Its not only important for our curiosity but for the future of mankind too. It inspires people to be scientists, astronauts,and engineers that will even further help the space program. Nasa also does a lot of environmentally friendly projects even though they burn a lot of rocket fuel. They also study a lot of how to help the earth out from energy usage to climate change. Nasa also improves our daily lives with many objects they have created such as baby formulas, cell phone cameras, shoe insoles, and memory foam. Not only does he space program help on earth and beyond it, it also helps us put ourselves and the universe in perspective.

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.

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.

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.

Yes! They are addressing where this ideology in itself is an issue.

Neville conducted research in order to prove her ideas. This is important because without such research, her ideas could be considered subjective. Without evidence, there would be no valid argument.

This supports that claim that CBRI perpetuate racism because, though it may not be intended in all instances, they minimize the harmful effects of racial ideologies that have been instilled within different societies by completely ignoring them. Within the United States and outside of the United States, slavery existed. Slavery promoted the idea of white superiority by taking claim and owning members of perceived inferior races and treating them poorly to say the least on the basis of skin color alone (despite "biological evidence" which was later to be found as false). Members of the perceived inferior races experienced prejudice for decades after. The effects of slavery and those ideologies did not fade but simply redirected themselves into different systems such as the criminal justice system. The unfortunate truth is that race is a social construct based on subjective ideas and when analyzing a topic such as this, some may consider these to be subjective as well with subjective correlations.

I appreciate that this was included. As a person of color, sometimes the idea that one who identifies with the marginalized group is not affected by CBRI is a false notion.

STAKEHOLDER. Though other stakeholders have been introduce, this one in particular uses pathos. Children are innocent and we as adults have the duty to teach them correctly and correct any teachings that are harmful. By showing that children can be harmfully affected by CBRI, it creates more stakeholders including teachers and parents since they are responsible for them no matter whether they identify a part of the marginalized group.

Here they expand on their claim and are firm in their views.

Definitions are important. It creates clarity for the reader and (surprise) MORE credibility for the authors.

This is their claim. Color-Blind Racial Ideologies perpetuate racism and inequality by not acknowledging the "elephant in the room" of race. To be completely oblivious to race is impossible with European colonialism across the world.

Once again, further adding to the credibility and this time to the publication of the essay by citing it. However, this is a place to be very careful as not to suggest bias and lack of well roundedness of sources and perspectives from multiple publications which they have an abundance of.

Each of the authors have their PhD in psychology. They are well-versed and studied in the areas and have the authority to teach on this topic. It is important to note the significance of these professors from different universities collaborating on this essay. In addition, it is important to note the publication and its national recognition.

Great. Here they are establishing ethos/credibility to themselves by acknowledging the significance of psychology, which they all received their degrees in, as it pertains to this particular topic.

Neville, Helen et. al. "Color-Blind Racial Ideology: Theory, Training, and Measurement Implications in Psychology." American Psychological Association, Vol. 68, No. 6, Sept. 2013, pp. 455-466. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

This can be used as an example for why everyone should care about the drought.

Are the farmers causing more problems by trying to make up for production costs?

The farmers must have water in order to provide food to the country, but drinking water is needed as well. What will happen when even the deepest groundwater is removed?

The sinking is affecting the infrastructure of the state. How could this, in combination with natural disasters, continue to have a negative impact on the infrastructure.

This relates back to the sinking of 45 feet previously noted.

I can use this in my paper as a counter argument against my own. He is arguing that, with the current two party system in America, both parties are held accountable for their actions, therefore the two party system is a fair way of electing politicians.

In this section, Jones brings up specific, credible research that backs up the one party model. He adds that although these findings are legitimate given the assumptions they make, he argues that different research needs to be done to account for Americans that take the minority party into consideration when voting. Once again, his mention of a legitimate study from the opposing side serves to strengthen his credibility.

In this section, Jones introduces the two primary theories of accountability that have been established, providing background on the subject for the reader. At the end of this section, he states the main issue with these theories, and adds that more research needs to be done in this area to account for the fact that there is often no single party in power.

Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.

Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science.

Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Here, Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.

Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/djones.htm

Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.

All thanks to the lack of ground water and available water from rivers and lakes.

New information to me. I always thought the salt water regulated itself through sea life.

Controversial use of water because many believe in protecting wildlife and endangered species while others are more concerned with their own survival. This raises the question of which is more important?

Farmers aren't even using half of the available water and they're the ones providing food to the nation. This can be used in an argument to support farmers.

This is an interesting quote. Often times the wealthy doesn't seem to notice serious problems until it is directly affecting them.

The once lush coast is now know for being brown.

Massive lake to small Grand Canyon thanks to the drought and need for water.

Problems of the drought that are affecting everyone economically, among other ways.

Where do we draw the line? Water is having to be trucked in to do even simple things like bath. This developed country is almost moving backward in time and advancements.

Currently there are no other solutions to help the now sinking state.

The land is too dry and collapsing from mining, thus the water will not all soak in to the earth. This can lead to mudslides which are also devastating in a hilly state like California.

Can a major storm like El Nino help speed up the process?

Richards is a contributor for several news outlets such as US News, Fox News, and Bloomberg News. She lives in California, thus experiencing the drought first hand.

This can be used for why groundwater drilling is a bad thing.

Richards, Tony. “Water Woes Divide California into Haves, Have Nots.” U.S. News. 8 Apr. 2016. Web. 10 July 2016.

Richards claim is in the subtitle of the article. He states that the decrease in water in California may cause a Dust Bowl. Throughout the piece, Richards also talks about the ongoing sinking of the state due to groundwater mining.

Ignatius, David. "How ISIS Spread in the Middle East And how to stop it". The Atlantic.29 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

Ignatius claims that ISIS is not merely a terrorist group, but it's an anti-colonial organization with higher political motives aiming to restore an "Islamic caliphate" similar to the ottoman empire. And that the US failed foreign policies facilitated their insurgence and empowerment.

Finally, Grady finishes her article with establishing another benefit to the mission that might get more people on board with funding NASA. She states that there is room for high end jobs, to help with unemployment. She also makes special mention that female engineers are wanted, that may appeal to the female demographics as well.

Grady does several things here. One of the main arguments against funding for NASA is that people do not see probes circling other planets of important. Sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon was impressive and exciting, but this wasn't. However, she stands as a voice for her field, and is attempting to show her audience that this is just as important of a mission.

Grady mentions the Voyager missions. This shows that the mission is complementing previous mission information, showing the cost of the mission isn't just to tread old ground. By doing so, Grady is building a case that the money is truly being spent to gain and improve our information on the planet of Jupiter.

Grady is stating the importance of this mission. The reason this is important is because it covers one of the stakeholder positions that will be covered in my paper. It describes the valuable information that NASA and the space exploration community will gain from this mission. By explaining that the mission will give more information than any of the previous explorations to Jupiter so far, it is justifying why the cost of this mission is important. This will in turn show that funding towards space programs is being used responsibly and that the money is not being wasted on treading old ground.

Grady is now getting to the heart of the article. She writes very technically and factual from her on out. It is unbiased as there is no opinion being thrown in. She describes some of the many issues that surround the mission and how much money it has cost to get to the point it is today.

She now brings the viewer back to the main purpose of the article; to talk about the Juno mission. She does so by expressly stating what the mission is.

Grady attempting to further connect with her audience, people interested and invested in space exploration, by talking about something other than the mission. she refers to Independence Day, a popular sci-fi action movie that also happens to refrence the day the real life mission of Juno became successful.

Grady does several things with this statement. First, she adds to her credibility for reporting on this topic. By working on a mission similar to this one, she is showing that she has an insider's view on missions such as this, instead of being purely an outsider. She also establishes emotion into the article by going into more detail into the excitement that goes on within these missions, and how she had a genuine emotion to the announcement and reaction of the mission.

Grady starts the actual article by talking about just how impressive the Juno mission is in of itself. The fact that the success of the mission was an exciting announcement to the entire world speaks volumes as to how impressive this mission has become.

Article gives a brief biography of who the author is, and points to a leader in the field, showing a reputable and scholarly source. Open University is an accredited university that offers online schooling for European countries, verifying the author is in fact a professor.

Grady, Monica. "How Nasa's Juno Jupiter probe could be about to solve the solar system's biggest mystery of all." The Telegraph. 10 July. 2016. Web. 10 July. 2016.

Grady uses a title that helps support her overall point of this paper. This mission is incredibly important for NASA, as well as our understanding of the solar system that Earth inhabits.

This quote can be used to showcase the exact severity of the disease as health officials are not just advising that people try and stay safe from contracting the disease, but also advising that they refrain from getting pregnant. This is due to the fact that there is an anticipated risk that the pregnant women in these areas may contract or already have contracted the disease. This also addresses what the government is saying. By issuing this statement the governments of these regions are not only indicating that there is a risk of Zika infection, but they are also indicating that the populous is not in control of whether or not they will contract the virus. If the government thought the disease were preventable by the civilians' efforts to stay safe then they would have released a statement indicating people to remain extra safe during pregnancy or if there is risk women may become pregnant. This is a showcase of how the Virus' spread is actually not able to be contolled by the people.

Ingrid Torjesen's claim is that this outbreak of Zika virus that is currently occurring in the Americas (primarily South America) is something that the world should be incredibly concerned about.

The Author brings the statement of the World Health Organization's director general to support her claim and justify the exact severity of this outbreak. The quoted Margaret Chan also speaks to the fact that a direct linkage of the disease during pregnancy to microcephaly has not yet been established, but it is largely observed and should also be worried about. Linkage of microcephaly would appear in the form of birth defects, neurological problems, and death of a newborn baby that has been affected by this disease. Microcephaly would also include linkage to Guillain-Barre.

Torjesen, Ingrid. "Zika Virus Outbreaks Prompt Warnings To Pregnant Women." BMJ: British Medical Journal 352.8042 (2016): i500-2. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

This looks really bad for law enforcement in the case that they would ever try to defend themselves against these allegations. This is also just more proof of the author's claims that there is a biased against women not only in a courtroom, but also in a police station where people should feel safe.

In the case of Susan Estrich, it seems pretty obvious that the police didn't really focus on what actually happened when she was raped, but they focused more on the fact that it was an armed robbery which was "much better than a rape."

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

Dylan Ruan is an Environmental Communication and Media Strategy major from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Most of his work focuses consists of taking notable faculty researchers and publicizing their work through written publication. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dylanruan

"The Santa Barbara Independent is a true community newspaper with a market penetration higher than almost every other "alternative" weekly in the country" (Reliable Popular Source). http://www.independent.com/history/

The newspaper has continually grown over the years and penetrates a wide variety of audiences. They report using a unique voice that resonates with independent and involved individuals in the community. It is an innovative newspaper, that knows how to properly report current events.

This source might help me going forward with research because it is showing me how one thing can effect everything. It is a chain of both societal and environmental impacts. I should research the effects on each chain if climate change continues to be a big problem.

This is a global solution. It helps to see how solutions to the problems with effect a global audience rather than just a local one. This helps to show the big picture for Meng' s work.

I would be interested in researching other solutions that could be used to reach a more global audience as well.

This is also an audience appeal as he is showing how Meng's innovations are universally helpful. He is working to better the world, not just a specific nation.

Ruan, Dylan. "The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues." Santa Barbara Independent 1 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web.

Ruan claims that UCSB's Kyle Meng is focusing on creating a future where "climate change is battled with market-based solutions". Moreover, that climate change can be addressed using environmental economics.

By showing a possible solution to the problem, Ruan establishes early on the credibility in Meng's work. His solution is backed by his vast understanding of economics as he explains to the audience how it would benefit society to put a price of pollution. In doing this, reduction of activity would occur, in turn causing carbon emissions to become reduced.

This is what "they" are saying. Ruan is articulating Meng's philosophy to the audience. Meng, who is well versed in economics and the environment, specifically climate change and market-based solutions, is showing how we can use the market to help fix the environment. Meng addresses primarily two ways economics can be used to bring communities together to reduce emissions. He also addresses environmental effects like El Nino that can have dramatic repercussions if not properly analyzed and helped.

Another example to help establish credibility falls within Meng's research of a past climate change event, El Nino. Most of the time to better gain understanding of a particular problem and its solutions, a person should look at the past to address what worked and what didn't. This will save both time and money and help in deciding future actions of climate change.

I would be interested in further researching potential conflicts between tropical nations. How prevalent has this issue been and has it ended up causing big conflicts in the past?

I also agree with this quote, which shows a possible compromise: Wyoming's plans be changed to be similar to Idaho and Montana while a regulation of wolf hunting is required.

Wyoming's wolves are constantly in danger with the aforementioned "shoot on sight" policy, whether the animal is just wandering or actually taking livestock. With this policy, any hunter or farmer, or civilian, would all go on an endless wolf hunting spree, rapidly decreasing the wolf population and setting the wolf conservation back to its original position (endangered species to possibly extinction).

This is typically true. Overpopulation of wolves need to be taken care of; there will be no prey species left and environmental problems could occur. Issues such as, forest (plus other nature-based species), prey and predator species' would deteriorate.

I agree with this decision by the FWS because Wyoming does not have a good, ethical, and (population-wise) humane way in dealing with their wolves. Unrestricted killing would place the grey wolves back on the ESL and the whole cycle would start again.

The author is giving another inside perspective of a state's possible solution to sate every side.

Now the author is giving solutions to the reader(s) to show that something is being done and using pathos.

The author is using a quote to use ethos from an inside perspective of the FWS. The author is showing the side where grey wolves do not need to be on the ESL any longer from the FWS and communities' efforts to reestablish wolf populations in the area.

The author gives statistical facts so the reader can piece their own opinions.

Hints back to the claim

The author shows the other side of the argument without giving their own insight yet.

The author is giving background information and increases credibility with it presented. The information is given without the author being biased yet.

The author is showing one side of the argument, that FWS is not allowed to make decisions of that caliber.

This is the article's argument and claim: to discuss FWS's decision on what states were allowed to have grey wolves on and off the ESL.

Important source and increases credibility and reliability because of Molloy's power as a judge for the United States.

"Wildlife Management Institute." Wildlife Management Institute. Wildlife Management Institute. Web. 06 Mar. 2016. http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content.

This gives this article and website credibility for the information and articles they write to the public. It is a popular scholarly source.

This author (the name nor publication date is not posted) is giving a title that is neither supporting wolves on the ESL nor are they against it. They show no bias. However, considering the website (I could not highlight the website title "Wildlife Management Institute", otherwise this part of the post would have been separate), this author must be a pro-wolf supporter.

WWF or World Wildlife Fund, not to be confused with the one with oiled up wrestlers and bad acting, has been around for 20+ years. They are an international organization the fights for the protection of animal species and habitat. They are deeply invested in the rainforest but now have branches in all parts or the world.

"African Rhinos" WWF. web. March 5 2016. <wwf.panda.org>

This link leads to a page with a bit stronger tone on the topic of poaching.

I cannot verify these facts. They are listed to promote sympathy and action from the audience. I'll i know is the math is correct.

Here the other specific stake holder is addressed. The Asian culture is the main consumer of Rhino horns. The claims of the horn's powers are the main driver. Claims range from sexual prowess to curing cancer to status symbols. All in all bad if you are a Rhino.

If a Rhino horn really did cure cancer would it be fair to harvest then? If you or someone you loved had cancer, wouldn't you try anything to fix it?

This appeals to all, Animal activists, global activists, econimists and humanitarians. Everything has a part to play in life. If the world loses one part it affects the rest of the world, sometimes in ways we never even though possible. Its almost always negative.

European settlers have made a habit out of this. The author includes this not only as a historical reference but knows it should ring a bell with all Americans that have ever heard the story of the American West. We almost drove the American Bison to extinction for their hides. They numbered over 150 million in number and before regulations were put in place declined to only thousands.<br> History will repeat it's self if given the chance.

The claim is simple, we (the organization) are winning but the fight is not over yet and the audience's help is required. The audience appeal is to people concerned with the world's balance and animal lovers... hopefully ones with deep pockets.

The author gives directly her argument that women should manage not only contraceptives, but also abortion. She claims that abortion is a right.

It shows poor women’s reality in Brazil that they have little opportunity to get a birth defect examination whether their fetus is infected by Zika virus or not in public health clinics. The author urges the government to provide financial support and social medical services for the poor women.

In this sentence, the author premises her main argument that women need to be given the power to have safe and legal abortion.

Although abortion is illegal in Brazil, wealthy woman can have an abortion in protected and safe conditions. It is a striking contrast from women in poverty who does not have enough money to get a secure abortion. The audience reconfirm the true picture of Brazil’s severe social inequality phenomenon.

The author claims that Brazil prohibits abortion in law, but 25% of Brazilian women had received an abortion at least one time in illegal and dangerous conditions. Though she has some persuasive points, her delivery could have been more effective by suggesting accurate evidences. She bases her argument on a national survey, but she does not state what exact name of the survey is or how many participants were enrolled in. Her lack of evidence discredits her claim and it cannot satisfy the needs of her audience who want to an accurate information about Brazil. Therefore, the author should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos.

The author presents a problem that Brazil government’s action against Zika virus. She criticizes their short-range policy which urges women not to fall pregnant without providing any education or information about birth control methods.

Brazil is one of the countries which have worst gap between the rich and the poor in the world. The author claims that Zika virus is a key indicator about social inequality of Brazil. Young, poor, black and brown women who live close to slum area are exposed to great danger of Zika. Also, they have fewer opportunities to access to sexual and reproductive health care. It is heart-breaking to me that the women who live in underprivileged backgrounds are also troubled with the epidemic. Brazil government should prepare measures not only focus on focuses on Zika, but also resolve social inequality in a long-term policy.

It is a very interesting fact that the affluent area in Brazil is perfectly safe from Zika virus, but the author does not give any evidence about it. It lacks of audience appeals and she should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos. She just relies on her ethos at this point. Although the topic is Zika virus and Brazilian women’s right to choose, she has the Brazil Olympics 2016 in mind and indirectly promotes that Brasilia which is the capital of Brazil is not dangerous at all.

What authority the author speaks is her ethos. She can observe current Zika virus problem in the immediate vicinity, Brazil. So, she looks deeper into the problem with a different perspective than other authors. The audience may think her article is more credible than others because of her nationality, Brazilian.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.

Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.

Nice job of getting some refutations out there early on. This helps establish ethos in that Friedersdorf appears to be self-aware, although, as I pointed out in an earlier annotation, he is not entirely self-aware because he ignores his own point that there is usually some grain of truth in criticisms about white reporter privilege.

I agree with this point, and it's something I need to do further research on. After reading the article in full, I don't think Friedersdorf acknowledges what Koneig could learn from her critics. Instead, he focuses on undermining Kang's concerns about Serial. In my opinion, the takeaway for Koenig is to be more mindful of race and culture in her reporting, and to be sure to refer to credible authorities when she may not fully understand.

Friedersdorf tries to establish credibility right away by acknowledging the value in Kang's concerns.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. "Conor Friedersdorf"

The Atlantic is a well-known magazine (a reliable popular source) known as "high quality review with a moderate worldview."

One of the oldest and most respected of American reviews, The Atlantic Monthly was founded in 1857 by Moses Dresser Phillips and Francis H. Underwood. It has long been noted for the quality of its fiction and general articles, contributed by a long line of distinguished editors and authors.

Here Friedersdorf gets to what's at stake in the big picture: according to Friedersdorf, it's important that people's stories are told. The truth needs to be out there, and it's dangerous to make reporters feel scared to tell someone else's story.

Good questions here. I don't know where I stand on the issue and need to do further research. Just because This American Life is doing a better job than some news outlets doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for its failings.

Nice refutation here. Friedersdorf acknowledges that there is a wider problem with white reporter privilege, just not as much in this case.

It's a good idea to accept Kang's speculation even after disproving it because it shows that Friedersdorf is unbiased and truly taking Kang's opinion into account.

This is useful to see how someone calls an author out for a logical fallacy. It undermines Kang's ethos, the "they" to whom Friedersdorf is responding.