ENCS Exam Material

Communica)on
to Engineers
• professional norms of technical

communica1on and dominant forms of
sharing knowledge within the professional
fields of engineering and computer science.
• Eng’s will be involved in the decision making
and forming public policy
Ethical considera1ons
• Specifica1on standards (professional and
legal)
• Technical writers must be accurate in their work. They must be precisely correct
at all 1mes, or they are unethical.
• Technical writers must be honest in their work. Technical writers who write
untruths are unethical.
• Technical writers must always honor their obliga1ons. Technical writers who do
not produce the documents and other materials they are responsible for within
the agreed-‐upon 1me-‐frame are unethical.
• Technical writers must not subs1tute specula1on for fact. Technical writers who
do not clearly separate opinion from accepted truth are unethical.
• Technical writers must not hide truth with ambiguity. Technical writers who play
down facts that would be contrary to the theses of their reports are unethical.
• Technical writers must not use the ideas of others without giving
proper credit. Technical writers who fail to document the sources
of all non-‐original ideas, except for common knowledge, are
unethical.
• Technical writers must not violate copyright laws. Technical writers
who fail to document the use of copyrighted materials when used
with permission or under “fair use” are unethical. Addi1onally,
technical writers who use any copyrighted materials without
permission when these uses are not covered by “fair use” are
unethical whether the materials are documented or not.
• Technical writers must not lie with sta1s1cs. Technical writers who
manipulate data or graphical representa1ons of data, use
inappropriate or improper sta1s1cal tests, or employ loaded
sta1s1cal samples are unethical.
• Technical writers must not inject personal bias into their reports.
Technical writers who are less than objec1ve in everything they
write are unethical.
Format for Technical Defini1on
• Term = Classifica.on + Differen.a.on
• Most mechanism descrip.ons begin with a one-‐sentence technical

defini.on. Technical defini.ons follow this basic form:
• 1) Term; 2) Category; 3) Dis1nguishing Feature/s
• Example:
• ‘A chisel is a tool for carving wood.’
MD Structure
• Introduc1on
– Define the mechanism with a technical defini1on and
add extensions necessary for the reader to
understand the discussion.
– Describe the mechanism’s overall func1on or
purpose.
– Describe the mechanism’s overall appearance (shape,
size, color, material, finish, texture, etc.)
– List the mechanism’s parts in the order in which they
will be described.
MD Structure Con1nued
• Discussion
– Step 1
• Define first part with a technical defini1on.
• Describe the part’s overall func1on or purpose.
• Describe the part’s shape, material, etc.
• Transi1on to the next part.
– Steps 2 to n
• Repeat as for step 1 for the remainder of the parts.
• Conclusion
– Summarize and provide closure.
Process Descrip1on Outline
• Introduc1on
– Define the mechanism with a technical defini1on and
add extensions to discuss any theory or principles
necessary for the reader to understand what you are
saying. Make sure you include only what the reader
needs for your purposes.
– Describe the purpose, func1on, and opera1on of the

mechanism.
– List major steps of the mechanism’s opera1on.

• Discussion
• Step #1
– Define the step with a logical defini1on and discuss it
in reasonable depth.
– Describe the equipment, material, or concepts
involved in this step.
– Describe what happens during this step.
– Show the rela1onship between this step and the next
step with a transi1on statement.
Step #2-‐n (repeat paAern for step #1)

• Conclusion
– Briefly summarize the mechanism’s func1on and
the major steps of its opera1on.
– Give a sense of finality to the paper.
BUT….giving specific instruc1ons is

oèn a far more challenging task!
Instruc1ons Vs. Process Descrip1ons
• Describing to a medical student what happens when
an inflamed appendix is removed.
VS
• Describing to a surgical resident, hovering over a
pa1ent with scalpel in hand, how to remove an
inflamed appendix.
• To appreciate the difference, just imagine you are the

pa.ent!
Instruc1ons Outline
• Introduc1on
– Define the overall process.
– Describe its purpose.
– Explain any needed theory or
principles.
– List the steps.
Instruc1ons Outline
• Discussion
– For each step listed above:
• Define the step.
• Describe generally what happens in this step.
• Provide needed informa1on specific to this step:
– Note any dangers and cau1ons.
– List required equipment or tools.
• Provide specific direc1ons for execu1ng this step.
• Describe the result that should occur.
• Transi1on to the next step (if there is one).
Instruc1ons Outline
• Conclusion
– Briefly summarize the steps of the
process.
– Tell the reader where to find addi1onal
informa1on (if applicable).
Public Understanding of Science and
Technology
• PUST
• The Deficit Model – the assump1on on the part of
ins1tu1ons and their science communicators that
the public is ignorant about science – but that it
(for this is a singular representa1on of the
‘public’) would accept science readily if it only
knew more (with ‘science’ similarly being singular
rather than plural or heterogeneous). Suggests
one-‐way communica1on with a passive audience soaking
up facts.
Public Engagement with Science and
Technology
• PEST
• Contextual Model – Emphasizes a more open and two-‐way
rela1onship between ‘the sciences’ and ‘the publics’. Calls
for bi-‐lateral dialogue and engagement, emphasizing that
lay people can also be informed and knowledgeable within
the condi1ons of every day life, and, indeed, that science
might have as much to learn as to communicate when it
comes to understanding social reali1es. Suggests a two-‐
way communica)on with an ac)ve/engaged audience
receiving and transmi:ng facts.
Technology Assessment Paradigms
• Classical Technology Assessment Paradigm – Impact

studies designed to fulfill an early warning func1on.
• The OTA Paradigm – Government affiliated,
independent assessments with some inclusion.
• Public Technology Assessment Paradigm –
Consensus Commifees, Ci1zen Juries, etc.
• Construc7ve Technology Assessment Paradigm –
Plugging public into R & D
Feasibility Report Outline 1
• Introduc1on
– What is the purpose of this report?
(purpose)
– What is the problem that needs to be
solved? (problem)
– What are the alterna1ves and criteria?
(scope)
• Discussion (repeat as needed)
– What is the criterion, why was it selected, and
how will it be used? (explana1on)
– What are the findings (data) for the criterion?
(data)
– What is your interpreta1on of the data for this
criterion rela1ve to each alterna1ve solu1on?
(interpreta1on)
• Conclusion
– What are the data and interpreta1ons? (summary)
– What are the conclusions based on the data and
interpreta1ons? (conclusion)
– What is your recommended solu1on based on these
conclusions? (recommenda1on)
– Who is the contact for this report? (contact)
– What sources and references were used?
(documenta1on)
– What materials are needed for support, but not for
understanding the report? (appendix)
Fallacies
• Fallacy: A defect in an argument that consists in something other than
merely false premises.
• Fallacies can be commifed in many ways, but usually they involve
either a mistake in reasoning or the crea1on of some illusion that
makes a bad argument appear good (or both).
• Formal Fallacy: iden1fied through mere inspec1on of the form or
structure of an argument (slide 3). -‐-‐-‐Found only in deduc1ve arguments
• 1. All X are Y.

• 2. All Z are Y.
• -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
• Therefore, all X are Z.
Informal Fallacies
• Informal Fallacies: those that can be detected only through
analysis of the content of the argument.
• All factories are plants.

• All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
• -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
• Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
• Seems like a valid deduc1ve argument…un1l we analyze the

content of the argument. (looks like: All A are B. All B are C.
Therefore All A are C – a valid form of argument applying the
property of transi1vity). But is actually: All A are B. All C are
D, Therefore all A are D – not even a deduc1ve argument..
Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of relevance: arguments that have premises that are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant
psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the
premises, even though it does not follow logically.
• Argument against the person (Ad Hominem)

• Appeal to force (Ad Baculum)
• Appeal to pity (Ad Misericordiam)
• Appeal to the people (Ad Populum)
• Straw Man (misrepresenta1on of an opponent's argument.)
• Red Herring (misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.)
Fallacies of Weak Induc1on
• Fallacies of weak induc1on: occur not because the premises
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as with fallacies of
relevance, but because the connec1on between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
• Appeal to unqualified Authority (ad Verecundiam)

• Appeal to Ignorance (true because it has)
• Hasty Generaliza1on
• False Cause (false cause n effect)
• Slippery Slope (a rela1vely small first step leads to a
chain of related events culmina1ng in some significant effect)
• Weak Analogy
Others Fallacies
• Begging the Ques1on
• Loaded Ques1on
• Correla1on Vs. Causa1on

Toulmin Model
Deduc1on
• Deduc1on: the process of deriving a conclusion that necessarily
follows from a set of premises.
– 1. All cats are mammals.

– 2. All mammals are warm-‐blooded.
– -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
– Therefore, all cats are warm-‐blooded.
• Moving from the general to the specific.

• A “top down” approach.
Induc1on
• Induc1on: the process of drawing a conclusion, or supposing based on
past observa1on, that a par1cular hypothesis is true.
• 1. All previously observed birds have feathers.

• -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
• Therefore all birds probably have feathers.
• Moving from the specific to the general.

• A “bofom up” approach.
• COGENT ARGUMENT: an induc1ve argument that is strong and has all
true premises; if either condi1on is missing, the argument is uncogent.
Deduc1on and Induc1on
Induc1on and Deduc1on
Remember your ‘TAPSS’!
• ‘Topic/Audience/Purpose/ Structure & Style’:
• What are you wri1ng about?

• Who are you wri1ng to?
• Why are you wri1ng?
• How/how should you write – Format &
Formality
Memo Format

TO: (readers' names and job titles)
FROM: (your name and job title) (sign your
initials)
DATE: (complete and current date)
SUBJECT: (what the memo is about,
highlighted in some way)
Ethos
• Ethos refers to writer or speaker’s (or
organiza1on's or website’s )‘Ethics’ = reliability
• Respectability
• Reputa1on
• Recognised exper1se
• Profile
• Posi1on
• Personal charm & charisma
Pathos
• Pathos’ refers to the audience’s emo1ons
• Pathos aims to persuade readers by appealing to

their:
• Sympathy, guilt, greed, vanity, pride, lust, …
• Pathos techniques oèn make use of images, colour

schemes, music, body language, and other non-‐
linguis1c elements to influence audience.
Logos
• Logos is the persuasive technique most familiar
to us.
It uses :
• Logic
• Ra1onal argumenta1on
• Empirical proofs
• Experimental results
• Sta1s1cs
Kairos
• Kairos refers to the ‘1meliness’ of the speaker’s

rhetoric
• It is the “passing instant when an opening appears

which must be driven through with force if success is
to be achieved.“
• How does the rhetorical act fit with contemporary

thought, or specific current events?
Primary research
Original, First-‐hand study of a topic
• Informa1ve Interviews
• Surveys and Ques1onnaires
• Inquiry Lefers
• Official Records
• Observa1ons and Experiments
Internet and Digital Research
• Online News and Magazines
• Government research Sites and Other Government
Documents
• Community Discussion Groups and Bulle1n boards
• Blogs and Wikis
• Email Lists
• Online videos and Streaming
• Internet-‐Searchable Library Databases
C.A.R.S. Method for Evalua1ng Online
Resources
• (C)redibility
• (A)ccuracy
• (R)easonableness
• (S)upport
Wri1ng informa1ve abstracts
• 1. Understand substance of the piece.
• 2. Decide early how to organize abstract.
• 3. What are main topics?
• 4. Choose only necessary informa1on about

main topics.
Abstract
• Typically, an informa1ve abstract answers
these ques1ons in about 100-‐250 words:
– Why did you do this study or project?

– What did you do, and how?
– What did you find?
– What do your findings mean?
Execu1ve Summaries
• Normally used with large technical reports (such as
formal proposals, and other fully developed business
or technical documents).
• Extended, stand alone abstracts that have both

informa1ve and descrip1ve characteris1cs.
• Contain both substance and structure of the report.
• Oèn used as subs1tute for full report/proposal.

Execu1ve Summaries
• Designed to provide key management and staff with enough
informa1on about what is in a report so that these execu1ves
can make informed decisions without reading en1re
document. (hence the name)
• Oèn first thing seen by execu1ves/management to see if

worth passing along to in-‐house experts (who then analyze
complete report).
• Because these summaries oèn take the place of the report
for key decision makers, these summaries can take on cri1cal
importance and must be well wrifen!

ENCS Exam Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENCS Exam Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communica)on

• professional norms of technical

• Term = Classiﬁca.on + Diﬀeren.a.on

• Most mechanism descrip.ons begin with a one-­‐sentence technical

• 1) Term; 2) Category; 3) Dis1nguishing Feature/s

– Describe the purpose, func1on, and opera1on of the

– List major steps of the mechanism’s opera1on.

Step #2-­‐n (repeat paAern for step #1)

BUT….giving speciﬁc instruc1ons is

• To appreciate the diﬀerence, just imagine you are the

• Classical Technology Assessment Paradigm – Impact

• 1. All X are Y.

• All factories are plants.

• Seems like a valid deduc1ve argument…un1l we analyze the

• Argument against the person (Ad Hominem)

• Appeal to unqualiﬁed Authority (ad Verecundiam)

• Begging the Ques1on

• Correla1on Vs. Causa1on

– 1. All cats are mammals.

• Moving from the general to the speciﬁc.

• 1. All previously observed birds have feathers.

• Moving from the speciﬁc to the general.

• What are you wri1ng about?

• Pathos’ refers to the audience’s emo1ons

• Pathos aims to persuade readers by appealing to

• Pathos techniques o`en make use of images, colour

• Kairos refers to the ‘1meliness’ of the speaker’s

• It is the “passing instant when an opening appears

• How does the rhetorical act ﬁt with contemporary

• 2. Decide early how to organize abstract.

• 3. What are main topics?

• 4. Choose only necessary informa1on about

– Why did you do this study or project?

• Extended, stand alone abstracts that have both

• Contain both substance and structure of the report.

• O`en used as subs1tute for full report/proposal.

• O`en ﬁrst thing seen by execu1ves/management to see if

You might also like

• Most mechanism descrip.ons begin with a one-‐sentence technical

Step #2-‐n (repeat paAern for step #1)