Leong

Sabrina Leong
Instructor: Zack De Piero
Writing 2
18 February 2015
Writing Project 2
In 2015, there will be an estimated 1,658,370 new cancer cases diagnosed and
589,430 cancer deaths in the US. [. . . ] Cancer remains the second most common cause of
death in the US, accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths (Cancer Facts).
Scientific researchers and doctors around the world race tirelessly to thwart this
relentless killer. There are many articles and research papers that explore new ideas and
discoveries on this topic. Two in particulara non-academic, mainstream media article

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:33 PM

Comment [1]: Like I mentioned to you in
class: I think this is an effective opening
because its very attention-getting.
However, in some courses/disciplines,
opening with a quote might not be
acceptable, so its good to make sure about
this stuff. I think this is great though.

from The New York Times, Is the Cure for Cancer Inside You? by Daniel Engber and a
scholarly, peer-reviewed research paper from the Nature Reviews Cancer journal, Cancer
immunotherapy via dendritic cells by Karolina Palucka and Jaques Banchereaulook into
the idea of using dendritic cells cells that are part of our immune system to help fight
against cancer. The two papers are of different genres: one is a mainstream media article
and the other is an academic research paper. I am arguing that the scholarly, peer-reviewed

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:34 PM

Comment [2]: Your first set of dashes
work great; your second dont. I highly
discourage you to use more than 1 set (ie, 2)
in one sentence.

research paper is more efficient and reliable at persuading healthcare professionals of the
importance of dendritic cells in fighting cancer than the non-scholarly, pop culture article
because of: conventions that involve formatting and jargon, the use of rhetorical devices
such as logos (appeal to logic), pathos (appeal to emotion), and ethos (showing authors
credibility) to persuade different audiences, moves that help with clarity and variety, and
the distribution and abundance of evidence used.

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:37 PM

Comment [3]: I like how much you laid
out here, but I feel like its too much and not
specific enoughalmost like too much
breadth and not enough depth.

Also, the colon doesnt work here. Check
out the UNC WCenter for their tips.

Leong 2

Because each article is of a different genre, the articles are organized in ways that
help or hinder their specific audiences. A research paper has a specific format that many
follow. The specific organization of these papers helps readers find particular information
very quickly. Both of these articles are the same length, 12 to 13 pages long. The abstract at
the beginning of the research paper is a summary of what to expect, which allows the
reader to simply read the abstract for the main points of the paper and then search the
paper by section when he wants to have proof of the statements made. The newspaper
article, on the other hand, is one long article that tells a sequential story. The reader cannot
jump to the end of the story because he would lack the necessary context for it to make
sense. Plus, the reader has to read through the entire article to understand what the main
parts of the article are. The peer-reviewed journal article is more organized and faster to

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:38 PM

Comment [4]: This is good insight,
Sabrina.

navigate than the newspaper article. Therefore it would be preferred by a person who is
actively and readily in need of information regarding cancer research.
Scholarly articles usually use a specific jargon; in this case, Palucka and Banchereau
use medical and biochemical jargon, which gives a more professional and experienced tone.
Janet Boyd, the author of Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking), defines jargon as the
terminology used by those in a particular profession or group to facilitate clear and precise
communication (Boyd). Engber, the author of the New York Times article, does not use a
specific jargon, and his tone is more conversational. While some may say that the jargon

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:39 PM

Comment [5]: Nice use of course readings

used in scholarly articles limits the articles audience, the terms used are explained well
enough that the readers who were able to read the New York Times article would be able to
read the scholarly journal article. The important terms are defined throughout the
scholarly paper, and all of the definitions are either in the text or in the margins. For

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:40 PM

Comment [6]: OK, so this paragraph is all
about jargon/technical terms. What basic
role does this have on a reader and how
readers evaluate texts? I feel like that
could/should be established from the get-go
(ie, at the beginning of the paragraph).

Leong 3

example, in the margin of one of the paragraphs, Palucka and Banchereau give the
definition of phagocytes: Phagocytes [are] White blood cells that are able to ingest foreign
particles, microbes and dying cells (Palucka). The definition is straightforward and simple.
They give enough information to help the reader understand the term, but not so much
information that the reader is overwhelmed or confused. The non-scholarly article by
Engber, on the other hand, does not have formal definitions and includes fewer technical

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:40 PM

Comment [7]: Nice use of textual
evidence.

terms, at the cost of being less precise.

The use of specific jargon and definitions makes the authors seem knowledgeable
and educated, which builds upon their use of ethos. Ethos refers to the credibility of the
rhetorwhich can be a person or an organization (Carroll). Palucka and Banchereau
reinforce their credibility through their use of jargon, the way they provide their
definitions, and their professional tone, which is appropriate for the context of their
research paper. They also use statistics and information from their research to contribute
to logos. Logos is commonly defined as argument from reason, and it usually appeals to
the audiences intellectual side. As audiences we want to know the facts of the matter and

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:41 PM

Comment [8]: Excellent start to this
paragraph. Its clear and it builds. J

logos helps present these (Carroll). Palucka and Banchereau draw upon two of the three of
Aristotles artistic appeals (Carroll), ethos and logos, to present their research and
support their claim that they are experts in their field and that their research is genuine
and worth reading about.
Engber, however, uses pathos, or emotional appeal, to draw his audience in. He
hooks his reader in with his title, Is the Cure for Cancer Inside You? which is a rhetorical
question that appeals to the readers curiosity and makes the reader want to know more.

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:42 PM

His introduction also does not immediately involve dendritic cells; Engber begins his article

Comment [9]: Looks to me like youre not

just looking at pathos but also how it
functions as the hook/Introthat (both)
should be previewed in the topic sentence.

Leong 4

with a wife looking at her dead husbands BlackBerry that had gone untouched for several
days, in a bowl beside his keys [ . . . ] [hed] been dead for three days (Engber). Engber
surprises the audience and draws them in by beginning his article with a dramatic and
somber introduction. But Engber does not draw upon the other appeals of ethos and logos
enough in his article. The article gives no external information about Engber, other than
that he has a weekly column in Slate, and Engber does not refer to specific resources and
references in his article that show the reader where he is getting his information. This

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:42 PM

Comment [10]: Good observation.

decreases his credibility, and he appeals more to emotion than logic.

Both articles also differ in purpose. The purpose of the scholarly journal article is to
share their research with other scholars. Usually these other scholars are educated in the
same field as the research, but the articles are also meant to be understood by other
educated scholars from other areas of study where the research from the article could be
applied to their own discipline. Graduate, undergraduate, and medical students should also
be able to read and understand the article so that they may use that research for the basis
of their next paper or their own research projects. This type of audience expects the
authors be credible and logical and to prove their hypothesis with the statistical analysis of
the results.
In contrast, the purpose of non-academic articles such as Engbers is to entertain
and insight interest. The audience is the general public, the layperson. Audiences that are
looking an interesting read might find this piece more persuasive because they are solely
looking for entertainment or a way to pass time. However, other audiences that are looking
for new results or ideas on cancer research would find Palucka and Banchereaus paper

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:43 PM

Comment [11]: How/is this achieved by
the author?

Leong 5

more persuasive because they are looking for solid, specific information from research that
they can use in their professional circles.
Both articles use many moves in their essays. One move is the use of
connotations. Connotations are the associations that surround many words (Losh). In the
non-academic article, Engber uses phrases like Whack-A-Mole to describe finding cancer

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:43 PM

Comment [12]: Careful here: the articles
arent the acting agentsthe articles dont
use moves. The author uses moves in their
articles

treatments and Steinmans disease didnt look so mean at all to describe the pancreatic
cancer cell. Slang phrases, such as Whack-A-Mole, and the idea that a cancer cell might
look mean (when Engber obviously isnt describing the cancer cell as a spiteful person
with a scary face) are uses of connotation. Engber also uses similes to illustrate his point:
the old chemotherapies and radioactive treatments worked like napalm to blast away the
canopy and the cell Steinman hoped would save his life looks something like a sea

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:44 PM

Comment [13]: I like this paragraph a lot.
Its fun/cool. Im wondering, though: is
slang and/or the use of connotation a GOOD
thing? Im not quite sure where your stance
is here.

anemone or a ruffled shrimp dumpling (Engber). A simile uses like or as to compare two
things (Losh) and is meant to add vivid imagery. While the use of similes can provide
humorous imagery in certain cases, these examples are inappropriate for the setting.
Engbers article is about a man who spent his life researching dendritic cells and then
struggles through the stages of cancer while searching for a cure. The article weaves in and
out of a serious and humorous tone, where a constant tone would be more effective at
persuasion. Palucka and Banchereaus paper, on the other hand, is much more professional,
and their moves involve improving the clarity of their argument.
One of Palucka and Banchereaus moves was to bold the key terms in the margins
and have the terms definitions underneath. In this way, the authors were able to use their
medical jargon and terms without losing the reader and without breaking up the
presentation of their researchthey were able to give a continuous explanation of their

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:45 PM

Comment [14]: Ah ha, gothca. It was
hard to see this from the get-go.

Leong 6

research while still defining important terms. Another move they made was their use of
figures and charts throughout the paper. The colored images support the research and give
visuals to help readers understand the concepts. This is similar to the stylistic device,
variety is the spice of life where including variety in the argument makes the paper more

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:45 PM

Comment [15]: Yep, I agree.

interesting (Losh). The tables and pictures bring in variation, something other than text for
the readers to look at.
Palucka and Banchereaus article cites many sources for evidence, which
emphasizes their credibility as researchers, compared to Engbers minimal research.
Engber quotes seven experts and cites two papers from the New England Journal of
Medicine. This is an extremely low amount of references compared to the 177 references in
Palucka and Banchereaus scholarly article. Engber does not have a works cited or
references section at the end of his article, which is typical of his genre, but he also does
not include links or references in or throughout his article after giving terms or scientific
explanations. Contrastingly, Palucka and Banchereaus paper is abundant and diverse in
their sources, which reflects their credibility and their papers credibility.
In conclusion, Palucka and Banchereaus peer-reviewed journal article is more
efficient and reliable at persuading healthcare professionals of the importance of dendritic
cells in fighting cancer than Engbers newspaper article. Its easier to navigate and more
organized, has more technical terms that relate to the topic that increase the authors
credibility and gives statistics, data, and logical statements that appeal to the audiences
intellectual side, has a better explanation and presentation of important terms and
keywords, shows pictures and diagrams to help explain concepts, and has a multitude of
references that support their argument and raise their credibility.

Zack De Piero 2/20/2015 12:45 PM

Comment [16]: Wow, I love this. Great
job here.

Leong 7

Works Cited
Boyd, Janet. "Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. By
Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 2. Anderson, South Carolina.: Parlor,
2011. N. pag. Print.
"Cancer Facts & Figures 2015." American Cancer Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis." Writing
Spaces: Readings on Writing. By Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 1. West
Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. N. pag. Print.
Engber, Daniel. "Is the Cure for Cancer Inside You?" The New York Times. The New York
Times, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Losh, Elizabeth M., Jonathan Alexander, Kevin Cannon, and Zander Cannon. "Style in
Arguments." Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N.
pag. Print.
Palucka, Karolina, and Jacques Banchereau. "Cancer Immunotherapy via Dendritic Cells."
Nature. N.p., n.d. Web.




Thesis Statement
Use of Evidence from
Articles
Use of Course Readings
Analysis
Organization/Structure
Attention to

Did Not Meet

Expectations

Met
Expectations
X

Exceeded
Expectations

X

X
X

X

Genre/Conventions
and Rhetorical Factors
Sentence-level Clarity,
Mechanics, Flow

Other Comments

Leong 8

X+

Sabrina,

I was very impressed with your paper. You looked at
some of the little/micro details of each piece, and you
looked at some of the bigger/macro details like how they
establish credibility and what sources they reference.

To bump this paper up to the next level, I think you might
want to clean up your thesis statementthere was a lot
going on. Consider slowing down and picking the most
important points that you tried to get across. Id also like
you to consider making your topic sentences more
specific.

All told, though, I thought you nailed this. J

Z

A-