ENGL 312 – Final Exam

Zachary Felix
Tamara Thomson
Upload your final to LS by the end of the date and time of our final. Time yourself for 30
minutes (I don't want you to go over the time) and write on the following ideas/questions
focusing on what the class has taught you in regard to them.  (You may choose how many
questions to write on in the 30 minute time period.) Provide detailed and specific examples to
illustrate your thoughts.
The BYU Mission Statement and the Aims of a BYU Education identify the ability to
communicate effectively as a primary skill that students should acquire in a broad university
education. Writing forms the foundation of both a method of learning and a way to communicate
that learning. Effective writing requires students to “engage successfully in logical reasoning,
critical analysis, moral discrimination, creative imagination, and independent thought” (Aims).
 In what ways has English 312 taught you to “engage successfully in logical reasoning,
critical analysis, moral discrimination, creative imagination, and independent thought”?
  ENGL 312 has drastically changed the way I approach writing. Keeping the audience in
mind is critical to creating an effective argument, and I did not really understand that very well
prior to this class. I had heard of logos, pathos, and ethos before this class, but hadn’t really
grasped how they might apply to writing. Looking at my writing through the lens of keeping
those in mind has helped me to analyze and identify potential weaknesses in my writing. I know
I’m not a professional writer by any means, but I feel more capable as a writer, which is pretty
exciting. Taking an argument apart and trying to see what your audience would value (or not
value) can be an eye-opening experience. Formulating an argument that your audience will
appreciate can be kind of tricky, but after doing so successfully it can be very rewarding. I don’t
know that I’ve ever felt proud of my writing in the past, but I think that this semester I’ve written
a couple papers that I feel were something to be proud of.
 How has your thinking about the importance of audience expanded as a result of your
values interview and essay, or as a result of the audience-driven papers, or as a result of
the debate? Do you feel more capable of seeing arguments from different perspectives
from your own? Why or why not?
I feel much more capable of making compelling arguments that my audience would be
interested in. Considering counterarguments, I’ve noticed have helped me know what my
audience values, and what they think about arguments that I’m trying to make, and why they
might not agree with those arguments. It has helped me to kind of put myself in their shoes and
try to understand where they are coming from. At the beginning of the semester we talked about
establishing equal ground with our audience, and I have thought about that a lot since then. I feel
like with any issue there are at least 2 parties that want change, and most of the time their values
at least somewhat overlap. I realize that sometimes you have to generalize a lot to get to these
overlapping values, but they are there. I’ve been watching the Handmaid’s tale, and there are a
lot of these complex issues and people on opposing sides of the issues. I find myself trying to
analyze where they are coming from, and figure out where their values line up, and exactly
where those values start to differentiate. I didn’t expect that to happen, but I find that it makes
the show more enjoyable for me because it adds a layer of complexity to the plots that weren’t
there for me before.
 Wayne Booth (a famous rhetorician) said, “The only real alternative to war is rhetoric.” If
violence and rhetoric are the two most potent tools we have for persuasion, how can
listening deeply and intensely and searching for mutual understanding and common
ground be an alternative to war and violence? How can the ethical use of rhetoric prevent
violence?
I find this claim very interesting. I don’t know that I agree with it, but I will try to attempt
to answer the question still. I feel like when there is a disagreement, the parties involved try to
express themselves because they want their stance to be heard. This might be because they want
people to agree with them and they want to feel validated that they have damaged feelings. I feel
like depending on how the opposing side responds determines what will happen next. If one side
makes their argument but they don’t feel heard, then they will take more drastic measures until
they feel heard. A recent example of this is the Honor code change. There were people that
didn’t want it changed, and there were people that have been waiting for the change for a long
time. I feel like how it unfolded was a mess, and that made both parties a little uncomfortable
already, but then they felt like the other party wasn’t listening to them, which caused the 2
parties to do more intense rebuttal until they felt that they were heard. I guess what I’m trying to
say is that I think that if both parties are reasonable and willing to listen then things won’t get out
of control, but if one or both of the parties isn’t willing to listen then the issue will continue to
grow until it grows into more, which is sometimes violence.