All writing is an attempt to communicate, however writing can differ greatly depending

on the purpose. Therefore, an understanding of the purpose of my piece was vital. While the

intention of an IMRaP article is to inform and educate, other genres have different base purposes

– different feelings and takeaways that they want to instill in their readers. In my project, I

attempted to create an emotional response from the reader through the form of an opinionated

blog post, through emotionally charged language and a clear concise argument.

The audience I was targeting was the first consideration when creating my project. I

decided to turn my IMRaP article into an opinion piece that one would find in a magazine or,

perhaps more likely, a blog. The audience for an IMRaP article would typically be scholars of

that field, who are specifically involved in the conversation around that topic. For instance, the

audience for the article I used on deforestation in Madagascar would mainly draw the interest of

ecologists and experts on conservation, who can understand the terms and jargon used in that

academic field. However, the audience for my translation would be an average person, who

maybe has a slight interest in the topic, or was drawn in by an engaging title. The audience

would definitely not be composed of experts in the field, so the language had to be extremely

simplified..

I chose to translate this study into an opinion piece because it captures an aspect of an

emotional, ongoing discussion; the study itself is arguing to stop deforestation, I just added

emotion to it and changed the vernacular. I turned the academic article into an emotionally

charged piece of rhetoric, aimed at persuading the audience. In this transformation, I had to leave

out much of the more dense, gritty scientific numbers and figures. A casual reader is not going to

comb through a series of statistics and cost-benefit breakdowns. Usually, in this type of opinion

piece, they’ll give a statistic or two to make it feel scientific, then allow the reader to take the rest
on faith and persuasion, so I followed this rubric. I turned the issue completely black and white,

making the opposing side seem immoral and ill-informed. I kept the reading simple and easy to

follow, without being long enough for a reader to lose interest. To achieve this, I had to cut a lot

of meat off of the study and reduce it to the basics.

While writing this piece, I had to maintain the style that accompanies my chosen genre.

While an IMRaP article has to be extremely accurate, as it will be rigorously peer-reviewed, an

average reader of an opinion piece like this won’t double check every claim made. If you write

like you know what you’re talking about, people will buy it. Therefore, it was important to write

confidently and as if I was extremely sure of what I was saying. I cut out the heavy science, and

replaced it with confidently stated, oversimplified concepts and emotional pleas. Just by

invoking academic language like “a full cost-benefit analysis, I sound like I know what I’m

talking about and make myself more trustworthy to a reader. This presents me as somebody who

is informed on the topic and is presenting good information to the reader. I tried to write as if I

was speaking directly to the reader, putting them on the spot, and making it seem like this

problem directly relates to them. I tried to directly confront the reader with the travesty at hand,

making them both aware of the problem and equally as upset about it, using language like

“dystopian hellscape” and “brutally destroyed” to convey my message. This descriptive,

hyperbolic language creates a larger, more emotional reaction from the reader, making it appear

as if this issue directly affects their life. I wanted to make the reader feel bad after reading it, as if

they were just chastised, and attribute this to the issue I presented.

This assignment presented many concerns and challenges. The first thing to consider

when beginning this project were my intentions: how did I communicate my point? What styles,

techniques, and tones did I want to incorporate to get the intended response from a reader? In
Giles’ work Reflective Writing and the Revision Process:What Were You Thinking?, she states

that intentions “are essential to a good piece of communicative writing” (Giles, 2010). I had to

take the time to fully consider exactly what my intentions were, and thus create the foundation of

my project. Additionally, these techniques and tones had to be consistent throughout my writing,

playing into William’s ideas on “coherence” (Williams, 2003). I wanted to make sure to keep the

same tone and way of speaking throughout my project, writing in such a way that put pressure on

the reader. The goal was to create one large argumentative piece that synergistically worked well

within itself – one that flowed logically and created a path for the reader to follow. Another

major concern was creating a rhetorically sound paper that catered to the audience. Kevin

Roozen stated that “Writers are always doing the rhetorical work of addressing the needs and

interests of a particular audience” (Roozen, 2015). Addressing the needs of my audience was the

most important part of my project. Writing a piece that caters to the audience, rather than being

antagonistic toward them, is extremely important in argumentative writing. I had to think of

diction and syntax that would pull in and convince my specific audience. This also plays into

Bickmore’s article on genre: I had to use the “toolset” appropriate for my given genre, in order to

write a more effective piece (Bickmore, 2016 ). Using the correct rhetorical techniques for this

given genre was an extreme concern of mine. The main challenge of this assignment was

finding an article that lent itself well to an argumentative piece. After this, fully reading through

the study and understanding it was a tall task. However, a very thorough understanding of it was

necessary in order to simplify it into more casual language and terms.

Throughout this process, I mainly focused on the effect I was having on the reader. I

attempted to create an emotional response from the reader, and bring them to my side. Turning

an IMRaP article into a piece like this required me to completely change the verbage and content
being expressed. To create the desired impact, I had to use emotional language and simplified

concepts in a concise form.

 References

Bickmore, L. (2016). GENRE in the WILD: Understanding Genre Within Rhetorical

(Eco)systems. Open English @ SLCC.

https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/openenglishatslcc/chapter/genre-in-the-wild-understanding-ge

nre-within-rhetorical-ecosystems/

Giles, S. L. (2010). Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking? In

Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing (1st ed., pp. 191-204). Parlor Press.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%

2F%2Fgauchospace.ucsb.edu%2Fcourses%2Fpluginfile.php%2F228775%2Fmod_resour

ce%2Fcontent%2F0%2Fgiles--reflective-writing-and-the-revision-process%2520%25281

%2529.pdf&clen=154053&

Roozin, K. (2015). Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity. In Naming What we Know:

Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies (pp. 1-3). Utah State University Press.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%

2F%2Fgauchospace.ucsb.edu%2Fcourses%2Fpluginfile.php%2F228707%2Fmod_resour

ce%2Fcontent%2F0%2Filovepdf_merged%2520%25287%2529.pdf&clen=165851&chu

nk=true

Williams, J. M. (2003). Cohesion and Coherence. In Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace (pp.

34-43). William and Bizup.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%

2F%2Fgauchospace.ucsb.edu%2Fcourses%2Fpluginfile.php%2F3586469%2Fmod_resou

rce%2Fcontent%2F0%2FStyle-%2520Coherence%2520%2520Cohesion.pdf&clen=3408

93&chunk=true