Since eyewitnesses of the incident are used in this article, it is very likely to be credible and accurate.

I chose this article because the article really caught my eye with the title. Since this is a single incident report, it is very unlikely to find additional evidence on this story. There may be other news sites that cover it, but that is all that will be found.

The idea of pushing gender on someone has always made me feel uncomfortable. Luckily I was blessed with parents who were understanding and let me and my sisters discover ourselves when we were children and didn't push who they wanted us to be on us.

My grandfather always says that men's brains are heavier because they never use them.

GENDER ROLES ARE DEAD!

Why can't people understand that just because someone happens to fit the criteria and speaks up about their beliefs and experiences doesn't automatically make them the spokesperson for that identity? Not everything they say is set in stone and are the rules for every single person who identifies the same way that one person does. Every individual is unique and don't necessarily have to believe or feel the same way a person who identifies the same way does. We all have our own backgrounds and ideologies that make us who we are and our differences are what make us so beautiful and human.

To wrap up the episode, Koenig uses Adnan and his experiences with the system to talk about how the system is not as just as people think it is.He explains that he believed the truly innocent would be found so, and that only the real guilty people would claim so. After the fact, he realizes that this is not the case. Sometimes there is no way to prove your innocence, and that taking the guilty plea might actually save you from a harsher sentence. This really speaks to how distraught the supposed justice system is. It wraps up this episode perfectly. That no matter how hard you try not to have prejeduce, and to have the truth speak for itself, this is not how the real world works. The world is not fair, and sometimes we must do things we do not want, such as taking a plea even if you didn't do it, in order to minimize damage done.

Koenig places this piece of evidence in very well. It strong, but mostly because she makes it apparent that it was there, but it wasn't the underlying cause of Adnan's conviction. She describes multiple instances where people just make assumptions about Adnan's inheritance. There are a few cases of more extreme prejudice, but she describes how those accusations are thwarted very quickly. It helps prove that no matter how hard people may or may not try, we all have ideas and assumptions about certain people or groups.

This is a stronger piece of evidence that supports Koenig's idea that Adnan was not properly defended. His defense attorney, the person that is trying to convince the jury tha the is innocent, seemed off. The remainder discusses how Cristina was very different during this trial and afterwords. She would be demanding money, would not jump on things she should, and in general lacked the abilities her reputation claimed she had. Had she been at her A game and not off, the trial may have ended a lot differently for Adnan.

This episode is all about Koenig reviewing what happened in the trial, and everything that could have or did affect the outcome of the trial. Adnan's mother was talking about how she believed Adnan was targeted simply because of his hesitance. This is a more weak piece of evidence. Not only does Koenig not buy this explanation, but the judge does not either. Throughout this episode, the judge is shown as being very wary about any biases. He would not have allowed Adnan to be tried simply because of how he was raised.

Summer's statements can be trusted and sounds convincing. She is not biased to any side and has nothing to do with Adnan. Summer is just sharing the information, which seems like a fact. She was with Hae at school around 2:30 or 2:45 suggests that Hae was alive that time and 2:36 call cannot be about Hae's murder. This is very convincing and clarifies that Jay is lying. There are two evidences now- one is that there is no pay phone near the Best Busy, and second that Hae was alive that time.

Laura's statement about her stealing CD's suggest that she must have been proactive and is aware of all the corners of the Best Buy. Here, Laura's statement is credible (ethos). This is because; any person trying to steal from store would doubly check for all the phones is and around the store. I am convinced with Laura's statement of not having any phone booth or pay phone around.

This is a very important piece of information. This can prove that Adnan is innocent and cannot be held guilty for Hae's murder. Koenig is using logs here. It is logical that Jay lied because Jay has clearly used the name 'Best Buy'; but when there is no pay phone or phone booth there; then Adnan could not have called Jay from there. This is very convincing and can be a crucial evidence in Adnan's favor.

Garrett Welch gwelch2

Nate Krammes

Khalid AL Hashimi

Quanbin Zhong

Alabdullah Hussain ehussain

Sam Ritter, spritter

I really want to know the connection of Spain's improvement with that of 'Brexit'. Though, the losses are really high in all the European countries. This looks like a mystery.

This is not convincing. The effect of 'Brexit' is clearly visible all over the world. The stock exchanges of all the countries have fallen flat. In the long run, it could be possible that impact would be more local.

The appeal used here is logos. This is convincing as the impact on the markets in eurozone would be long lasting. Also, the strategist at J.P. Morgan Cazenove must have analyzed the market before making such statements.

The story is particularly written keeping in mind the investors. The investors in the stock market are the worst affected due to 'Brexit'.

This story has created ripples all over. 'Brexit' has resulted in crashing of stock markets across the world.

This article is essentially just using pieces of information from a plethora of other sites, and is not using many first person accounts directly, leading to a questionable article. However, it does present the knowledge that this topic is covered extensively and could be easily researched further.

This article is classified as a blog, which tends to be an opinion piece. It's also from a religious backed company, and one that I have had factual errors on in previous usage of the site. As a result of these three reasons, I do not feel this is a very credible source.

This article is important because it details a real world problem that is affecting people around the globe financially. My outside knowledge knows that it negatively impacted our stock market in a tremendous way.

This very simple link within the article shows other places we could go to find more information on driverless cars, proving there is an areas for further study of the topic.

By being published in a journal dedicated to science, it appears to be credible. Also, it is an article on study findings, not necessarily an opinion piece.

This describes the social dilemma that people are finding with self driving cars. They want the cars to save as many lives as possible, but do not want to the car to endanger them in the process. IT shows that the audience is the general public and those planning on using these cars.

Another interesting article, this one dealing with social ideas and advanced technology.

This quote does two things. It starts off by showing the audience. Chocolate consumers may be impacted by this change, and will have to determine if they like it. It also shows a way to find more information. With further research being done, it is very likely to have more stories at a later date, as well as previously referencing that there was a published paper over the findings, which could give more detailed information.

Unfortunately, it appears that the reasoning behind this research is not simply to make chocolate healthier, but to also make sure that production is kept at its standard rates.

Having university researchers show the findings definitely gives a credibility to the work, as it is most likely an unbiased source for information.

This is an interesting article for several reasons; I like science, and making food healthier is arguably a very important step we need to take.

Koenig uses words that paint Jay in a bad light. Trying to make him sound untrustworthy. The text around this particular quote talks about how he wasn't like the rest of the people around him, how he did not totally fit in with the others. Makes him out to be an outcast, which could lead some people to believe he does in fact have something to gain.

Cristina Gutierrez, Adnan's defense attorney, clearing up that Jay was admitting to not telling the police everything he knew, and for lying. This logos supports Koenig's thesis well in that it is direct evidence, from Jay, stating that he never fully told the truth. This is a strong support of Koenig's claim.

This is Koenig's thesis for the episode. Up until this point, she has not believed Jay and always was suspicious of him. This episode focused on trying to flesh out Jay and determine just what could convince others that he was not fully truthful.

By opening up each episode with this statement, or ones similar to it, Koenig demonstrates that this is a more professional podcast. It has backing from companies. It tells who the author is (Koenig) and gives a sense of authority. This ethos appeals to the audience in that this person's words should be held to a higher regard and listened to.

A juror is describing to Koenig just why she believed Jay. She feels that the only reason that Jay would not be lying is that he has nothing to gain from it. She thought he was still going to jail himself, and had no reason to blame Adnan except for seeing the murderer going to jail. Looking at it through the juror's perspective, this is a good demonstration of logos. She is using her believed fact that Jay has not reason to lie to justify him blaming Adnan. Looking at this same idea from Jay, he has shown a very particular type of pathos, appealing to emotion. He has this juror thoroughly convinced that he is saying what he is saying out of the goodness of his heart, because he is a kid that got into trouble and is taking responsibility. Jay has this juror feeling for him, believing in his character.

Koenig is explaining how the character of Jay was not the best. In high school he was known to be a sketchy guy and not the best influence on other students. So, other students were not surprised to see Jay part of a murder. Koenig is using ethos.

Koenig is using Stella Armstrong to show how charismatic Jay was on stand. Also, she uses Stella to prove that Jay was a very important and influential witness.

Koenig uses logic to convince the audience that Jay is not a good witness and the case may not be strong either.

This text suggests that Adnan is not confident. He is trying to hide something and at the same time he wants to emphasize on something, which he himself does not believe. His language and usage of 'you now' so many times suggest that he is not confident and in a panicky state.

Adnan seems to be in lighter mood when he says that the craziest thing is to be high and have the police call at your phone. This can be possible in the case that he is carefree and has no fear as he knows that he is innocent.

Sarah is changing strategy here. Till now she was trying to prove Adnan innocent. But, now she is tying to flip the other side of the coin too. She just wants to weigh all the pros and cons before reaching any conclusion.

This line suggests that Adnan is guilty and this was used to prove the same in the court. However, this page could have ripped up earlier or it could be a coincidence too.

Sarah Koeing, the writer seems to be doubtful about this piece of evidence, and it is clear in the way she writes it here.

Merkel is approaching the crisis very well by being calm and thinking through the crisis. Also, author is affirming that the speaker is a credible source.

It does not make sense to me that the European Union would be pushing Britain to leave the quickly. I think that they would be trying to convince the UK to stay.

I am fascinated with the European Union and Britain's decision to leave it.

I understand why the author included this, but I can't help but think there will be some people that panic and start believing they are infected too. I guess that would be worst case scenario, but you can't dismiss the possibility.

I'm currently in Virginia and when I heard about this story I instantly wanted to know more information. The purpose of this article is to inform the public of this infection. The author is probably emotionally invested in this because the victim was a 18 year old girl, and the author is a mother.

Who are these women and children that said that their afraid? Where they afraid to use public bathrooms before the bill was passed? Do they understand what being transgender means or were they told that a bill was passed that allows men and women to use whatever bathroom they want? I think that you should educate the public with both sides of the argument before asking the public's opinion on the bill.

Sarah Koenig stated a claim of definition here along with in the rest of this podcast I believe. In this sentence see makes a clear thesis of what happened to Hae Lee, and expands from there. This statement is a fact in which she forms her opinions around it throughout the rest of the episodes. She defines what she thinks happened and her opinion around the facts of the case. She also defines the "non facts" or the information that was basically just filled in by either her thoughts, assumptions that the detectives made, or conclusions that the juror made about what happened that day, the motive, and what type of person Adnan was. It's good to start out with a claim of definition. It fills the audience in on valuable information they will need to hang on to for the rest of the episodes, so they can decide whether or not Sarah's claims are valid or not. If the audience doesn't fully understand Sarah's thesis behind her podcast, they will either become uninterested in what she has to say or they will discredit her work all together which as a reporter is never good.

This is how she begins introduction to the podcast. Here, Sarah is trying to brief audience about what all can be expected in the podcast episode.

Sarah suggests that she is doing this out of curiosity to understand about the missing high school girl; and this is not her profession.

This is very crucial information to resolve the case.

This goes against the verdict where Adnan is convicted.

Sarah could figure out that the case is not that simple. There is a big mystery and lot is being hidden.

It is clear that Jay has cooked a story and the fact is still not revealed.

Adnan clearly proves his point and innocence here.

This is the major turning point in the case. The alibi girl appeared to give another dimension to the case. Asia McClain was never spoken about earlier. this suggests that her name was kept hidden deliberately because there is a group of people behind who wanted Adnan to get arrested for Hae's murder. They could do so only on the basis of their breakup and alleged love affair. Hence name of Asia McClain was never mentioned.

If Koenig could prove that Mr. S knew about the body, then she could start to look for who told him where the body was. This could possibly lead to proving Adnad's innocence. The revelation would help prove the underlying thesis of this series; that Adnan is actually not guilty of the murder.

Mr. S is quoted as saying he was the one that found the body in Leakin Park. No where before or after this statement does he claim to have extra knowledge on the death of Hae. He has, at this time, provided nothing of note that would accuse Adnan of killing his ex-girlfriend. So why does Koenig spend an entire episode of her podcast, some thirty minutes long, analyzing every little detail of Mr. S's portion of the story, if she is not attempting to connect the story to Adnan's accusation of murder?

This further proves the point that Koenig was seeking out some evidence to support Mr. S and his knowledge of Hae's body. "her" and "she" refer to the sister in law of Mr. S. Would a casual reporter stop to reach out to a sister in law of a relatively minor character, who offered little to the overall story, if she was not trying to prove something?

Koenig's thesis on this episode is that Mr. S did not just stumble across Hae's body, but was rather looking for it. By looking for a connection between Adnan, Hae, or Jay and Mr. S, she can prove this theory.

Was the dance the "catalyst" for Adnan's rage or was it Hae's feelings for Don? Both are key points in the State's case against Adnan and for Koenig's belief that jealousy wasn't Adnan's reason for killing her.

Everything you say to "them" can be used some way

Connects with the teacher's comment about how teenagers are dark. She meant what she said because she's been surrounded by them enough, but not in the way the court took it.

This goes against the States story of him being so angry and torn up about the fact that he was lying to his family. His brother and father didn't make a big deal of it and his mother already found out.

How many misunderstandings like this one were presented as evidence and used? The diary and Adnan's religion were key points the State used against him.

How could this be used as evidence? She's all over the place!

Can "they" (the prosecution, cops, and people in the trial) really use her diary as evidence of what her and Adnan's relationship was really like. Teenagers blow things out of proportion and are overly emotional when it comes to romance, but the prosecution uses her diary more so than what her and Adnan's friends say.

This is Koenig's thesis and main focus in episode 2 of Serial podcast.

Rubio is appealing to those on the far right end of the spectrum here and is discrediting Trump.

I feel that the candidates of the republican party are more hostile towards each other in comparison to the candidates in the democratic party. They are more focused on gaining audience support by lashing out on each other in some way and trying to prove their credibility.

This is a subtle lash to Trump because there are hats you can buy with trumps slogan "Make America Great Again". There are even pictures os Trump wearing these hats.

Here Cruz is appealing to the lower class. He is appealing to people struggling with adversity such as single moms working multiple jobs to support their families, truck drivers, steel workers, and mechanics.

Here Rubio is showing that he is the "bigger person" and is presenting himself as a family man. This appeals to the people who are offended by Trumps attacks on others and to the people who are family oriented in their day to day lives because they feel that they can connect with Rubio.

Here Trump is showing that he is involved in modern thing such as social media and is appealing to the younger audience.

Proof that Trump starts with an insult. However here he is appealing to the republicans that did not agree with Mitt Romney as well as some independent voters who may not have Supported Romney but now agree with what Trump is presenting.

This shows that Trump cant respond to questions with quality substance, instead he feels the need to answer with an insult. This takes away from Trump and some people may not support him because of this.

This appeals to Trump supporters because it shows that trump is a strong candidate and will go through anything to beat his competitors.

Throughout the debate both Sanders's and Clintin's main objective is to persuade the audience that he or she is the better candidate. Both of them are really big on using audience appeals and appealing to what the audience wants to hear. Logos is no really used in their answers, but some ethos and a lot of pathos is.

Here Clinton really connects with her audience. Who doesn't love money? By telling the people in distress that she supports the funding they are requesting and believes that money should be "immediately" given to them appeals to the audience, ultimately causing their support for Clinton to increase.

Here Clinton is showing that she is a team player and supports her "opponent", gaining audience support.

Here Sanders is appealing to the middle and lower class voters. He is trying to connect with them by talking about how he understands that these economical classes have been struggling while there are millionaires out there having tax breaks. Although this doesn't really pertain to the initial question, Sanders is still connecting with his audience.

This brings some credibility to Sanders, showing that he has actually met with some of the residents of Fint rather than just researching and speaking on secondhand information.

Annother possible inquiry question: While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

This also sheds some light on the view of fishermen and how the pollution of the ocean is directly affecting themas well.

This article mainly focuses on the stakeholder view of environmentalists. It examines the negative effects of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the environment and how it is severely affecting the marine organisms.

This increases the credibility of the author by discussing a scientific study.

What information was found by this study? How is it beneficial to the authors claim?

By brining in information from a University this increases the credibility of the author.

Here the author uses logos. They are showing the harsh reality of how close our oceans are to having severe consequences due to our own pollution.

Another possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

Shouldn't we be morally obligated to take care of the ecosystems that surround us and play a major role for life on planet earth?

A possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

"Rising Ocean Pollution Levels Are Making Fish Drunk." The Inquisitr News. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a popular source, therefore we can expect an informal approach to gain audience attention. The claim of this article is that the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean due to climate change is negatively affecting that fish that live in these marine environments and giving them a drunken affect.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while presenting credible and relevant information to support their claim. They present the view of the stakeholder position of environmentalists and researchers.

(http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php)

The link above is an article that discusses acidification and global warming. Although the two are slightly different they are both similar in the way that they are caused by the emission of CO2. Plastic products are known to release CO2 into marine environments. This scholarly journal also discuses the carbon cycle and how plastics are responsible for some of the excess CO2 being released (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S092181810800012X). Plastic also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a major cause of global warming as well. Because of the CO2 emitted by plastic in both marine ecosystems and into the atmosphere, the Thompson and Hamer discuss how it is also a main stressor present in seabirds and how it is negatively affecting these organisms.

This also increases the authors' credibilty. Here they discuss an experiment that took place over an eight year period of which seabirds in the tropical Pacific stomachs' were examined to see exactly what kinds of plastics were being digested and how the birds were being affected by it.

The authors increase their credibility (ethos) by citing information from other scholarly articles and researchers. This also allows the authors to further support their claim with relevant and reliable information suggesting that plastics are a main stressor to the seabirds.

Thompson, David R., and Keith C. Hamer. "Stress In Seabirds: Causes, Consequences And Diagnostic Value." Journal Of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery 7.1 (2000): 91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a scholarly article written by two credible authors, one from the University of Durham and one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The title indicates that the article will be discussing the causes, consequences and diagnostic values of stress present in seabird. I believe that the claim of this scholarly journal is that, seabird are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, however the amount of stress present in these birds is increasing due to various stressors that are being introduced into their environment.

The authors argue that a big misconception about ocean pollution is that is only affects the organisms that live beneath the surface. They state that while that statement is somewhat true, ocean pollution also affects the organisms that feed off of other species such as fish.

This article is focusing on the stakeholder position of environmentalists. It shows how they view the topic of ocean pollution, specifically by plastic, and why it is such an important issue that is rising in generation.

Here the author uses more statistics to talk about how more could be done to decrease plastic pollution in oceans, and around the world in general. They state that 58% of paper and 90% of iron and steel get recycled whereas only 14% of plastic does.

What are some solutions to this? Maybe the general public is not as informed about the requirements of recycling. There is a significant emphasis placed on paper products being recycled to "save the trees". Maybe if the public were to become more aware that plastic is recyclable to, and if a movement such as something along the lines of "save the fish" or "save the dolphins" were to be started, then possibly more plastic products would get recycled.

"Plastic For Dinner?." Earth Island Journal 31.1 (2016): 11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This source is a periodical, or a scholarly source. By reading the title it is pretty evident what the article is about, it even almost indirectly states the claim. I think the claim is that there will soon be so much plastic in the oceans that fish and other marine organisms will be "having it for dinner" and how it is going to effect the marine ecosystem, fishermen and pescatarians.

Although its a scholarly source, it appeals to readers in a more simplistic and understandable way. Rather than appealing to students and other researchers, this article seems to focus more on appealing to the general public that may be concerned about the increasing problem of ocean pollution. This article also does a fairly good job at remain objective while presenting information in a less formal way, but also keeping it credible.

( http://patch.com/new-york/northfork/countywide-single-use-plastic-bag-ban-pitched-suffolk-legislator)

Here the author brings in a the side of a CEO from a Plastic Pollution Coalition to increase their credibility. She states that one of the biggest problems is single use and disposable plastic. The article linked above discusses the negative effect of single use plastic as well as focusing on a proposed ban of single-se plastic bags in New York.

Here the author uses ethos and logos. They use ethos by using a World Economic Forum to get statistical support for their claim. They then use those statistics in the form of logos, stating "8 millions tons of plastic end up in our ocean each year". This both increases their credibility and gives the audience statistical information. The author also uses and analogy to connect with their audience by comparing the amount of plastic present in the oceans to the amount plastic dumped into the ocean by a dump truck per minute. This allows the reader to better understand how much plastic is actually being released into the marine ecosystems.

This is the main idea that the author will be discussing throughout the article. It also can be seen as a hook that pulls in more readers by gaining their interest in something they might see as an exaggerated statement. The reality of it is that its a potentially true statement that is supported by evidence throughout the article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

I think this is one of the main point that Finn is try to portray in her supporting of the ban the bag movement. Throughout the article she uses many rhetorical strategies to support and strengthen her claim as well as appeal to her audience.

Here Finn uses both logo and pathos to strengthen her claim. She makes the audience feel sad for the helpless animal being killed by the bags while also using statistics for the actual number of bags that were removed from the water. It is also evident that Finn is biased towards her claim and wants the "bag to be banned".

Finn uses this to connect with and appeal to her audience

"They": In the article, Finn is addressing the general public who both support and disagree with the idea of a ban on single-use plastic bags. She presents a lot of biased, but supportive, information to help argue that the proposed ban should be passed. She is also bringing light to the fact that almost every one agrees on the fact that ocean pollution and general pollution by plastic bags is bad, including the companies making them. She states that business owners "feel with the current movement to reduce their use a countywide policy would make sense" and that the "time has come to work together and tackle this issue". This also illuminates the view of the stakeholders (the plastic bag companies) position on the idea of their product causing pollution and what course of action they are going to take.

Here Finn is addressing the concern of the consumers who fear that if plastic bags are banned from supermarkets that they will not be able to afford a new type of bag. Here she uses logos to support her argument. She states that the bags are actually causing an increase in product costs, whereas with the new bags a reusable bag would be a single cost of 10 cents and lower prices. She also states that $10 million a year is spent to dispose of plastic bags. This information supports her argument and persuades her audience that plastic bags should be banned.

Finn, Lisa. "POLL: Should Single-Use Plastic Bags Be Banned?" North Fork, NY Patch. 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

This article is published by the North Fork Patch, a local news station for North Fork, New York that presents information on breaking and local news, events, weather, sports, schools, shopping, and restaurants. The article is written by Lisa Finn, a journalist for the station. In the article Finn talks about the proposed ban on Single-Use Plastic bags in places such as grocery stores and how the general public is reacting to the proposal. This is a popular source rather than an academic source or scholarly journal.

Throughout the article Finn quotes William Spencer, a Suffolk County Legislator who is also a Doctor of Medicine; he recently passed a bill to "limit the use of disposable plastic bags". This increases her credibility because she is bringing in outside sources who have experience in the area she is discussing (the usage of plastic bags) and who have titles of credibility (legislator, M.D.).

Finn does not explicitly articulate her claim however she argues her claim throughout the entire article: she argues that a ban on single-use plastic bags should be passed in North Fork, New York despite some opposing views on the topic. While she presents bias throughout the article she also uses evidence and some rhetorical strategies to support her claim and to increase her credibility.

Trump uses his whole introduction on explaining how terrible America is right now. I don't think this is the best way to get Americans' support. Most Americans are very proud of their country and will not hear it spoken ill of. But because he ends it saying that he will fix all of this and "make America great again", he will most likely get the votes of those who agree with him and want a more traditional/old fashioned America.

Cruz is using ethos to show that he is a true Texan, and he is one of them. He proves that he is proud of his state and will continue to fight for their rights as well as the rights of the rest of America.

Rubio is using logos to gain support. He proves that he has knowledge about American political history, and he is planning on using this to run America in the greates way possible.

Kasich is using pathos and ethos to make himself relatable. He is telling the voters about how he went through a lot, and he knows what its like to work for what you have. He also brings out the patriotic feeling in people by telling his story of the American dream that says you can become anything you want with enough hard work.

Carson is smart to include this in his introduction. It proves that he is not running for President for personal gain but to improve America and the life of the average American.

Hillary Clinton ends her opening statement in a very American way. She talks about how we can make America live up to its greatness, and how this can only be done if everyone is given the chance to thrive. Using pathos like this she brings out the patriotic feeling that is so strong for many Americans. This is a helpful tool to gain votes from anyone, but I think maybe she did it to get some respect from the "make America great" part of the republican party and their voters.

Here Clinton wants to show that she will do more than what is necessary. She gives attention to minorities, promising to help with the difficulties so many have to face everyday. This will engage those communities and gain her votes.

Sanders is using pathos to make the voters like him again. He tells a story that all ordinary American can relate to, and when they hear him understand and know how they feel, it makes him relatable and gives them hope that he will actually fix the things they worry about.

This is something a lot of Americans have a problem with and by brining it up Sanders prove that he does not support a system like that, by doing this he gains support of those who are bothered by how much money drives elections.

Sanders is using pathos to make himself seem more relatable to the audience (the voter). He is doing it by showing them that he had the same starting materials as anyone else would and he knows what its like to be "just a normal person".

In this introduction Woodruff is taking care of the formal introduction of todays event and thanks the people making it possible. Without this, the whole debate would've started off on an unprofessional note.

Phillips, T. (2008) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education 1(1):213

Doctor Philips has a wealth of knowledge in this field. Her sources for this article are also from respected publishers and authors. This all adds to her credibility for this topic and article.

At this point does genetic modification become inhumane? Other documentaries point out inhumane living conditions of animals, how would this play a role in that?

Philips is identifying the risks associated with GMOs, without "bashing" them, it shows that she is seeing the topic from a unbiased perspective.

This sort of address the question I had about widespread adoption of GMOs. Since there are so many different takes on the positives and negatives surrounding GMOs, we would need something to try and educate people about them.

Philips is saying that with proper research and diligence that the use of GMOs can be safely commercialized. This doesn't seem too bias, because she doesn't immediately say GMOs are going to be a big success or failure.

Would the history and the perception of GMOs effect its widespread adoption in the future? Or are the use of GMOs just so necessary, the benefits outweigh the consequences?

This is a good way to show the downsides of the GMOs, but do the positives outweigh the negatives? The author is both showing the positives and negatives of the use of GMOs.

The introduction of "Golden Rice" has the advantage of having a high amount of Vitamin A in it that normal rice, why wouldn't more people want to eat it?

This is a good question to pose, if people already get injected with a low dose of a disease, what is the problem with genetic modification? Also it is a good way to get the reader engaged, because of the great question it poses.

Belyy, Vladislav, and Ahmet Yildiz. "Processive cytoskeletal motors studied with single-molecule fluorescence techniques." FEBS letters 588.19 (2014): 3520-3525.

Would the inhibition of the motor domains effect the organism as a hole? What would be the effects of inhibition on a consumer product? Would there be any adverse side effects?

A detailed measurement like this will reveal information useful to learn about how kinesin, dyenin, and myosin move. All of the evidence and explanations for this is included in the article as well as citations to where the information can be found and explained in more detail.

The authors claim that it is extremely important to understand how cytoskeletons move along their paths. By knowing more about how they move, we can find out how speed as well as number of steps affects mechanisms. This article will explain and explore how this works to give us a better understanding of how and why it works the way it does.

Both of the authors of this article are credible writers. They are both part of physics and biology departments at Berkeley University in California. Their degrees prove that they know what they are taking about.

This article is posted on an online database called www.sciencedirect.com. This helps prove the credibility of the article because this website only posts scholarly articles and book chapters related to scientific topics.

The audience for this article would be people interested in the topic with previous information about the subject. It is expected that the audience already knows the basics of the mechanisms studied. This is necessary to be able to explain a topic like this in a way detailed enough to prove and explain its points. As this is a strictly scientific article there is no bias, and the authors are just presenting and explaining the facts.

Pray, L. (2008) Recombinant DNA technology and transgenic animals. Nature Education 1(1):51

What are the ethics behind this? Once again are we taking the role of God a little too far? However, if their practical benefits outweigh the consequence, would it be worth it then?

Why would they not want them to be available to the general public? I feel as if, when there are more people being able to look and study them, only more knowledge will come of it.

Could we be able to recombine plant genes with an animal or vis versa? Would this be taking the role of playing God too far?

The author of this article, Doctor Leslie Pray, proves the credibility of her article by citing and referring to scientific articles. Her doctorate give not only her but also her writing credibility.

This is a liberal point of view. Its just thrown into the article but is surrounded by a lot of opposing opinions, so the reader may read this and become more angry about the way the Democratic senator is trying to support gay marriage. The author may be trying to use ethos here.

This article is most likely going to be more on the conservative side. First off, it explicitly begins by stating the opinion of a republican senator. It states that traditional families will feel "disrespected" if the words "bride" and "groom" are removed from marriage license forms. Here they are beginning their argument to oppose gay marriage.

The article goes through and explains how people in the Indian reservations want to marry their "partners", however they still are unable to do so even though the US Supreme Court has legalized it. This article mostly puts a negative view on the Indian reservations for not accepting gay marriage and still supporting the Dine Marriage Act. This may be considered more liberal because liberals tend to support gay marriage rather than oppose it.

"ONLY 10 have legalized gay marriage" This news source is going to probably have a pretty liberal opinion in supporting gay marriage. I can tell this simply by the way this opening paragraph is worded. It is suggesting that since the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage then the American Indian Tribes should have done it as well. Instead ONLY 10 of them have.

This liberal news source's article on gene modified organisms takes a different stand than the conservative article. Right from the start the language and writing style gives away that the author of the article does not think highly of GMO's or at least that she is for labeling of them. It is made to seem that rights are being taken away from us by there not being mandatory labeling of gene modified food. The article is ended by telling us that labeling is common sense, and that anyone not labeling their products are being dumb and disrespectful.

In this article on genetically modified organisms published by a conservative news source, the author Mike Opelka keeps his writing neutral. It starts off with a positive statement about GMO's making me think it would be a pro GMO article, but overall it is informative and includes statements about different stores not carrying gene modified products. I was expecting a positive or at least not negative attitude towards GMO's from the conservative news source, but I am glad to say the article was written in a way that didn't make me feel like they were pushing GMO's onto me.

This is a very good point. It is not likely that Serial would be as popular if it was executed in a more academic form. The casual style and language from the podcast is part of what keeps people interested. You can even notice that reading this article, it is a lot harder to stay focused and actually understand what is being said when the language is more complicated. This makes one lose interest a lot faster than when listening to an easy going podcast like Serial.

All of the questions being asked are very good. They lead to good, descriptive answers. Its important to ask questions that are open and that can not be answered in short sentences.

All references are cited for this article, this is a part of proving it is a scholarly article.

This article is written by a professor and is a scholarly article. The article's language is technical and everything is based of off research.

This is claim statement. Here they are talking about how Koenig turned a simple case, that typically would've gone unnoticed. However, here they go deeper into the claim and broaden it to fit the information that was just discussed throughout the article. They address the fact that there are issues with how Koenig proceeded with broadcasting the Serial podcasts but also address that they should not ignore her "experiment".

I think that this could possibly be the claim. I think they are talking about and supporting how Sarah Koenig just stumbled upon this case and turned it into a "cultural phenomenon".

This is a popular source. I know this because it is an interview published on theintercept.com. It is written in an easy-to-read language, and is meant for the general public/those interested in Hae Min Lee's murder.

In this paragraph Jay comes of as the good guy, almost heroic. "Without him they would not have been able to catch the murderer" is what it says to me. Knowing the story I already have my own opinion of Jay, but if this was the first time I heard of this case, this paragraph would make me think highly of Jay.

I think this is more of a popular article source rather than a scholarly article source. Throughout the article, I feel like while the author attempts to support her claim she is also attempting to entertain her audience. Here it says "COMING NEXT" as though its like a TV episode, or an episode of serial, or something that people tune into because its interesting and catchy rather than strictly educational.

I think that this is Natasha Vargas-Cooper's claim for the article. I think she is focusing on the fact that Jay was a crucial witness and piece of the Hae Min Lee case, and that reporter Sarah Koenig wrongfully depicted him, pointing out and focusing more on his flaws rather than his contributions. This could have been because Koenig thought that Adnan was really innocent the whole time, and although she tried her best to remain unbiased, some bias still came through.

Another incosistency

Maybe here Jay is suggesting that this trait is what might make Adnan capable of murdering his ex-girlfriend HAe

Jay had numerous inconsistencies within his story. He stated his side of the case about six different times, each time it changed more and more. Like anything, the inconsistencies started out small and then began to escalate quickly into more serious inconsistencies, such as where Jay first saw Hae's body.

However, there are many inconsistencies and flaws with this trial, so the verdict may not have been justified.

I think that Susan Simpson, Rabia Chaudry and Collin Miller are credible and reliable sources. They display their credibility by using ethos in the article, and by displaying a lot of evidence that was also presented throughout the Serial episodes and even by introducing new evidence and interviews throughout the episode. Because of this I find these three to be credible and reliable sources. I think that the intended audience for this podcast are the listeners that were already listening to serial; however I think it is also narrowed down to the more serious listeners. This podcast isn't so much for entertainment like Serial was. It more about present facts and evidence and questions about the case. Since it doesn't have that "catchy" appeal, I think that people that are very invested into the case, and people who the case more directly affects (such as Adnan's family, people in the muslim community, etc.) are the people who are listening to this podcast. Also because of the more seriousness of this episode in comparison to serial, I think that this episode tends to focus more so on logo and ethos to appeal to their audience rather than on pathos like serial does.

Here Koenig uses pathos to appeal to her audience. By revealing both the good and bad sides of Adnan Koenig is allowing her audience to sympathize with her. It also allows the audience to sympathize with Adnan because now that he is behind bars, every mistake he's ever made is being showcased and used against him although they may have no correlation to the case in any way. The audience may realize that we are all human and everyone makes mistake, and those mistakes don't automatically make someone capable of murder.

This also increases Koenig's credibility because Ali just said many good things about Adnan. When people hear good things and positive rumors about someone or something, they are probably more inclined to believe they are actually good. However here she goes back to the idea that Adnan is guilty. Showing her audience both the positive and negative sides of Adnan's personality. This allows the audience to decide on their own whether or not Adnan is guilty of murder.

Are the parents of the children in the community afraid of racial prejudice? Are they afraid that their child will be linked to the murder based off of their religion and race?

Here Koenig is appealing to her audience by drawing similarities between Adnan's community and our own community. Previously the Muslim community had been presented in a negative and suspicious light. But now Koenig shows us that ultimately we are not that different.

This can be taken in two different directions. This could be seen as an increase to Koenig's credibility by admitting that she hasn't been revealing the whole truth about Adnan throughout the podcasts, or it could be seen as a decrease in her credibility due to the fact that if her listeners just realized she was siding with Adnan this whole time on purpose, they may not trust her future statement as much as they would have before.

This increases Koenig's credibility as a journalist by showing that she is on top of her game and talking to all of the people that were close to Adnan.

Why would you turn down a proposal to help organisms regain their role in the environment?

Why do people find it humane to take part in shark finning?

Why would you oppose the regulation of ocean fish if it is helping our ecosystem and their species as a whole? Is it just because of the profit made by fishing them?

Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

This is ridiculous! Countless times wolves have been off and on the endangered species list, for a very good reason. Poachers, farmers, hunters, etc., they all endanger wolves. Yes farmers may have a right but shooting and killing is not the right course of action. Relocation is a better alternative.

Sarah Koenig is the author of this podcast, and has a detective voice that reminds me of Agatha Christie books. It is very clear that in this episode, she focuses on the importance of a phone call and the inconsistencies of Jays stories. When you sit down to analyze everything that is happening you can immediately understand that the inconsistencies in Jays stories are not enough of a claim too put Adnan Syed in Jail, making us understand how unfair law is sometimes.

Maybe pathos here because the author is somewhat evoking fear by saying that the "sharks dont seem to be going anywhere for awhile" because many people have a rational or irrational fear of sharks. This approach may also help protect the sharks during their time here on the coast.

This could have both positive and negative effects. People may become more aware of the sharks and become more mindful and respectful of them and their environment. Or people may continue to spread the bad reputation the sharks have, making their environment not so safe.

This could possibly be an appeal to pathos, trying to get people to stop polluting our oceans.

This is logos and ethos. Ethos because these scientists ran their own experiment to see all the real effects of plastic in the oysters diet versus just algae and phytoplankton in their diet, increasing their credibility. Because of their experiment they obtained statistics and were able to logically apply them to the rest of the presented information.

Oysters play a vital role in the oceans ecosystem and without them the ecosystem will fall out of balance and lose order. The worst part is that as humans we have the ability to control this and still some of us decided to liter and continue to pollute the environment.

Imagine if you were almost blindly "forced" to consume plastic or other harmful substances that would kill you

This is a stereotype of Asian women

Maybe here Koenig is trying to appel to the pathos of the audience. I think shes trying to make the audience feel bad for Adnan because he had to stay "mute" for five weeks without being to speak his side and opinions. Koenig is right when she says this is hard for anyone, also showing that Adnan is pretty strong and can control himself pretty well.

Here I think logos and ethos are being applied. By not testifying and listening to his attorney despite his major urge to do otherwise, Adnan is being very logical. Also by using this logic Adnan is able to maintain his credibility; he may say something wrong that could be used against his if he had decided otherwise.