The Fabulous Life of Logic, Facts, Editing with Coffee, and Wikilies

Meta Discourse

            The organizational pattern the author chose is effective and helps organize the arguments. According to Kaufer this argument is working on the third conflict source level in that it makes statements and holds evidence directly supporting its claims. For example, number 8 claims that contributors with an agenda often prevail, then sites a controversial issue from 2009. The claim starts at the fact stases and ends up at the value stases as the reader begins to understand the gravity of the situation.

            In regards to the stases, I found that the statements more meaningful by organizing the arguments with the most important and effective stasis up front. This was easily fixed by changing the order the arguments were presented in. For example, argument #9 is that “you especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.” A fact statement was supporting this argument; a cause stases is better fit as it presents the support in a logical manner. Since the context is lack of legitimacy it is ok to use logic rather than truth because there is no definite truth to share with the reader (Jones).  

            The juggling of truth and logic can be used to foster solid arguments. It’s imperative to know when to use them as they can avoid assumptions, which tend to weaken formal arguments. Before I changed the wording in #4 it based its discourse on values and assumptions. Now it focuses on accurate editors as opposed to active ones – active does not mean accurate.

            As an editor I found analyzing sentence structure to come naturally. I could easily assess when the emphasis was placed in the wrong part of a sentence. Staying focused on the purpose of the article helped me tweak the statements to better support the claims. I used tips outlined in elements of style that recommend placing the most important parts of the sentence at then end. I had the most trouble with finding adjectives to replace broad claims. When taking a stance on an issue it is important to use specific diction that leads readers to a concrete conclusion as opposed to one of assumptions.