This reflection focuses on the position paper and how it was different from the informative paper in terms of content and writing goals. It discussed properly executed areas, as well as areas of the paper that could use improvement.

Jennifer Sanchez-Flores

10/31/18

Writing for the Science

 

Informative and position papers are similar, but they have a major difference. A position paper includes the opinion of the author on the subject being discussed. Writing an informative paper is different because you have to ensure you don’t sound as if you are taking a side in the argument. Your objective is to inform the reader about a topic, so their own opinion on the topic can emerge. While writing a position paper, you are trying to get the reader to agree with your side of the topic and you also give the information needed to prove why your position is better. In this position paper, the audience were subscribers to a science magazine. It includes those familiar with basic scientific terms, but the audience still might need information to grasp harder concepts. My paper’s motivation was the future of the earth. My introduction started off explaining the condition of the earth in relation to the greenhouse gases released by primary energy sources. It continues to discuss the need for renewable energy sources because climate change can have harmful effects on the earth.

I was able to develop concessions after reading articles about the harmful effects of hydropower. After reading these articles, I developed my own arguments against them. This would further emphasize why my position is correct. For example, during my research, I came across an article that focused on the negative aspects of hydropower. The article argued that installing hydropower plants will harm the ecosystem. However, I argued that the installation of these plants might cause destruction, but the ecosystems will recover. “The ecosystem will be affected, but natural disasters can cause similar effects. Species aren’t wiped out from existence in the case of natural disasters, and they will not be wiped out from the construction of a hydropower plant.” Ecosystems recover and adapt to events such as natural disasters and they recover from hydropower plant installations.  I retrieved most of my articles using the CCNY library database. I made sure to look for research in the scientific databases to ensure my data would be most accurate. I chose my articles after reading them and looking specifically for arguments that could further emphasize my point in my paper. I also looked for concessions that I could present in my paper to counter my argument, but that I could counter back to show my reader why this counter isn’t enough to disprove my thesis. The scholarly sources I used were not simple readings. I made sure to print all my articles and re-read them over and annotate to obtain their main point and motivating issues. For articles that I used to help support my own position, I made sure that their motivating issue was the same as mine.

Although I was absent when peer reviews were done, I still completed my first draft and printed a hard copy to complete my own peer review. While reading it and looking at the rubric at the same time, I was able to see how much my paper was missing. I realized that it needed more organization and more information. This allowed me to focus on improving my final draft and made me realize that it needed a big improvement. For future papers, I will treat my first draft as a final draft, which I believe will result in a better final draft with better overall structure and information.