (Ackerman) until there is a better solution. Additionally, if monitored and maintained correctly genetically modified animals such as fish may be a separate meat source that wouldn’t negatively impact the environment (Muir). Also, GMO’s  are not only limited to food sources but also GM diseases and virus can inturn help fight off other deadly diseases which is a major breakthrough in terms of the future of the health industry (Grady). Although, many can agree with the questionable ethicality and risks of genetic modification there is also undeniable benefits and potential to it.

Despite the indeterminate long term effects of GMOs its immediate effects have been beneficial to the planet and human society. Genetic modification ranges from all living things such as diseases, animals, and plants and, as discussed, the effects of GMOs has in turn created or in the process of creating a larger impact on all aspects of life on earth. So far GMOs have touched on persisting issues such as our growing population, failing ecosystems, and deadly diseases (for both plants and humans). Yes, there are down sides to genetic modification. The fact that scientists are practically molding all life forms that exist on Earth to benefit the human race is unethical and what damages GMOs can cause to the world a hundred years from now nobody knows. However, the human race, just by simply existing, has negatively impacted the world. The growing population and advancement in technology means more people are occupying the planet for longer which means more destruction to natural land to create more living space, and more industries and factories polluting the habitat to support this growth. It is unrealistic to think that any of this “more” will stop. Thus, from all the ways that technology and “progress” has destroyed the environment and our health, biotechnology used to create GMOs can now improve if not fix the damage that has been made and from there on, hopefully, we can progress as a society that improves the quality of all lives. 
Work Cited

Ackerman, Jennifer. “Food: How Altered?.” National Geographics. May 2002. Web. 9 Nov.

2014.

Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. “GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental

Impact-The First Nine Years 1996-2004.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology

Management & Economics. 8.15 (2005): 187-196. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

ET, Yeo, Kwon HB, Han SE, Lee JT, Ryu JC, and Byu MO. “Genetic engineering of drought

resistant potato plants by introduction of the trehalose-6-phosphate synthase (TPS1) gene

from Saccharomyces cerevisiae.” Molecules and Cells. 10.3(2000): 263-268. Web. 29

Nov. 2014.

Grady, Denise. “In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia.”New York Times.

The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Hicks, Bridget. “Agricultural Pesticides and  Human Health.” Science Education Resource

Center at Carleton College. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2014.

Lim, XiaoZhi. “Are GMO’s causing an increase in allergies?.” Genetic Literacy Project. 16 Apr.

2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Moon, Dennis, and John L. Taylor, Jr.. “American Farmland, Global Shifts.” U.S Trust. Nov.

2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Muir M, William. “The threats and benefits of GM fish.” EMBO Reports. 5.7 (2004): 654-659.

Web. 4 Dec. 2014.

Okorie N, Patricia, Ademowo G. Olusegun, John M. Marshall, and Onoja M. Akpa. “Perceptions  

and recommendations by scientists for a potential release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Nigeria.” Malaria Journal. 13.(2014): 154. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Pastori M, Gabriela, and Victorio S. Trippi. “Oxidative Stress Induces High Rate of Glutathione

Reductase Synthesis in a Drought-Resistant Maize Strain.” Plant and Cell Physiology.

33.7 (1992): 957-961. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Pimentel, David, T. W. Culliney, and T. Bashore. “Public health risks associated with pesticides

and natural toxins in foods.” University of Minnesota. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.

Rowe, Aaron. “Genetically Modified Peanuts Could Save Lives.” Wired. 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 29

Nov. 2014.

Schulman, Miriam. “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?.” Santa Clara Magazine. Summer 2000.

Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Smith M, Jeffery. “Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food

Allergies—Genetically Engineered Soybeans.” Institute for Responsible Technology.

May. 2007. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Voosen, Paul. “Can Genetic Engineering Save the Florida Orange?.” National Geographic. 14

Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Growth Process Essay

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

18 December 2014

How I Became a Bookworm

I used to hate reading. As a child I would only open a book to look at the pictures and as an adolescent reading only took place online to get the summary and rundowns of each chapter for book assignments. Reading was a pain and no matter what it was, it was too long, took too much time, too much effort. The most confusing part for me was why pretty up words that could be said in a forthright manner? I precisely remember in elementary school at the very end of read alouds the teacher would talk about the moral of the story or the purpose behind the whole book, I would think “Why couldn’t the author just say that in the first place?” It baffled me how people could ever enjoy not to mention analyse the meaning of a story that took hundreds of pages to convey. Why over complicate something that could be so simple?

When I entered middle school my opinion on reading didn’t change much however it wasn’t until my second and third year that I truly learned the beauty of books. Around that period of time my family life was a bit hectic and there was pressure in doing well in school because it was the last few years of grades that high schools look at during the admissions process. I was not doing well in school getting B-’s at best but mostly C or C-’s. I was a shy kid so I couldn’t really suck up to teachers like other not-as-bright kid’s did back then. The fact that I brought low grades back home definitely did not help. Overall, I wasn’t doing so well emotionally. I would spend most nights thinking about why couldn’t I be as smart as most kids or why I couldn’t be as outspoken as others. Basically I spent most of my childhood with a lot of “why’s”. I don’t remember what book I read but that book set off something. It allowed me to push aside all the issues in my life at that time and get transported into a new one. I was able to just get lost in a world that was different from mine and live through characters that have way larger problems than I would probably ever have. Reading gave me the comfort of making my personal situation feel miniscule. It allowed me to look at the world with a wider lens. From that one book I began to read more and more. At first I read really slowly and sometimes I would zone out on one page (sometimes I still do) and reread one sentence over again and I would give up on some but I would keep reading. At the end of my middle school year, I still didn’t get great grades but I managed to only get one C and B’s for the rest of my classes but overall I was relatively happier. Reading helped me learn how to deal with emotional turmoil or at least cope with it. However the biggest progression for me was that my bookworm-ness became a part of me that I loved and the fact that reading gave me something to like about myself, at that time, was incredibly precious.

Before entering I high school I would read for the sake of the story however upon entering high school I read to learn and that only made me love reading even more. The first book assigned in my english class of freshman year was The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian by Sherman Alexie a easy read that taught me about embracing every part of myself, everything I was born with; my race, my physical appearance, and where I grew up and everything I picked up along the way. The second book assigned was The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, it was filled with symbolism, metaphors, and life lessons and I loved everything single part of it. So much so that I ended up purchasing my own copy and rereading it on my own time (it also become incredibly useful during the SAT’s). Until this book was assigned I mainly read books that focused on telling an interesting story and was easy to understand but this book was the exact opposite it was jam packed with literary devices and forced me to think about the significance in every page. It completely altered the perspective of the elementary school me. This book showed me about how amazing literature can be in the way that it is carefully and skillfully crafted to make readers think, question, and connect back to his/her own life and being able to successfully analyse the messages that are trying to be conveyed was something that motivated me to read and analyse more challenging text. I could probably go on about what I learned in the next book and the next since there were so many but reading has enabled me to discover aspects of myself.

My opinion of reading has changed greatly throughout different stages of my life. However, it was only when I actually started truly reading that I felt myself growing as an individual. It’s dramatic and cliche but there is still so much to read and as long as I continue reading I look forward to how much more it can change in my life.

Post Assessment

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

18 December 2014

Diana George "Changing the Face of Poverty" Post Assessment

Poverty is an issue that occurs in many forms throughout the world however only a few of these forms are represented and recognized in society. In America, extreme forms of poverty that occur around the world are spread throughout the media in order to catch the attention of citizens and hopefully motivate them to become a part of the solution. In the article “Changing the Face of Poverty: Nonprofits and the Problem of Representation” the author, Diana George, conveys how poverty in America is ineffectively and inaccurately projected towards the public. She illuminates the various forms of poverty in the Unite States, establishing that not only those who are homeless or in horrible living conditions, are considered poor and in need of help. Through personal observation George explains that while nonprofit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity have created an image for the public to what poverty looks like, it works against their objective. Overall, George’s argument of addressing poverty based on individual situations presents an accurate solution that can help towards eliminating poverty in the nation.

Throughout the article George illustrates the importance of respectively treating cases of poverty. She argues that poverty represented in mass media are only of people and families who are in “dirt and rags and helplessness” (543) and therefore creating an image of what poverty supposedly looks like in the minds of the public. In turn, this causes the poverty commonly seen in America; people receiving state aid without jobs or young homeless people who are physically capable of making their own money, are viewed as undeserving of help compared to what “true” poverty looks like such as those in Third World countries. Although it is through such extreme forms of poverty that help nonprofits successfully attract and catch the sympathy of the public in United States, it does not encourage them to help those who are struggling financially in their own neighborhood, community or even country. Ultimately, George suggests that such organizations should instead bring to light the more common and less represented forms of poverty that “can be dealt with by volunteers on an individual basis” (550). This would be an effective and cost efficient way to improve the situation of poverty in America. In order to successfully fight against poverty in the U.S and even around the world is to alter the public’s perspective on the poor and focus on the common and individual faces of poverty in America.

Poverty in America is misinterpreted and has been for years. As I too viewed poverty in stereotypical way, I have come to realize that it is rather unjust to compare one form of poverty to another. Though it is incredibly easy to do so with public media repeatedly telling the masses again and again that poverty is a “worldwide problem” (545) and because it a worldwide problem the poverty seen in America is compared with the extent of poverty in other countries. By doing this it makes the situation of poverty in America seem not as critical and thus creating the mindset of “they don’t need or deserve as much help”. However, such mindset is wrong. While poverty commonly seen in America consists of situations such as ones mentioned in the article, where unemployed young men and women, who are physically and mentally able to make a living, receives aid from the government and end up spending that money on material goods they cannot afford (548), it is still a problem and a situation that needs to be confronted and is deserving of help (just in a different way). While media has imprinted a misrepresentation of poverty in American society the first step to change is to develop a new meaning and understanding of the poverty that exists exclusively in America.

Pre Assessment

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

31 August 2014

Diana George “Changing the Face of Poverty” Pre Assessment

Poverty has been a persisting issue throughout the globe and with the help of nonprofits and other organizations the situation has caught the attention of the public. In America, extreme forms of poverty that occur globally are spread throughout the media in order to urge citizens to help become a part of the solution. In the article “Changing the Face of Poverty: Nonprofits and the Problem of Representation” the author, Diana George, conveys how poverty in America is ineffectively and inaccurately projected towards the public. She illuminates various forms of poverty in America, establishing that not only those who are homeless or in horrible living conditions, are considered poor and in need of help. Through personal observation George explains that while nonprofit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity have created an image for the public to what poverty looks like, it works against their objective. Overall, George argues and proves that poverty is an issue that can only be improved by addressing individual situations.   

Throughout the article George portrays the necessity of treating cases of poverty respectively. She argues that due to how poverty is represented in public media; people and families who are in “dirt and rags and helplessness” (543), the poverty commonly seen in America; people receiving state aid but don’t have jobs or young homeless people who are capable of making their own money, are viewed as undeserving of help when compared to what “true” poverty looks like such as those in Third World countries. Although many of such extreme forms of poverty that nonprofit organizations send out to the public are present in America and is a method that successfully attracts the masses, it does not encourage them to help those who are struggling financially in their own neighborhood, community or even country. Ultimately, George suggests that such organizations should bring to light the more common and less represented forms of poverty that “can be dealt with by volunteers on an individual basis” (550). In order to successfully convince the masses to join the fight against poverty is to alter the public’s perspective on the poor and focus on the common and individual faces of poverty in America.

Overall, I agree with George’s argument that poverty is currently misinterpreted in America. As I too viewed poverty in stereotypical way, I have come to realize that it is rather unjust to compare one form of poverty to another. Though it is incredibly easy to do so due to public media, as stated in the article, we are told again and again that poverty is a “worldwide problem” (545) and because it a worldwide problem we compare the poverty we see in America (or particularly in New York for me) with the extent of poverty in other countries. By doing this it makes the situation of poverty in America seem “not as bad” and thus creating the mindset of “they don’t need or deserve help”. However, such mindset it wrong. While poverty commonly seen in America consists of situations such as one mentioned in the article, where unemployed young men and women who are physically and mentally able to make a living are receiving aid from the government and spend money on material goods they cannot afford (548), it is still a form of poverty and is deserving of help. In conclusion, while media has created a misrepresentation of poverty the first step to change is to develop a new meaning and understanding of many forms of poverty in America

Rhetoric Ad Analysis

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120_L13

10 October 2014

Ad Analysis: Use of Rhetoric in WWF Ads

Rhetorical devices play a crucial role in a successful advertisement. By appealing to the emotions, logic, and mentality of the masses along with making use of the time, place, and audience the majority of commercials wield the elements of rhetoric: pathos, logos, ethos, and kairos. This can be seen in animal conservation advertisements particularly ones from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), one of the largest conservation organizations that is often known for its impactful and memorable animal conservation ads. The organization seeks to bring awareness and receive aid in their mission to maintain the health of the environment and protect endangered species from extinction. Both are persisting issues that continue to worsen day by day; thousands of species become extinct every year and the biodiversity of our planet has dropped significantly which directly translates to well-being of this Earth. However, the public awareness of these issues has greatly increased with the help of organizations such as WWF, which engages people about the issue through the use of rhetoric in their advertising.

One WWF campaign that makes use of rhetorical devices is titled “Extinction Can’t Be Fixed.” This print ad shows an image of a rhinoceros and two men; one man is under the rhinoceros with mechanical tools and gloves beside his feet, while the other man is bent over, observing the rhino. The background of this image appears to be in a garage or car maintenance shop with concrete floors, metal shelves against the walls, and desks filled with more tools. There is not much color to the ad besides the red and blue work uniforms worn by the two men. The lighting of the image shines brighter in the center where the rhino stands. Throughout this ad, there are many uses of rhetoric and visual details in order to convey its message. First off, the use of pathos is shown in the title through the word “extinction” which brings to mind annihilation, death, and disappearance of an entire species, unlike a related word “endangered” which surfaces words such as limited or finite while implying a possibility of recovery. The word “extinction” is able to appeal to the sympathy and compassion of the audience while implanting a sense of fear, helplessness, and, possibly, urgency in others because of how impactful and terminal the word is. Logos is also shown in the image where the rhino is standing amongst metal, tools, and other man made objects as animals are supposed to belong in nature. There is an obvious feeling of displacement, and, with the two men who appear to be trying to “fix” the rhino or trying to find out what is wrong with it, the audience can quickly realize the oddity in such logic because there is no solution and no way to “fix” something that no longer exists in the world. This captures people's attention and it helps stimulate what WWF wants the public to think which is: before this issue becomes unfixable, something has to and can be done.  Ethos is also used through the WWF logo placed on the top right corner of the image. Since WWF is a reputable organization known for their work in helping endangered species and the environment, it makes the information or message being shown to the public more credible. Lastly, for the kairos in this ad, while there was no major event that occurred around the ads’ launch date, July 2013, the issue of animal extinction and endangerment is always persisting. The timing of the ad simply corresponds to a problem that is happening daily.

                                      

Another WWF campaign that uses elements of rhetoric is titled “Horrifying vs More Horrifying.” Similar to the prior ad, this one focuses on spreading awareness of animal extinction and aiding endangered animals. The campaign shows a series of three images. The first image is of the fin of a shark that is submerged in the ocean with a caption on the bottom stating “Horrifying” and besides this image is the same image, but with no shark in sight, captioned “More Horrifying.” The second image is similar to the first image but with a picture of a scorpion on a rock, captioned “Petrifying,” and next to it is the same image without the scorpion, captioned “More Petrifying.” The third image is of a vulture on a branch with a cloudy sky in the background and (just as the other two) captioned “Frightening,” and next to it is the same image without the vulture with the caption “More Frightening.” Overall, pathos is used in the choice of animals and in the diction of the captions. For all three of the images, WWF shows animals that cause people to feel horrified, petrified, and frightened (sharks, scorpions, and vultures, respectively) and are often seen as dangerous and life threatening; however, by putting these images  back to back with the same image except the deadly animal is taken out the image, the lack of life is emphasized. This impacts the audience’s emotions of fear in the way that images of fear are actually being altered or replaced with another more fearful image. Logos is also being used in the captions by conveying that while some animals are seen as dangerous and harmful, the after effects that come with losing these animals are even more harmful and not only on an individual basis but to the entire world. Ethos is used just as the prior WWF ad, where its logo is placed around the ad so that viewers who may recognize WWF from another campaign may be reassured that the ad is credible. Equivalently, kairos is not intentionally used, but there’s always time to be reminded that such issues exist in the world and are continuing to exist.
In conclusion, the use of rhetorical devices help create an effective advertisement. As shown in the two print ads, “Extinction Can’t Be Fixed” and “Horrifying vs. More Horrifying” by WWF, the organization made use of ethos, logos, pathos, and kairos in order to convey their message and spread awareness to an important issue. Both publications made use of pathos to attract the audience's sympathy and compassion, which help create an emotional connection to the issue of extinction and may cause the audience to become involved. Logos is also used to make connections that illuminate the importance and call for action to the issue, ethos and kairos help tie up the whole message by creating a sense of validity and relevancy to what is shown in the ads. Overall, rhetoric devices play an essential role to successfully spreading a message.

Annotated Bibliography

Gloria Ho

Professor Breech

English 120 L13

18 December 2014

Annotated Bibliography

Ackerman, Jennifer. “Food: How Altered?.” National Geographics. May 2002. Web. 9 Nov.

2014.

This article examines the questions of what GMOs are, who they affect, and what the possible benefits and risks are. As of 2002, this article suggests that there were still many unknown factors to GMOs despite people having studied gene alteration in plants for millennia. This article inspired me to explore the discoveries scientists have made on the effects of GMOs and whether or not the [potential] benefits of GMOs outweigh the risks.

Grady, Denise. “In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia.”New York Times.

The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

This article reveals the story of a six-year-old girl who survived leukemia thanks to an experimental treatment that involved a genetically modified version of the AIDS virus  being placed into her body to fight off cancer cells. This helps me support the basis of my thesis to the potential benefits of GMOs.

Okorie N, Patricia, Ademowo G. Olusegun, John M. Marshall, and Onoja M. Akpa. “Perceptions  

and recommendations by scientists for a potential release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Nigeria.” Malaria Journal. 13.(2014): 154. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

This study explores the idea of genetically modified mosquitoes (GMM) in Africa in order to prevent the spread of diseases such as malaria. This article has led me to focus on the potential benefits of genetically modified animals and what it could mean for the human species in the long term.

Parker, Laura. “The GMO Labeling is Heating Up-- Here’s Why.” National Geographics. 11

Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

This article discusses the domino effect caused by the change in labeling of the most popular cereal in the U.S, Cheerios, to no GMOs. Other popular food brands have changed or are working on changing to GMO-free products or menus. This inspired my research topic and my examination into whether or not this sudden trend of GMO-free foods is simply a marketing tool and if the risks of GMOs are truly significant enough to cause this rage.

Voosen, Paul. “Can Genetic Engineering Save the Florida Orange?.” National Geographic. 14

Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

This article discusses the event of a widespread disease carried by an invasive species that has been infecting more than three fourths of the citrus trees in Florida. Due to desperation, farmers and companies have been growing GM oranges that resist the disease; however, concern lies in whether or not consumers will drink GM orange juice. This displays an important argument that supports my thesis. It is also evidence of this negative connotation that the label “Genetically Modified” creates and the importance of such labeling.