Core Value 1. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

When I took this class last semester, I chose to shy away from my work because I was intimidated by it. I never spoke with anyone about how lost I felt with the material until it was too late. This semester, I communicated with Professor Hodges about my writing, and fully embraced the practice of writing instead of thinking. I wrote my Purposeful Summaries as I read them, which allowed me to reassess my thought process as I gathered more information.  The Professor’s suggestion to write about the pervasiveness of opioids showed me the benefits opioids have, and the complexity of the opioid debate. My hypothesis evolved from an outlandish claim to a satirical call to action against the opioid crisis. 

Core Value 2. My work demonstrates that I read critically, and that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

As I explored the reasons behind opioids prominence, I discovered that opioids can be prescribed for both justifiable and unjustifiable reasons. I read critically and discovered the main arguing points for both sides of the opioid debate. In my Rebuttal Argument, I used sources from articles that were both for and against opioid use to strengthen my argument against opioids. One of my rebuttal sources included a discussion about both sides of the debate, so I had to read critically and make it clear to my audience that there was one specific side of this discussion that I was focusing on. I used this argument to seamlessly refute the pro-opioid source that I used. 

Core Value 3. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

My original thesis relied on the use of medical marijuana as alternative treatment to opioids, but after analyzing my audience, I realized that they would quickly refute the idea of medical marijuana since the stigma surrounding it is so strong. My target audience is people who are neither for or against opioid use, or people who may not know where they stand on the issue. In my Definition Argument, I described a drug that would be an effective painkiller like opioids, but without the rush of euphoria. I introduced the idea of an unnamed alternative so my audience will not immediately reject the idea of medical marijuana. My rhetoric includes logos since so many studies and trials done about opioid use, and pathos because people are dying because of opioids.

Core Value 4: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

There were a few times throughout my research where I used the Professor’s idea to look at the citation of one article to find more sources, and I evaluated all of my sources by checking to see if they were peer-reviewed. The reason I centered my research paper around opioid use was because it has affected my personal life, and I wanted to know about what was being done about the opioid crisis. Before writing my Causal Essay, I thought about how common all prescription drugs are, which led me to look closer into the pharmaceutical industry. In my causal argument, I used my sources to support my idea that the pharmaceutical industry’s refutation of alternative treatment is due to the dependence patients develop while on the drug, which ensures never-ending profit.

Core Value 5. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

My research has changed my view on opioids, and I respect the compelling reasons both sides of the opioid debate have. By including an Annotated Bibliography, I demonstrate that I respect the opinions of others and that I’d never claim someone else’s work as mine. In my rebuttal, I acknowledge that the solution to the opioid crisis can only be a compromise because the consequences of too many or too little opioids will be deadly. I was honest with my audience and used logic to encourage them to form their own opinion while reading my essays. In the introduction to my Rebuttal, I talked about how medicine is always being improved and yet nothing has changed in opioid therapy. I began my essay with this to get my audience thinking.