The random computer science paper generator “SCIgen” is intended to create works that appear to be complex research papers. The randomly generated papers all abide by a set of conventions that make them similar, but the content is mostly a bunch of words thrown together. When a paper from SCIgen, “Trica: Replicated Symmetries”, is put up against an actual scholarly publication, “Who does Red Bull give wings to? Sensation seeking moderates sensitivity to subliminal advertisements”, it is interesting to compare and contrast. From the start, it is clear that the SCIgen paper is laid out to imitate an actual scholarly paper. Both are very similar in structure in the way they have abstracts, results, discussion, and other characteristics of a real research paper. At first glance, you could be led to believe that a paper from SCIgen has all the conventions of a scholarly paper, but there are some very notable differences when it comes to a full rhetorical analysis. The biggest key difference is the purpose of the papers. The purpose of a scholarly paper is to contribute something new to the field it is written for. In the case of “Who does Red Bull give wings to? Sensation seeking moderates sensitivity to subliminal advertisements”, the publication is meant to add to the study Economics and Business. Given this information, the content of the paper must be thoroughly thought out and peer-reviewed before it can ever become published. The SCIgen paper, on the other hand, does not have such a serious or meaningful purpose. These papers instead are intended to fool the reader into thinking it is legitimate, when in reality they are a bunch of meaningless words thrown together. These purposes are clearly tailored to different audiences. While the SCIgen paper is obviously just written to impress someone who only skims over it and reads a few complex words, the scholarly paper is written for educated readers who intend to actually learn something in the field of economics and business and will read the publication in depth to gain a better understanding.
Looking at the scholarly publication ‘Who does Red Bull give wings to? Sensation seeking moderates sensitivity to subliminal advertisements”, it is clear that the paper emphasizes credibility. It is apparent that what gives this paper such power is the fact that everything is backed up. To start, the paper is peer-reviewed. This means it has been proofread and and edited by countless other individuals, all of them with their own credibility. Names are listed on the side of the paper to show exactly who has done what to make this paper what it is. Not only is the paper peer-reviewed, but every claim, fact, and data point given in the paper is backed up by a number of references or sources all listed at the bottom of the page. These are all strategies to create an underlying ethos appeal that makes the reader believe what they are reading is accurate. Another thing that strikes me as important in this piece is the organization. Everything in this paper is rigidly structured, from the way they introduce the topic, give data and results, analyze the data, and tie it all together in a conclusion. The organization of the paper provides more credibility by giving it a professional appearance, as well as creates an underlying logos appeal by giving information in a clear, step by step method. This allows the reader to better understand the information and reach the same conclusions as the author.
From the start, I was very impressed with the way you presented both articles. I especially liked the fact that you gave some background on SCIgen and what it was. I failed to elaborate on what SCIgen was, so I was very impressed with how you tell the reader about it. The way you worded the purpose of the scholarly paper made it sound very beneficial to society compared to the SCIgen’s purpose. I was a little confused at first, because you focused a lot on the conventions rather than the rhetorical elements of the paper. As I was reading the second paragraph, I finally found that you tied in part 2 with part 1 for the scholarly paper. I think that more rhetorical analysis on the SCIgen should be put into this so that the reader can see the differences between the two more. Other than that, Your effortless transitions and sentence structure made this a very easy and interesting read. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteHey! I think it is so funny that you chose a scholarly article that had to do with Redbull advertisements. When I was looking up scholarly articles all I could think of were super scholarly, boring subjects, so kudos to you for creativity. The way you incorporated purpose into your PB was really good, I didn't even think of talking about purpose for some reason so I will definitely be thinking about that for my PB2B. I feel like you didn't talk a lot about what the paper was about but then again I didn't either. I think the overall analysis would have been stronger if you had talked about the content of the papers more thoroughly, but other than that your descriptions were really good and you covered a lot of conventions I did not even think about while I was writing my own paper.
ReplyDeleteI love that you were able to find a scholarly article about redbull, that's great. I love the structure of your article it allows the reader to be very easy to follow and correlates with the point you are trying to prove. It was also very clear and easy to read because it was interesting. Your analysis was to the point but still through. Overall good job!
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article you chose was pretty interesting. Analyzing the subliminal messages that we are submitted to is always fun. I also really like the layout of you blog in general. This is the first time I have visited it, and I like the ambiance of it. Anyways, the actual meat of your paper is pretty good. I liked the structure and format of it, it made it easy to read and gave it a good sense a flow. Along with that, you did a good job of fulfilling the prompt by comparing the two paper and identifying what you thought was important in the real one, nice work!
ReplyDelete