Media Kits

Media Kit

Technical Writing Exercise

As I skimmed through my classmates' links to their technical writing revisions, I came across one that really stood out to me. Meadow Nelson did an outstanding job on this technical writing exercise, and I was really impressed. Her directions are clear and concise; the wording alone is a tremendous improvement on the original jumbled directions. (I give her kudos first and foremost for being able to decipher them, a task I really struggled with.) Each step is carefully numbered, more complicated steps are broken into smaller components, and important words are in bold so that they stand out from the rest of the text.

In addition to these clearly worded, carefully organized instructions, Meadow also included visual representations of each step in the process, which I think shows considerable respect for her audience. Anticipating that users might not be familiar with the system setup, Meadow made it possible for readers to know instantly if they made an error or are somehow not where they are supposed to be on the screen during or after any given step. Even I, a technologically incompetent individual, feel comfortable following her instructions for creating a shared network drive.

There is only one improvement I would recommend to Meadow if she were publishing these instructions. The alignment of each component of the numbered instructions makes it difficult at times to pick out the key step. Sub-steps listed below each numbered instruction (labeled in letter format) are right aligned farther than number items, which has the effect of making them stand out more to me because it's not the format I'm used to seeing them in. (Usually they would be indented  beneath the numbered items). Indenting these lines would make the reader's task of finding each step even easier. Additionally, because the visual depictions of each step are so large in comparison with the directions themselves, it might also help to include a line of white space between each step.

I consider it a real tribute to Meadow's work that the only recommended adjustments I could find are a matter of formatting. She did an outstanding job, and I am not only impressed, but also a little envious. Kudos, Meadow! 


A link to my own attempt at this technical revision exercise is provided below.

Click here to access Instructions for Creating Shared Drives

The Real Riff-Raff: College Graduates

Rhetoric is present everywhere, and used in every persuasive argument, even poor ones. What makes an argument persuasive is how well the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos are implemented. Sometimes, an argument does not sit at the surface but the three strategies are being used to establish a mock argument, using these means of persuasion so poorly that the underlying argument is actually advocating the opposite case.

Steven Colbert employs rhetoric in precisely this way. I would like to direct your attention to the following passage from his book I Am America (And So Can You):

"If there’s a bigger contributor to left-wing elitist brainwashing than colleges and universities, I’d like to see it. There’s an old saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Which means a lot of knowledge must be a really dangerous thing. And it is. Look no further that the example of Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber. He skipped sixth grade, got a Bachelor’s from Harvard followed by a Master’s and a Ph.D., and then embarked on a distinguished academic career of blowing people up. Most Ph.D. biographies have similar endings.

Ted Kaczynski’s last job before he went into full-time Unabombing? Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, a.k.a. University of Blame America First, Berkeley. Yes, folks, he capped off all those years of being a student by becoming a professor. Let’s face it – he’d have been crazy not to go crazy, which only proves my point: the greatest threat facing America today – outside of flag burning, yoga, and vaccination – is higher education.”

On the surface, this is a highly controversial, albeit logical, argument. Not only does Colbert supply us with specific details, but he also draws “rational connections” with the limited amount of information provided. For example, he notes that because a little knowledge is dangerous, a lot of knowledge must be “a lot” dangerous. However, although interviews and anecdotes can be used as a form of logos, extrapolating one event to be representative of an entire population is dangerous. In this case, of course, the outrageous extrapolation is entirely intentional. Using such weak logos accomplishes three purposes: 1) it clues us in to the fact that the author is probably not serious; 2) it makes the argument appear ludicrous; 3) perhaps most significantly, it makes similar arguments, and the people arguing them, appear equally as ludicrous.

The lack of ethos in this passage is also deliberate, and assists in discrediting the argument and gross extrapolations like it. Colbert insists that everything written in his book be trusted on his authority and his alone. Although the detailed “facts” presented may make the author look well-informed, the way they are employed within the argument very much discredits both author and argument altogether.

The third form of rhetoric present here, pathos, is evident in multiple facets. Firstly, Colbert establishes a conversational tone with the audience, building a connection with his readers with the use of phrases like “Let’s face it,” and “Yes, folks […].” Secondly, Colbert appears on the surface to be making an impassioned case designed to rile readers. Thirdly, because everything in this passage is essentially a mock argument, Colbert is really employing a tricky but highly effective form of pathos: humor. And as millions of readers would agree, Colbert is highly effective in building an argument constructed almost entirely of humor.