Thrasher1 Andrew Thrasher #1 Annotation In this article the Chicchetti brothers studied data from two Wine tastings.

The article begins by talking about how art can be science and science can be art, this is one of the few main points the brothers want to get across to the reader. The Chicchetti brothers say that one thing that affects the tasting of wine, surprisingly, is the glass it is tasted out of. The brothers took a quote from Margaret Cliff. Cliff said that the glass affects the perceived total intensity of the wine (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 185). The brothers then transition to their main thesis of the article based off of the study of the glass. The glass also affects the tasting consistency of judges in a wine tasting. The main study of this article is based off wine tastings from Paris in 1976. The tastings were blind wine tastings of French and American wines. The brothers are trying to convince us, the reader, that there is consistency with judges from wine tastings. So, Arnold and Dominic chose to test the eleven judges from a Paris wine tasting in 1976 on their consistency. The brothers are trying to disprove that results from a previous wine tasting cant be reproduced. During the test they used the same ten Chardonnay Wines that were used in 1976. When they tested the red wines, the judges used a scale of 0-20 to rate the wines. This study was used to answer some of the Chicchetti brothers questions: who won the competition? How reliable (or consistent) are the judges? During the first tasting, in 1976, the judges were never tested for their reliability, so the brothers made sure they did it this time (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 186). The brothers show the data they collected from the tasting. The Chicchettis state to get a good mean

Thrasher2 rating for the wines they tested, they would need at least 9615 Judges to get a decent rating. I say decent because the brothers said that the results still wouldnt be good enough! During the testing the American wines rated lowest. The article also states that white wines are easier to taste than red wines (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 187). During the oldest tasting in 1976, the brothers observed five of the eleven tasters had better tastings than six of the other tasters. This helps prove the brothers thesis because in the most recent tasting the same five of the eleven tasters tasted the wines better than the other six. Based off of the research the brothers did, they find it important we have consistent wine tasters. From their research, they can confirm there is consistency among the original eleven judges of the wines. According to the Chicchettis the consistency of the tasters showed truth and accuracy during the wine tests. Also they believe consistency should be something that novices need to focus on to enhance their skills in tasting. They believe experts need to teach new wine tasters this skill even though it may be easy or difficult to do (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 188). The brothers say we might need to develop new instruments to measure consistency of wine tasters (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 189). One thing the brothers were not sure about in their research was the psychiatric elements that may affect tasting of wine. The article concludes with a final use of rhetoric stating this is important to have consistent tasters. The reason being is the consumers of wine will benefit from consistent tasters (Chicchetti and Chicchetti 190). The article also talks about several different terms wine tasters use.

Thrasher3 This article is interesting to me because I have never researched wine tasting. Wine tasting is related to my major because I am in Food science. Food science has several different studies related to it and one of the studies is with wine and its development. Food scientists also have wine tastings to find out what may be wrong with their wine to make improvements. #2 Analyzing the Inroduction Swales model The article by the Chicchetti Brothers brings up in the first paragraph that theyre studying Wine-tasting consistency. The brothers show this by using a transition of the glass example. At the beginning of the article the brothers talk about the importance of an appropriate glass to be tasting the wine from and how it may affect the consistency of wine tastings. They also follow Swales second rule because they state how wine tasting is related to the study of art and science and science is related to art. They prove this statement throughout the article through proof of scientific research they do with the consistency of wine tasting. The brothers also follow swales third rule by raising questions about their subject of study in the introduction. The Chicchetti brothers talk about how they want to disprove that results from a previous wine tasting cant be reproduced. The research journal also shows proof of swales fourth rule by stating that their may possibly be very consistent wine tasters. The brothers believe this will only help the wine consuming society because consistent tasters means more accurate and truthful descriptions of wine quality according to the brothers(Swales).

Thrasher4 #3 Research methods The brothers obviously did their own research over the first wine tasting, but they then made their own data for the next wine tasting. In the paper there are charts showing the new data of the wine tasters. The authors use several citations during the part of the paper where they are showing their data. Also the authors have over fifteen different sources on the issue of wine tasting consistency. The use of over fifteen sources shows that there are several people concerned over not only the 1976 wine tasting, but also the consistency of wine tasters. Which is the main concern of the Chicchetti brothers. #4 Analyzing of Rhetoric As I read through this article I see a lot of Logos. the authors give a lot of numerical proof to their research, especially while presenting their data on their charts. I noticed a little bit of pathos in the paper as well during the brothers results and discussion. In this section they are still presenting data and show excitement with their punctuation. Also they try using pathos at the end of their paper to show they care about the consumers of wine. The brothers try their best at saying consistent wine tasters will positively affect society because it will help make wines taste better for consumers. The brothers also do a great job at proving their main point about how tasters are consistent. They use a lot of logos doing this using their data obtained from the test in 1976. Since the results are consistent all the way from 1976, the reader will be persuaded quite easily just by the huge gap of time between the two tests! The original test happened in 1976, but the new test occurred around 2008. Thats over thirty years and the results were consistent!

Thrasher5 Works Cited Chicchetti, Arnold and Chicchetti, Dominic. The Balancing Act in Consistent Wine Tasting and Wine Appreciation: Part II: Consistency in Wine Tasting and Appreciation: An Empirical-Objective Perspective. Journal of wine Research. 3. 19 (2008): 185-191. Print. Swales, John. Swales and the CARS Model. 23 November 2013.