The author of this article is arguing against the ideas of a different homosexual viewpoint through the perspective that Islam has. The author uses evidence from an Islamic source to point out the flaws of the idea that sexuality can be changed through a variety of ways that may be harmful to an individual. Also this compares and contrasts America's ideas of homosexuality versus another country. In the American culture many arguments against homosexuals is mostly based on religious affiliations, which seems to also be the same approach many of the Islamic faith have as well.

Junaid B. Jahangir and Hussein Abdul-latif are responding to the views of the Islamic faith and their views on homosexuality and the treatment that would be best for this 'mental illness'. The author's disagree with the point of views that are explained by conservative Muslims, who would also not share the viewpoints of the authors of this article. Since, the Islamic faith categorizes homosexuality under a mental illness, the way they handle it is harsh and meant to be solutions to an actual disease.

Not only would the Islamic faith disagree with the viewpoints presented in this article, but they would also be considered a stakeholder in the topic of conversion therapy. Since, conversion therapy is different for other cultures and does happen around the world, they do have different ways to go about the therapy. This is a reliable source for the Islamic faith viewpoint on homosexuals and conversion therapy because the article features many thoughts by a Muslim doctor.

Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is an important and eye opening read! I was assigned to read this in a Race and Membership in American History class in high school. Here's a link to it: http://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

The authors interestingly admit that they disagree with the invisibility thesis, yet still want to discuss what it means and how credible it is. Continuing to give the audience both sides of the argument further solidifies ethos.

Before this statement, the authors are addressing what those with opposing views think about the topic of whiteness and privilege. This plays toward their ethos because it clearly outlines for the reader both sides of the issue, helping the reader to feel informed and to trust the authors to deliver credible information.

Furthermore, the authors use the terminology and apply it to their theory that when faced with evidence of white privilege, a white person will react in one of three ways, each reaction relating to their "concern for racial inequality and commitment to measures that might reduce it."

Knowles, Lowery, Chow and Unzueta give the reader vocabulary, defining and explaining the terms they use to discuss their theories. This works to hold the audience at the same academic level as the writers, assuring there is nothing lost in translation, so to speak.

The authors directly address their claim in this statement. Beginning the article with the reference to Ebony magazine vaguely introduces the topic of discussion, then by the end of the second paragraph it is understood by the audience what the intention and argument of the article is.

Knowles, E. D., B. S. Lowery, R. M. Chow, and M. M. Unzueta. "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity." Perspectives on Psychological Science 9.6 (2014): 594-609. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The main author seems to be Eric D. Knowles. Knowles is an associate professor of Psychology at New York University. You can find a list of his publications with his contact information here: https://psych.nyu.edu/knowles/

The journal this article is published in, Perspectives on Psychological Science, is a bimonthly publication that is peer-reviewed and contains a wide variety of content. View the description by the parent company SAGE Journals: http://pps.sagepub.com/

The psychologists behind this study and article respond to the idea that conversion therapy is useful to the lgbt+ community because through their experiment they disprove this 'logic' of the other side's arguments. They want to prove that conversion therapy causes more issues for people then if these people were able to just express their lgbt+ identities. People with extreme religious backgrounds may disagree with this article because they want to believe that even though they are putting their children in harms way through this therapy, that the end result of their children being able to live an eternal life in heaven is more important.

Through the study that these authors conducted on lgbt+ people who had underwent conversion therapy at some point of their lives, the data and quotes from these people who have experienced the harshness of the therapy, they establish pathos. Pathos is shown because these people went through traumatic events and still identify as lgbt+. This study shows that the harm that they went through to become heterosexual was not worth it in the end.

This study is interesting to me because it shows that conversion therapy may never actually work on anyone. It makes me question if there is anyone who would say that it helped them realize that they are heterosexual instead of homosexual? If there are people out there who believe conversion therapy was a good thing for their identity, are they in denial because of the pain that conversion therapy brings or did it truly change their identity? This is something I would like to investigate more with in the future.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran decide to use arguments of the other side's perspective in order to show that the controversy of conversion therapy has multiple arguments and sides that show the complexity of the topic at hand. This evidence is reliable because they also cite their sources and invite the other side into the conversation. It may not be a recent discovery, since Zucker's argument appeared in 2003; however, it is an excellent idea on the authors' of this article to include to show the history of the controvery of conversion therapy being used on lgbt+ individuals. Since, they include arguments of the other side, it helps establish even more ethos because they are willing to acknowledge the people who have not agreed with their views on this therapy in the past. This shows that the authors are not bias and have done research on all angles of the controversy.

This is the claim that the authors are making through their observations of the certain lgbt+ individuals that they decided to write about. They state that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and should not be treated as one, especially not with conversion therapy, since it causes the individual more pain.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran are the authors of this article. They are all professors in Psychology, which establishes their ethos because they are all professionals in their field of study and will be able to analyze the harmful affects of conversion therapy successfully.

A company that has vested interest in making GMOs appear safe.

The author really connects to the opposition here, voicing their concerns and somewhat agreeing with them.

In all the previous articles I've read it has been stated that these GMOs are not required to be tested, so I would probably like to research this topic more so I could determine whether or not these products are tested for safety.

The overtly sarcastic tone in this article is just obnoxious. With such a controversial topic I think it would be wise for the author to be a bit more serious.

While bragging that the crops have been introduced very recently and their benefits in such a short time the author is missing the very controversial point that these crops have not been tested for their long term effects.

This statement seems overly defensive possibly turning away the author's intended audience. It also has improper grammar, further lessening the author's credibility.

I have trouble fathoming how something can kill insects but is completely harmless to humans, is is because of the dosage? I would like to do more research on this to see if this is possible.

The author states this as if it is an important fact, whereas most GMOs are produced by a private sector.

Selecting genes to pronounce in food is different than taking genes from other organisms and inserting them into another organism. Author loses credibility here for presenting GMOs as selective breeding.

Entine, John. "The Case for GMOs and Sustainability | Genetic Literacy Project." Genetic Literacy Project. 02 June 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

The author just led his readers to believe that the two were the same in the beginning of the article, yet now he states that they are different things. Again, losing credibility.

The author's claim is that selective breeding and genetically modifying foods are essentially the same and we have been doing this for thousands of years, so GMOs must be safe.

The author here loses credibility because selective breeding in plants is different than genetically modifying plants genes.

The author already loses the interest of the audience they are trying to reach here by mocking them. The "they" the author is trying to persuade is probably cautious of genetically modified foods.

This is a stakeholder because they are from the medical perspective of topic of conversion therapy. They are a organization that deals with mental health especially for youth. They are reliable with the information that they have because they are close to the field that is being observed for this research. Many of the people apart of this organization are doctors, social workers, etc. This is relevant to the current topic of the affects of conversion therapy because they are educated in the mental health category and have been apart of helping the individuals for years.

This is the citation in MLA format.

There is no cited author of this article; however, it seems to be someone associated with the SAMHSA organization, which is an organization that is for the mental health of lgbt+ youth. This article seems to appear in a pamphlet format, which is often displayed in doctor offices , in order to inform patients. If this is the case, then this may be seen by multiple kinds of people, including parents and the lgbt+ youth.

Throughout this article, the author uses research based evidence. Although, they never use quotes about other's opinions, they do paraphrase with the citations of where the information is derived from. The evidence always seems to support the idea that conversion therapy is harmful and does not seem to go into the other side's perspective, but the information is reliable and recent.

The author includes a list of individuals who contributed to the panel, which consists mostly of professionals with multiple different backgrounds. This is done to establish more ethos throughout the article.

The SAMHSA group establishes ethos through explaining that they collaborated with another organization called the Federal Agencies Project. This shows that they are credible, since it is not just the idea of one professional organization to end conversion therapy. There are multiple groups and organizations around the United States that have input on the situation. Although, this establishes credibility, it could also be believed that the author of this article only seeked out the opinion of another organization that already believed that this is a harmful therapy. This could show bias toward the idea that conversion therapy is harmful, since they do not seem to include much information about why the other side believes that it is not a harmful technique.

The author of this article realizes that therapies that try to change the identity of the youth are harmful and should under no circumstance be used to 'treat' their lgbt+ identities. This kind of conversion therapy is not a treatment, instead it hurts the person who is forced into it, especially if they are mostly sure that they are not heterosexual, but this is a discovery that the child has to make on their own. []http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/sites/default/files/files/styles/large/public/field/image/conversion%203.jpg This is a picture that relates to the standpoint of the author of this article. The picture is from a protest on conversion therapy because it is harmful for those involved. It is relevant because it is becoming more known by ordinary people (not doctors) that this kind of therapy is not helping the lgbt+ youth.

Moving forward in my research I would like to explore more of these symptoms that lgbt+ youth often have after the rejection of their identities. I believe this would be an interesting way to see what kind of emotions this kind of rejection leads to for many youth. For instance, do many youth who are rejected based on their lgbt+ identities feel shame, want to commit suicide, etc.?

Children need to feel a sense of security and confidence when it comes to learning about themselves; however, this is deeply influenced by the people around them. If someone 'comes out' at a young age or during puberty they often are met with multiple challenges, especially from the people they hold the closest. Many children do not know how their parents may take the news that they currently identify with the lgbt+ community. They long for validation and acceptance and are afraid of rejection, especially from their parents. Often, when a child has more conservative parents on the lgbt+ views, they are often afraid of what will happen to them when they decide to disclose the information of their possible sexuality. For instance, many of these children are afraid to be left on their own or kicked out because of their sexualities. Many years ago, I knew a boy who was older then I was, who grew up with a Catholic background. When he was open about it to his parents after years of struggling with finding his identity, he was met with rejection and acceptance. His mother could not accept that her son was gay and did not know how to handle the information in a positive manner, which caused a rift in their relationship. However, his father was completely accepting and never treated him differently for something he could not change.

SAMHSA is trying to explain that sexuality varies in human beings and is a perfectly natural attraction. The audience is most likely toward parents who do not know how to handle their feelings about their child being lgbt+, more specifically a parent who may be more conservative about their views. For instance, families with strict religious backgrounds have a tendency to believe that homosexuality is a sin. In order for the author of this article to continue with how a parent or guardian should handle these negative feelings toward their child for not being heterosexual, they use the word "normal" to validate the youths' sexualities.

The claim in this journal is placed in the summary and argues that lgbt+ youths experience multiple different issues in the mental health category, which is where SAMHSA comes in to exclaim the negative effects on the child that often occur when a family acts in a negative fashion to their child's sexual identity and/or gender identity. Ultimately their goal is to create a more positive environment for these youths, especially through getting the conversion therapy thoughts out of a parent's or guardian's head before it causes more damage to the lgbt+ child.

Not very reliable since it links us to the author's own website.

The author's call to action to the people.

Interesting, since this is one of the main arguments for GMOs. I would like to look further into this for scientific proof for my paper.

Since a lot of studies are conducted by the GMO pioneer companies themselves, such as Monsanto, it really is impossible to get diverse and unbiased information out to the public.

Such as? The author isn't a doctor and does not present his education, so I do not know where he is claiming to have gathered this information.

The author is losing ethos here as he does not even have an example. These claims would have been super convincing if he had some citations to back them up.

Without a citation, all of the evidence he is presenting from apparently his own knowledge is hard to believe.

What does it do to our environment?

Are herbicides bad? Bad for humans, the environment?

The only reason why this is bad is because of the possible negative effects of GMOs. If GMOs are safe then this reason would not matter.

Throughout this whole article the author is trying to convince the people who do not oppose GMOs. The "they" he is addressing is the group of people who are convinced that gm foods are safe.

Smith, Jeffrey. "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." Institute for Responsible Technology. 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author's claim is in the title, he wants consumers to avoid GMOs for 10 specific reasons. And obviously this author is very biased as he is advising his readers to avoid GMOs without providing any evidence first.

This appears to be a credible and reliable source https://www.aaemonline.org/

Would like a citation for this, this is too serious of a claim to not have any proof.

This article was written by John Seiter, Harold Kinzer and Harry Weger Jr. They write for Routledge about nonverbal background behavior in live debates. They made a study claiming how nonverbal background behaviors influence the audience and the credibility of the speaker. They used evidence from past debates, including John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, watching the opponent not speaking doing gestures like shaking his head. Not only does opponents attacking each other verbally through a debate have an impact on the audience, this study shows that nonverbal behavior influences it, if not more. The audience knows that the opponent should not interrupt with the other person is talking, so they are coming up with a new strategy. They uses nonverbal behaviors to draw the attention of the audience to them rather the opponent speaking in that moment. The authors seem credible in how they did their research to do this study and how they conducted this study themselves rather than getting facts from the internet. There seems to be no bias in this article. Those who would disagree with this article would be the people who think that the only way to influence the audience is by how the candidate speaks on either an issue or talking about the other opponent negatively. This article would appeal to anyone interested in voting for the presidential debate. People tend to educate themselves on who they should vote for before they choose a preferred candidate, and articles like these will have them paying close attention to the candidates body language along with their verbal responses to figure out who they like better.

restating claim

This kind of discredits the author, it seems like he is jumping around the issue or does not think his audience is intelligent enough to comprehend the data.

So while tests have not been conducted on gm foods, there have been tests conducted on the herbicides sprayed on gm crops - which have been found to be toxic.

I really appreciate that he has links for every one of his claims, no matter how small.

Interesting because I just annotated an article from the AAAS and did not notice an inherent bias, but also did not notice any criticism of gm foods.

ok but what about present gmos?

This shows that the interests of large companies (monopolies in the GMO industry) do not put the concern of the consumer first, instead profit is the end goal.

This is an accident related to gm foods, without gm labeling,companies could not be held accountable for deaths caused by their products (may be why they're pressing for non-required gm labeling)

again, boosting his ethos by showing the reader that he has experience in this subject.

The author states the supposed harms of gm foods, but also says that there is a possibility that some of them are perfectly safe. This adds to his credibility by showing he is open to the possibility that gm foods may be perfectly safe, just a bit testing is required to prove that.

Quoting the World Health Organization which is very reliable is a big ethos booster for the author. The WHO is an unbiased organization that doesn't have any corporations interests in mind.This is also very valuable information for me and my twine project, who would want to each a verified carcinogen?

He is addressing the "they" throughout the article that do not believe it be necessary to label GMO foods. Here he states his reasons simply upfront with citations.

He is a Salk Institute scientist with plenty of experience and education.

This is the author's claim, he is stating that even though there are many studies claiming that GM foods are safe, there is mounting evidence that says differently.

Schubert, By David. Gene Watch Page. Gene Watch Page. Jan. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Again these are claims without any evidence. How do we know that many animals in factory farms do not have tumors because we do not see them and many tumors on larger animals are not easily visible.

Now this just doesn't make sense. Something designed to kill another living organism is somehow considered safe to consumer for humans?

I agree that this does not add up, but also I think that it is implausible that such a large number of the rats developed such significant and life threatening just because of their breed.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

The author of the study that they are criticizing has his own website. It honestly does not look very credible, but I have not read the information that he has provided regarding the study he conducted.

This article continually makes claims that are not supported. I am confused as to if they expect their readers to go and research the claims they are making or if they expect them to believe them without evidence.

This journal is attempting to claim that there was some duplicitous motive to the study they are critiquing. Kind of unnerving that it feels like they have to defend the standards of regulations on GM foods.

The bias in this paper is palpable. If they were simply reporting facts and left out the claims that the this study was "erroneous" without first supplying proof then I would trust this article much more.

Claiming that nations that are "competent" because they agree with the authors of this article is extremely biased and an unsound claim.

Off the bat the source they cite does not appear credible, they reference a study that the company itself (Monsanto) conducted that had different results than an independent study.

The claim for this article is that another study has had many inaccuracies that have led the public to distrust GM foods. The "they" that they are refuting is the people who have read and trust the conclusions presented by the article they are attempting to disprove in this article.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manuel_Portero-Otin

This author appears qualified and has some other articles he has published on different topics.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Gemma%20Arj%C3%B3%22

This author appears to have several articles on the safety of GM foods showing she already has a set opinion on this topic.

Arjó, Gemma, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, and Paul Christou. "Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An in Depth Analysis of the Séralini Et Al. Study Claiming That Roundup™ Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ Cause Cancer in Rats." Transgenic Research 22.2 (2013): 255-67. Springer Link. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

As a general comment on this article, I'm left wanting more, but this is a good article to get me started off. This piece gives me some background information and a bit more direction in terms of what I'm researching. I may just use this source for back up in the future, as opposed to using it as the main support of an argument.

Even when many white men were accused of such acts, for some reason, the white men are deemed innocent while the scapegoats become stereotypes of their race.

This is a poignant assertion. Non-whites (and their actions) are usually seen as a representative of their larger group, whereas whites are given the benefit of being considered as an individual. For example, if a black man robs a store, that group (either African Americans as a whole, or African American men) is assumed to have the tendency to rob; whereas if a white man robs a store, he is seen as the outlier, the exception to the rule.

Martinez, Amanda R. "REVIEW OF: Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation." The Journal of Race and Policy 10.1 (2014): 111-15. Ethnic NewsWatch [ProQuest]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author of this review, Amanda R. Martinez, is an assistant professor in communication studies, sociology, and gender & sexuality studies at Davidson College in North Carolina. This review is posted in The Journal of Race and Policy.

Martinez's claim is that "Redefining Rape" by Freedmen is an important read that chronicles the history of rape and how it intertwines with race and gender relations in the United States.

The author of the original piece being reviewed ("Redefining Rape" by Estelle B. Freedmen) includes context in how rape and sexual assault have been addressed over the course of history. She addresses cultural response to rape and accusations of such beginning in the 1600s and working toward the present.

I would consider referencing or quoting highlighted portion to show that it is nothing new for white men to be excused for their wrongdoings and, in turn, for non-whites to be accused and then stereotyped for such crimes.

I think the "they" the authors' are addressing in this article are people are unaware or in denial of the urgency of this situation.

Unlike one company making all of the decisions, we need multiple organizations working together to keep the interests of the people and the environment in mind.

The authors' appear to be doing a good job of leaving their biases out of this article. They evenly present to pros and cons of the situation and offer solutions but also explain the drawbacks.

They say "we" as though they have a dog in this fight with the universal acceptance of GMOs.

This goes right back to my current research question. Monopolies in the food industry, especially in the agrichemical business delete competition and innovation leaving the consumers' interests behind.

Is it dangerous that we are switching from a public to a private source? Do these private sources have the consumers' best interest in mind?

Genetically modifying foods can make them resistant to certain toxins which are sprayed on the foods. To do this they insert a gene to make these plants resistant - do we know where these genes come from and if they're safe?

Conventional breeding of selected traits could increase yield and limit crop losses.

This is basically the thesis for this article.

All the ways that humans formerly increased food production are becoming less available as it is destroying our ecosystems. Therefore other solutions must be found.

The authors' claim is that the way we are producing food now is not sustainable and there needs to be a new way to get food to the masses without further damaging our environment.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. It publishes five respected peer reviewed journals.

http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/people/charles-godfray

Godfray has a lot of experience and including nine other authors this article most likely has a lot of relevant information.

Godfray, H. C. J., J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin. "Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People." Science 327.5967 (2010): 812-18. AAAS. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The article is already setting the tone that it will be exploring the ways for the majority of people to get fed with the skyrocketing population.

Important to recognize how huge the problem is. If this issue is so big why haven’t we been raising awareness?

Even if we do not experience loneliness or feel that we experience it we should still be made aware that it is a serious issue. We should be made aware on how to address those who are experiencing the pain of loneliness and how to help them heal.

Another great way to take action against loneliness by helping students feel comfortable and in an enviroment with no ties to their social life and being able to express openly to someone who has no idea of their persona around their friends or family.

This statement relates back to my other article when they talk about loneliness and knowing " the discrepancy between an individual’s desired and actual relation-ships (8) " It is not so much that being alone is bad it is distinguishing what is healthy for the personality type and what is unhealthy.

chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/content/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FLouise_Hawkley%2Fpublication%2F11351278_Loneliness_and_health_potential_mechanisms%2Flinks%2F0fcfd50ad2394d8996000000.pdf

This is the second article that has talked about understanding what loneliness is but fails to talk about how we can implement resources for people to understand what it is.

This author establishes his credibility extremely well by naming credible sources that have done studies to back up these theories. It does more than relay the information, it tells the reader where the initial information for the statement comes from.

If loneliness is a leading cause for early death and dementia than there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

When the brain goes into this state it is not something that we recognize. We can recognize when we get a cut or a bruise because we feel the pain that comes with them. But in this case it is internal not external which is not recognizable to the human body as physical pain until it leads to physical issues later in life. Another reason it needs recognition.

Another great analogy. Great use of something that everyone experiences to explain the effects of something not everyone experiences.

I like how they put a comparison in there to find a way to show an example that the reader may understand. It is much more clear to have something to base the severity off of.

Although we dont receive much information on the author we can notice that he speaks on the authority of a doctorate. He has had experience and has worked to recieve that title.

Gupta Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Sanjay. "Why You Should Treat Loneliness as a Chronic Illness." EverydayHealth.com. Everyday Health, 04 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

They found that the planet is composed mostly of liquid, and that it has a magnetic field like Earth. This hinted at Jupiter’s composition and the possibility of a solid core. They also got a close look at Jupiter’s clouds – from 26,000 miles (about 42,000 km) – to determine weather patterns. With the Launch of Juno the scientists expect to find out a lot about the planets origin, structure, gravitational and magnetic fields and its atmosphere. This success with Jupiter is making scientists think about what is next: a mission to pluto. New Horizons, the rover to pluto, was able to capture data from Jupiter during a flyby. It recorded that 36 volcanoes on jupiter were very similar to those we see here on earth. Just imagine, A rover in space, not even touching the planet or anything, was able to record all of this data during a flyby. Technology certainly has come a long way since pioneer 10 ( one of the first missions to Jupiter)

this source seems credible, since it seems to be a document which has many sources and intellectual information.

not only does space exploration help with inspiring out society with movies and book but it also connects nations and forms a sort of bond.

From the graph above this the things we can get out of the space exploration programs is economic prosperity, human experience, understanding of place in the universe, also knowledge of the universe expands.

not only does this expand how we can improve important technologies on earth but space exploration also helps scientists understand more about the human body. It helps with understanding the aging process along with how the body reacts in a microgravity environment.

This can be used against ab annotation 4

Not only does this show that nasa is doing what they can to save money and such but it also proves that they are improving their technologies.

This is the exact reason why we need to raise awareness in our society ! Nobody knows the effects of loneliness because they cannot see it nor feel it. It is a silent killer. Damaging our health without our recognition. It increases risks without us doing anything intentional. We are told what we will do to our bodies if we drink alcohol or do drugs. Why are we not told what is happening to our bodies from mental health issues such as loneliness? We are told that it is important to maintain good mental health but it is not explained.

If we can make it aware to people that loneliness could be a risk factor for adolexcence with drug use than many more people would be willing to raise awareness because drugs are already highly discussed in our society.

This study could help give more credit to the idea that minor health issues and life habits that occur at a young age influence major and more serious issues at an older age. Increasing the risk for higher mortality rate at an older age if habits of loneliness permit at a young age.

This statement backs up the claim of my other article that I annotated. chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/content/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FLouise_Hawkley%2Fpublication%2F6521408_Loneliness_in_everyday_life_Cardiovascular_activity_psychosocial_context_and_health_behaviors%2Flinks%2F09e4150ad2965ac331000000.pdf

Establishes a connection with the audience. Being authentic and recognizing the limited amount of data.

Cacioppo, John T., Louise Hawkley, Gary Berntson, and L. Elizabeth Crawford. "Loneliness and Health: Potential Mechanisms." Research Gate, May 2002. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

They speak on the authority of high education and years of hard work. They are credible sources and they address it at the beginning of the article.

Once this study is performed it will shape the claim that these authors will put out.

It is scary to know that other countries handle assault differently and uses excuses for incidents like this.

This controdicts the authors claim because even though a trending hashtag is going around about stopping hateful crimes such as assault, it is crucial to understand that the whole population does not have social media to be in the loop with this online movement.

This is something to further be investigated because most people, including myself, are not educated enough in the court system and what the legal consequences would be for either parties. One would think that if someone were to do something wrong like this, they would get the punishment that they deserve, but that is not always the case.

It is important that "they" are aware of the consequences on both ends of the victim and the assaulter, and how to prevent an assault by attending the free self-defense classes for women.

Although devastating, personalizing the article by including people who has first hand been assaulted helps the audience better understand the importance and urgent need to talk about this issue.

The new hashtag gains credibility to the topic as a whole, as well as the victims because it leads a virtual world who stands by other people who has also been assaulted themselves. It leaves them not feeling as alone.

It is hard to define "revealing clothing" or "inappropriate behavior" into one definition, because from the assaulter's standpoint, it could be more than one thing that triggered them to do what they decided to do. This is something for the audience to later explore with outside research to determine what triggers them to assault someone sexually without consent.

The claim in the article is that women initiate or provoke the sexual assault by the way they dress.

Some people suggests we should use robots instead of humans for our treks into space. We could send out more and they cost less, being that they don't need as much maintenance, food supply, or a way to come back to earth.

This article suggests that space travel should be put on a temporary halt. It suggests that the space program should try to travel to space in safer, more effective, and cost less. Also, we should focus more on our oceans.

This source is a well known european news source as well as the journalist who wrote about it.

The author claims that NASA is wasting money on failures along with being stuck on getting to Mars, a seemingly 1960's theme. He suggests that the space program eats up all this money rather than using it to help out earth here and now.

This is the claim in Kraft's article about sexual assault. He establishes his ethos by showing how this program was instituted into over 100 high schools in the state of Massachusetts.

This is critical for kids to undergo before their first potential attack or threat to domestic violence.

I agree with this point that because smoking was known to be a common behavior for many teens and kids growing up and through our education and federal laws, the perception of smoking has shifted through out the years. With the help of the Patriots participating in prevention programs and donating $1.5 million to the cause, the topic will be grater known, and hopefully can shift the commonality of sexual assault and bring it to an end.

Very important and I agree with this statement that its important to detect signs of violence or bullying to prevent further sexual assault.

Investing any time and money into this topic helps get the word out there more and educate our society, all beneficial things to cutting down the statistics of sexual assault.

Good evidence to back up his claim. Using statistics puts the problem that is prevalent into perspective for the reader. I have heard common statistics universally around searching different articles about this topic, as well as posters in the bathrooms of my college, as well as different surveys, or casual conversations among peers or family members. It is important that this topic does not slip into thin air!

It is hard to know how to prevent these things that are so common in our society today. The first step, as stated in his claim, is to educate students, teens, adults, athletes, and anyone else you can name about sexual assault.

Here's what "they" are talking about what the issue is. Kraft, the writer, is ensuring that his players support the awareness of sexual assault by attending the annual event hosted in Massachusetts to represent his team as being aware of it by supporting the movement.

I myself, have grown up in an insulated world. I was very blessed to attend a high school with very little crime, but living in a college down, where University of Colorado Boulder was the major university, it was always known that sexual assault was prevalent, even though I never experienced it.

I agree with this claim. The first step to preventing violent crimes such as sexual assault by acknowledging it and educating the students about it before it can become an issue for themselves.

The author Victor Williams writes for The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. The main focus of the article is the Electoral College, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The author is trying to prove that both candidates are very different. Williams uses facts about Trump and Clinton to support his claim. He also has facts and statistics about the Electoral college to support him. The author states that the only thing Clinton and Trump have in common is their high unfavorable poll ratings. They both are seen as unfavorable. This could be a huge reason why they attack each other during debates. They both are seen as bad candidates and there needs to be someone who looks worse. One of the opponents must look better than the other, so there can be a winner. This is an article written for the Columbus School of Law, this is very credible and would have to be to make it on their scholarly articles section of they webpage. In my opinion this article is very bias towards Clinton. It seems like the entire article is trying to make Trump look bad. The author seems to leave out details about Trump that would make him look good in this article. The article starts out by talking about Clinton’s achievements then immediately goes to criticizing Trump, calling him names like “bombastic billionaire". This would appeal to the Democratic Party because it is making Clinton look good and Trump look bad, so that people who read this will want to vote for Clinton rather than Trump. People that would disagree with this article would people the people voting for Trump because they do not want the public to think badly about Trump.

She is speaking as a journalist and relaying information in an easy, understandable, and clear way to her audience.

Helpful in prevention.

This sounds like a great opportunity for improvement and a great resource for those who are lonely but we must make sure they are aware of their resources. Which means having resources such as those available for adults and adolescents whether that is at school or in the work place.

They are stating that people with loneliness need to understand that it is not a fact, just a feeling. How are those affected supposed to understand if they are not even informed on the effects and the causes of their loneliness. If we expect people to understand it, we must first make them aware.

Sleep is another important aspect of development in adolescent and it is important we address this cause of lack of sleep.

Although this statement does not have an experiment or article to give credibility to, this remark it does make sense. With depression and loneliness so directly related it makes sense that loneliness would induce a depressant. Since loneliness is a possible alcohol inducer it should be mentioned in alcohol education that is enforced by almost all universities and public schools.

While this may be partially true the article that I previously shared, does counter this statement.

This is a statement that has so far been universally agreed upon between all of the articles, and by multiple different professors, psychologists, and journalists.

It is good that the author included a link within this statement because it helps give information and expand on this claim.

This statement is making a claim against social media that it is a cause for loneliness and that it causes one to not want to formally interact with friends and family but this article disagrees completely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10985175/Young-people-are-lonely-but-social-media-isnt-to-blame.html

So what is true?

Good question for an audience to think about. Starts by addressing those reading to take a look at their own lives which could immediately shift the perspective right off the bat.

Biswas, Deblina. "5 Fatal Effects of Loneliness That Leads to Mental Disorders." The Fit Indian Daily Health Fitness and Diet Tips. N.p., 27 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

If Loneliness is correlated with depression than why is depression talked about and loneliness left in silence? This article gives statistics on the relevance of depression in todays world.

https://www.adaa.org/about-adaa/press-room/facts-statistics

I believe that the authors are trying to target a younger audience and inform them of the risks at an early age. I do not think they are trying to touch an older audience because this information will not be as beneficial to them since their claim is that the affects that loneliness will have on a person are developed young.

In many colleges incoming students are required to take online classes on drugs and alcohol abuse along with a course on sexual assault. If loneliness is a key cause to poor health behavior then adding an online course could be extremely beneficial to college students and awareness.

Study that backs up their claim of "Loneliness affecting long term issues."

Exactly why awareness is needed. One possible solution is implementing this in required health classes around the time of important development in young adults.

They establish their claim that serious health risks will occur later in life but the minor ones will develop at a young age. While the damages may not be urgent at a young age, they are important to address early on to those prone to loneliness in order to make sure that they can take action in order to prevent further destruction.

Establishing credibility and authority at the beginning of the article in order to prove they are reliable and the audience can trust them. All have backgrounds in psychology or behavioral sciences which is extremely relevant in an article about mental illness.

Hawkley, Louise C., Gary G. Berntson, Mary H. Burleson, and John T. Cacioppo. "Loneliness in Everyday Life: Cardiovascular Activity, Psychosocial Context, and Health Behaviors." American Psychological Association, Aug. 2003. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

This article was written by five authors Yu Wang, Jiebo Luo, Richard Niemi, Yuncheng and Tianan Hu. The article was made in March 2016, it is recent. This article’s main focus is running a study about Donald Trump's tweets. It is showing that his tweets that attack his opponent Hilary Clinton are the most favorable. They use their own research as evidence to prove their claim. Attacking his opponent during a debate is not the only strategy Trump is using to win. He is attacking through social media. It is stated that Trump has 5.46 million followers on twitter. Not only are the millions of people watching the presidential debates hearing the ridicule about Clinton, but now it will be seen all over social media. Trump’s average amount of likes on his tweets are about 3 thousand. His tweets regarding Clinton ranges from 2 to 11 thousand likes. Using social media opponents can attack each other to make the other look bad in ways other than saying it on live television. The credibility of the authors is high due to them actually conducting the experiment. They did all the research and work that went with making sure their prediction was accurate. They are all also either Political or Computer Science majors at the University of Rochester. This article would appeal to Trump supporters, especially ones that follow him on twitter. This would appeal to the younger generation because that is who uses twitter. This article’s main focus is Trump which could possibly make this article bias. They could be Trump supporters and are using their research to advertise Trump.

Throughout this article the authors remained unbiased and kept their main focus on their data and information retrieved on loneliness and its relationship with anxiety,depression and paranoia. They stick to their facts and remain straightforward with their audience.They continue to build logos, which becomes their main source of credibility.

To back up there statements they perform an experiment to show how loneliness is linked with paranoia and anxiety. Their method is another way that they provide logos to the audience and appear credible. Giving an elaborate explanation makes it easy for the audience to understand.

With depression being one of the most common mental health issues in todays society, this is a reason why we should raise awareness. We often recognize depression but we do not recognize the heart of the issue which is, loneliness.

With loneliness being extremely linked to social anxiety we could easily raise the awareness of loneliness while informing those with social anxiety. Since the two are linked together, both can be talked about in reference to each other. Those diagnosed with social anxiety should be aware that they are more prone to loneliness.

Lim, Michelle H., Thomas L. Rodebaugh, Michael J. Zyphur, and John F. M. Gleeson. "Loneliness Over Time: The Crucial Role of Social Anxiety." Ebsco Host. N.p., 28 April 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

This is when the authors present their claim. They state that although loneliness is common among people with mental disorders it is much more common to people with anxiety. They follow this statement with statistics furthering their logos.

In the beginning of the article we are given the authority on which they speak on. They appeal to the audiences logos by not only giving information on their university background but also following those statements with accomplishments and where they have ended up. These statements expanded their credibility.

The authors of the article are three journalists from The New York Times, Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman. The main focus on this article are the strategies used by opponents Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to prepare for their debate. The authors’ claims are that their strategies reveal their own personal strengths and opponents weaknesses. Both candidates do their research on each other. Clinton and her team did months of research on Trump to ensure that she will get under his skin at this debate. Trump as well has been doing his research by watching videos of Clinton to figure out her vulnerabilities. The candidates plan to use what they find out to attack their opponent at the debate. The answer to my question,”why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”, is that they believe these strategies will help them look better at the debate. The people that would disagree with this would be people on either party voting for the opposite opponent. It would make a Trump or Clinton supporter angry to see the ways the opponent is playing dirty, because they want their candidate to win. The article is fairly new which makes it more credible, but The New York Times is a more liberal news source. This could create bias because they could try to make Trump look worse than Hilary due to their own political preference. Although they do seem credible in the way that they equally talk about each party. They do not just talk about one, in each section they have a paragraph for each candidate. This article would appeal to either party because it shows the strategies of each party rather than just one. Both parties would be interested in finding out what their preferred candidate is going to do to win. People voting want who they vote for to win.

The author of this article is journalist Eli Watkins. He writes for CNN news, a non-scholarly cable news net work. His main focus of the article is vice president nominee Bill Weld and his strategy to win the debate. One of Watkins' coworkers Jake Tapper spoke with Weld and discovered his strategy. Watkins makes Weld’s claim very clear by the title and the first sentence of the article. Weld believes that the way to win is to focus on attacking Donald Trump. Weld believes that he needs to peel off Republican votes from Trump. This article also clearly answers my question of “why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”. Opponents believe that attacking each other is the key to winning an election. Those who would disagree with Weld would say that to win the election you must be a good candidate. Making the opponent look bad does not always look good on your part. Watkins’ credibility is in high standings due to his coworker having a personal encounter with Weld, instead of taking something her heard off the media. Weld verbally said that his way to win is to attack Trump to Tapper and CNN. This is also a recent article that was updated on October 5th. Watkins’ article would appeal to a Democratic audience. People that are voting Hilary Clinton and Bill Weld want to hear what they have to say. This will appeal to them because there is nothing more that want to hear than finding out their preferred candidate won. They will want to know how to get their side to victory. CNN is a know liberal news source which is a bias because they are writing about the libertarian vice president. They could very well be reporting on this because it is their beliefs instead of trying to be a mediator.

Oh yes, many more! (Was actually looking for a list.)

Oh my god, yes please!

Ha! The Chronicle’s summary framed these categories somewhat differently. Interesting. To me, the “application” part is really about student retention. But maybe that’s a bit of a cynical reading, based on an over-emphasis in the Learning Analytics sphere towards teleological, linear, and insular models of learning. Then, the “representation” part sounds closer to UDL than to learner-driven microcredentials. Both approaches are really interesting and chances are that the report brings them together. Finally, the Chronicle made it sound as though the research implied here were less directed. The mention that it has “the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions” may be strategic, as applied research meant to influence “decision-makers” is more likely to sway them than the type of exploratory research we so badly need.

Will 2017 be “the year of annotations”?

Annotations with Like buttons... custom build! Details coming soon...

Horatio does not wish to be there at this moment

Hi there, I am using this open source tool to promote open science by make open annotations directly on the was as a platform for collaboration. You also can jot down your comments in the context where it belongs.

deBoer, Frederik. "Admitting that White Privilege Helps You is Really Just Congratulating Yourself." The Washington Post 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

A solution is being alluded to here, but a solution that may not be enacted.

Perfect way to articulate this. Here he is addressing his audience, those who are interested in the topic and those who fall under the category of boasting privileged people.

Very much so agree. Here, deBoer is addressing the hypocrisy and stagnancy of self-recognition within white privilege that retains white supremacy. When the oppressed are heard when they voice their dissatisfaction with oppression, it is deemed as their duty to do such: it is their job to fight for their rights. However, if a privileged person recognizes their role in oppression, they are praised for doing such just as they were unconsciously praised for not to anything...because that's the way that privilege works.

Well articulated. As he further states within his article, the form of "self-indictment" places the "guilty" on a pedestal of approval and "self-regard".

Liberation for the liberated and oppression for the oppressed it seems like. In other words, the self-awareness made him feel liberated in such a redundant way that it wouldn't make a difference if he proudly boasted as someone who does not have privilege and equality is attainable by all. Either way, nothing really changes.

I agree. The question there here would be what can the privileged to acknowledge, yet not boast in self awareness, about their privilege.

Acknowledging the side that he is going to criticize for its legitimacy gives him some credibility.