Caldwell 1

Comment [1]: Caldwell, it looks like you are

over the limit (11-point font).

Jordan Caldwell
Writing 2
Zack de Piero
11 May 2016
UCSB: You Can Study Buzzed

I know you've got a lot to "say" -- and that's

awesome -- but you've gotta stay within the
assignments reqs. I opened this paper up in
MS Word with 12 point font (standard) and 1
inch margins (also standard) and it was 7 full
pages.

Being a sophomore at UC Santa Barbara, a college known for its crazy and frequent
parties, I am all too familiar with the concept of underage drinking. The consumption of alcohol
has become such a social act that many students here will find any excuse to drink; every day
of the week now has a catchy nickname to motivate people to turn up: Margarita Mondays,

That's significant for two reasons: (1) each extra

page takes longer to read/respond to for me,
and (2) you're losing out on the valuable skill
(seriously) of condensing what you want to
communicate into the most crucial parts. (Ie,
less can be more!)
Comment [2]: Great title!

Tequila Tuesdays, Wine Wednesdays, Thirsty Thursdays, and of course the weekend doesnt
need a name because it automatically calls for the liquor-filled celebration of getting through five
grueling days of school. Of course, drinking with friends can be fun and can even be done

Comment [3]: Inspiring!

responsibly. But here at UCSB, as well as many other universities and even high schools, the

Seriously, though, great start: it's engaging, and

it provides a clear overview of your paper.

obsession with partying intoxicated has formed a binge-drinking culture (Coleman & Cater,
2005) in which young adultsmost of whom are under the legal age limiteither feel pressured

Comment [4]: Looks like you've got dashes

nailed down pretty solidly.

or desire to drink to the point of blacking out. This phenomenon has inspired researchers of

Comment [5]: Any way to work in parallelism

here?

many disciplines to produce studies that examine adolescent drinking from varying viewpoints.
Different disciplinesbiology and sociology in particularask certain questions regarding the
prevalence of underage drinking and therefore conduct research on the topic using distinct
experimental techniques. The conventions used in The link between testosterone and
amygdalaorbitofrontal cortex connectivity in adolescent alcohol (The link) and Underage
binge drinking: A qualitative study into motivations and outcomes (Under-age binge drinking)
to portray this information differ across these disciplines and even more so from mainstream
media sources. Contrasting these two articles will shine light on the unique rhetorical
conventions and movesthe choices made by the author and the techniques used to ignite a
response from the reader (Bunn, 71) that categorize these essays as biological or
sociological. Further contrast with Underage drinking: Parents who host lose the most (Parents

Comment [6]: You could also call it the

"biology article" and the "sociology article." Just
a thought... but I do like how you're abbreviating
them.

Caldwell 2
who host) will exhibit differences between the ways underage drinking is discussed in a
research context and in the media.
The biology research article The link, written by Peter et al., explores the hypothesis that
sex hormones like testosterone heighten risky behaviorsuch as heavy drinkingby

Comment [7]: I don't really see an argument

here, Caldwell.
What point(s) are you trying to make? And
what are you going to rely on to make your
case?
What about moves? What about conventions?

influencing the development of limbic brain areas involved in emotion and motivation, like the
amygdala (Peters et al. 2015). Although the significant findings could only be applied to boys,
the general purpose of the study is to show evidence that would encourage the production of
prevention programs to reduce alcohol-related issues and overall extreme risk-taking in
adolescents. It is also backed by a surplus of evidence from prior research papers written by

They're similar, they're different -- OK... so

what? Who cares??

Comment [8]: <~~ OK, I like this a lot right

here. Is this relevant to your argument/thesis?
It could be.
If so, consider finding a way to weave it in more
explicitly.
Comment [9]: Such as?

other established researchers in the field. Like many biological scholarly articles, the evidence is
not provided in quotation form but rather stated like a normal sentence with the in-text citation at
the end: prior studies have shown that self-report measures of alcohol use are reliable if
confidentiality is ensured (Sobell and Sobell, 1990; Brener et al., 2002) (Peters et al., 2015).
This technique establishes the formal, non-conversational tone in which the authors are purely
attempting to back their findings with evidence rather than their credentials. One of the authors
moves that is typical of other biological research papers is the title format. Notice that only the

Comment [10]: This seems waaaaaaay down

on there on the importance scale...
Really worth bringing this up? If so, it's gotta
directly support your argument.
Comment [11]: I like that you've incorporated
this into your paper/paragraph, but I don't like
where it is.
Mis/displaced within the paragraph?

first letter of the first word in the title is capitalized. The title is written in proper CSE format, also
known as Scientific Style Format, which is indicative that the paper is scientific and researchbased. A move they make that is typical of many writing forms is the Calling Authorical
Action(They Say, I Say) move, as demonstrated in Raichle (2010) argues that (Peters et al.
2015). The statement lets the audience know that the evidence will either support or refute the
authors argument.
This article is a good example of the standard scholarly research paper in that it contains
the IMRAD structure that defines the genrethe abstract, introduction, methods, etc. is all
clearly labelled. The paper even includes subsections to further organize the content. For
example, the Discussion section (labeled section 4) has four subcomponents (4.1, 4.2, etc.)

Comment [12]: This comment is in reference

to the whole paragraph:
When I see thiseven before I start readingI
think, Ahhhhhhh! Attack of the page-long
paragraph!
See if you like this metaphor:
Pretend your whole paper is a big, juicy steak.
Do you want your reader to enjoy that steak in
easy-to-chew, digestable bites? Or do you want
them to start gnawing away at whole thing in
one piece (think: zombie).
Paragraphs are like those bites. Give your
reader your argument in little, digestable, oneidea-at-a-time bits.
Readers need to be able to see the different
parts/pieces/bites of the argument that theyre
chewing on.
Comment [13]: Did I make this comment on
your WP1? I thought I did...
Regardless, make friends with paragraphs. ;)

Caldwell 3
that separates the interpretations of each finding and the limitations and further research topics.
Each main section seemingly delves deeper and deeper into the topic. The abstract is the
broadest section, in that it provides a vague but sufficient qualitative summary of why the
authors experimented and what they found. As the essay progresses, the reader transitions
further into more quantitative sections like the results that gives numeric meaning to their
findings and allows for statistical analysis. The discussion towards the end explains what those

Comment [14]: Pretty insightful thought here,

Caldwell.
Question: why is it worth knowing this? How
does this relate/compare to the other 2 pieces?
Is this a crucial part of your argument?

Comment [15]: #s about what?

numbers mean for science. Back at the beginning, the essay provides key termssuch as
testosterone, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortexto encourage the reader to familiarize himself
with in order to comprehend the content. Besides that, the paper contains mostly operational
definitions, in which terms are indirectly defined by how they are measured. For example, the
authors compare mean values of participants left and right amy-OFC connectivities rather than
give an explicit definition of what that is. Thats because it is assumed that the audience is
already familiar with the concept. The likely audience of this piece consists of fellow biologists
either wanting to update themselves on current research or looking for areas of the field in
which to experiment further. Intense usage of scientific jargon shows that the primary audience
most likely already has background knowledge in the subject and/or is an expert in that field.
Under-age binge drinking, the sociological scholarly article by Coleman and Cater,
examines factors that encourage adolescents to partake in binge drinking by conducting indepth interviews. The objective of this study is to use these factors to incorporate stronger
alcohol education in schools and essentially change the binge-drinking culture (Coleman &
Cater, 2005). Similar to the essay by Peter et al. (discussed above), the evidence is
incorporated directly into the text in the form of references to past studies and often is stated as
the authors own information: acknowledging a harm-minimization approachis the first step to
reducing the harmful outcomes (DfES, 2004) (Coleman & Cater, 2005). This form of evidence
again establishes formality and passivity. Coleman and Cater use several moves to establish
rhetoric, or the combination of persuasive devices authors use to write appropriately for a given

Comment [16]: OK... can you garner any

insights here into what this says about how
these biologists study boozing? What they
value in their research? How they "see" the
world of underage college hullabaloo?

Caldwell 4
situation (Boyd, 100). They segmented the different motivations they found for underage
drinking into sections titled by the type of motivation itself and then conceptually defined each
one before giving quoted evidence from the interviews. They also incorporated interviewees
uses of slang words (ie. buzz (Coleman & Cater, 2005)) in the discussion of participants
quotes. This move establishes reliability by showing that the researchers did not skew words.
Another significant move is their use of parallelism at the beginning of their discussion: Studies
by Honess et al. (2000), Hughes et al. (1997), Kloep et al. (2001), Newcombe, Measham &
Parker (1995), and Pavis et al. (1997) include the comparable themes of social facilitation,
individual reasons and social influences (Coleman & Cater, 2005). Parallelism organizes the
content into words that mesh well together and make more sense visually to the reader.
Like The link, this one is also a scientific scholarly article as discernable by its
predictable IMRAD structure, CSE formatted title, and formal tone. However, the sociological
approach requires a more qualitative approach, as shown by the interview method as a
measure for drinking factors. Terms are mostly defined conceptually since there are no
quantitative measures taken. In the results section the authors define and discuss common
motivations for binge drinking such as social facilitation, individual benefits, and social norms
and influence (Coleman & Cater, 2005). Analysis of the results was based on generating
common themes by comparing peoples answers to similar questions rather than summarizing
and comparing quantitative data. The authors do, however, use percentages to give a better
representation of the proportion of people that belonged to a certain group, but only in the
introduction: figures report that 56% of 1516 year olds binge drink at least once a
month(Alcohol Concern, 2004) (Coleman & Cater, 2005). The primary audience for this
article is probably researchers in the field of sociology as indicated by the sampling strategies
and qualitative analysis. But this article is one that could easily be comprehensive and
significant to the general public, such as parents and even students.

Caldwell 5
Despite them both being academic articles, there are major differences between the two.
For instance, the sociology paper contains no scientific jargon. It carries a similar formal tone,
but the vocabulary consists of terminology that the general public can easily grasp. This
difference in diction is merely due to the different approaches each paper took: the sociology
paper recorded interviews, whereas the biology paper observed physiological features of which
not everybody may be familiar with. Underage binge drinking also has less in-text citations
overall compared to The Link. This is because the information requires less backingColeman
and Cater use more of their own experimental findings from the interviews as opposed to the
biology paper, which uses considerable past research to support their current results. A more
significant contrast is evident in their analyzing techniques. Underage binge drinking
implements a qualitative analysis by conducting interviews, providing evidence through
participants quotes, and interpreting those quotes. The link uses a strict quantitative analysis. It
gives numerical evidence in the form of measurements and figures (graphs, tables, images) and
uses statistical analyses such as standard deviations and z scores to make comparison. All
these differences stem from the fact that each field asks a completely different question about
underage drinking. Both of these approaches are equally valid, but simply target different kinds
of researchers.
The two articles may have considerable distinguishing characteristics from one another,
but these differences are subtle when comparing them to a media source discussing the same
topic. Underage drinking: Parents who host lose the most is a recently written online news
article published in the New Jersey Herald that encourages parents to discourage their children
from drinking. Its structure is much different than the scholarly pieces. The tone is much more
informal and the authors credibility relies on quoted evidence by one personBecky Carlson,

Comment [17]: Any reason why you chose to

do the 2 scholarly sources (and their
similarities) FIRST and then this non-academic
text AFTER? I don't know the answer to this,
but could switching them enhance your paper at
all?
Comment [18]: Evidence?

executive director of the Center for Prevention and Counselingas opposed to mainly in-text
citations from multiple sources in the other articles. The informal tone appeals to the general
public in its easy-to-read manner while still building ethos through the use of quotes from a

Comment [19]: Quotes about? Do "quotes"

function differently in these pieces? Are they
used in different ways?

Caldwell 6
knowledgeable source. The source should appeal to the public since it is found on a common
website. A more subtle but significant difference is that the online article is not constrained by
personal bias. A constraint limits the way the author can convey information (Carroll, 49).
Whereas scholarly articles must avoid giving biased information to retain credibility (personal
bias can skew data), the New Jersey Herald author is free to take whatever side he wants. This
freedom may, however, cause some readers to question the reliability of the information. That
is what his outside sources are for.
The authors moves are also unique to his piece. He uses a Setting the Scene move
when he starts out with It has become a dangerous world for. This creates an anticipative
mood in which the audience wants to see whats coming next. This kind of move is not
necessary in an academic article because people reading it are doing so for information. The
author also stylizes his paragraphs into just one or two sentences each, which makes the
content easier to read. All of these simpler components demonstrate for the articles use in a
public setting.
The disparities in rhetorical conventions among these different sources do not make one
more important than the other. Popular media is arguably one of the biggest sources of
information today. Without a public source like the New Jersey Herald post, the general public
would most likely remain uninformed about topics like underage drinking. However, academic
journals are just as significant because they contribute to advances in both social and hard
sciences. It is necessary for different disciplines to take different approaches, for it leaves less
questions unanswered.

Works Cited
Boyd, Janet. Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking). Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed.
Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2011.
87101. Print.

Comment [20]: You didn't go too in depth on

this piece. I wonder why...

Caldwell 7

Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles
Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2011. 7186.
Print.

Carroll, Laura B. Backpacks vc. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis. Writing Spaces:
Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Library of Congress-inPublication Data, 2010. 4558. Print.

Cater, Suzanne, Coleman, Lester. Underage binge drinking: A qualitative study into
motivations and outcomes. Drugs: education, prevention and policy 12.2 (2005): 125136.
Web. 11 May 2016.

Crone, Eveline A., Jolles, Deitsje J., Peper, Jiska S., Peters, Sabine, Van Duijvenvoorde, Anna
C.K. The link between testosterone and amygdalaorbitofrontal cortex connectivity in
adolescent alcohol use. Psychoneuroendocrinology 53. (2015): 117-126. Web. 11 May 2016.

Scruton, Bruce A. Underage drinking: Parents who host lose the most. New Jersey Herald.
The New Jersey Herald, 8 May 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.

Thesis Statement

Did Not Meet

Met

Exceeded

Expectations

Expectations

Expectations

Caldwell 8

X-

Use of Textual Evidence from

Genres
Use of Course Readings

Analysis

X+

Organization/Structure

X-

Attention to Genre/Conventions

and Rhetorical Factors

Attention to Moves
Exploration of Disciplinarity

XX
X+

Sentence-level Clarity,
Mechanics, Flow
Caldwell,
Comments and Grade

You stayed on task for this assignment -- great news

on that front. :) Take my comments into
consideration and try to use them for ways to
enhance this WP2 for your portfolio. You have a
great start and put yourself in great position.

My #1 piece of advice to you is: find your argument.

Look at these pieces through our Writing 2 lens --

Caldwell 9

what do you see? What do you want to

claim/declare about here that you can back up with
textual support? Forget about the inconsequential
stuff -- focus on the big-picture so what? Who
cares? questions.

Z
8/10