Tianyi Ma

Writing 2
De Piero
Academic vs. Non-academic Writings: How Does Each Persuade their Audience?
Over the past few decades, due to increasing use of fossil fuel and the industrys rampant
emission of greenhouse gas, global warming stepped into the publics sight and became a severe
issue that had been and will keep challenging the entire human society for a long time.
Fortunately, the research on global warming never ceased; scholars from different fields, day and
night, strive to assess the damage induced by the global warming, predict the potential impacts
brought by the climate change, and analyze the viable policies and scientific methods to alleviate
the effect of global warming. These effort from different disciplines keep convincing us that
protecting the planet we living on is everyones duty. In this paper, three individual articles
addressing global warming will be compared and contrasted in terms of their conventions and
approaches to convince their audience: two academic publications concerning geological and
economic domain respectively and one opinion article. Schleussners Differential climate
impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5C and 2C is written to
declare and interpret the latest findings about global warming; William D. Nordhaus s Global
Warming Economics attempts to analyze the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing the
global greenhouse gas emission; and A Pause, Not an End, to Warming from The New York
Times ,written by Richard A. Muller, is meant to counter the skeptics argument that the global
warming has stopped. Despite three article is revolving around a same topic, they have different
features persuading their different intended audience. Two academic writings have a strict
limitation on their format, language, and appeal to the audiences intellectual side, while the non-

academic writing, the opinion article, has a relatively straightforward structure,

causal/conversational style and inclined to appeal to the audiences emotional side.
A strict format is embraced by academic writings because it contributes to the effective
communication with the reader. For instance, the geology article was divided into several
individual sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Climate extremes indices, Water
availability, Assessing agricultural risks, Sea-level rise, Coral reef systems, Discussion and
conclusions. Similarly, the economy article can be approximately divided into four parts:
Introduction, Methods, Results and Analyses, and Conclusions. Specific term for each section
may vary but such format is a very consistent and essential convention of most academic
writings. To uncover the logic behind this format, the audience of academic pieces should be
taken into account. According to Laura Bolin Carrolls Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward
Rhetorical Analysis, [Authors] make all sorts of choices based on their audience.(49) The
audience of a science paper are usually scientists. Within science community, everyone writes
paper in a similar format so that the readers can quickly find the information they are looking for.
Also, scientists appreciate scrupulousness and logic. This strict format unfolds the piece in an
orderly and logic manner, helping the paper achieve these two crucial qualities.
On a different note, authors of academic writing tend to mention the background
information of their research/subject and summarize the experiment and conclusion at the very
beginningeither in abstract or introduction. Very often appear sentences such as Our findings
highlight the importance of () (Schleussner, 2448) or The present analysis shows ()
(Nordhaus, 1283). This move is broadly utilized in academic world because it guides the

reader to the related research field and indicates why the paper matters in relevant discipline. In
other words, it answers the Who Cares? as well as the So What? question (Graff, 96).
Conversely, the structure of a non-academic piece is unconstrained and casual. As Mike
Bunn asserted, Because the conventions for each genre can be very different, techniques that are
effective for one genre may not work well in another. (77) The majority of readers of a nonacademic writing, such as an opinion article, is laypeople, those who do not possess much
professional knowledge. Therefore, a scientific format including exhaustive proofs and data
analysis seems too complicated and lengthy to them. Unlike two academic papers, in which
authors reiteratively analyze and prove their conclusion in different sections, the opinion article
tends to demonstrate its opinion and reason in a straightforward way. For instance, to refute
skeptics theory that the global warming has come to an end, the opinion article does not need to
offer a series of proof substantiating authors argumentI knew that [global warming has
stopped] wasnt the case. [Because the] planet warmed by 0.6 degrees over the prior 50 years,
but occasional, unexplained temperature fluctuations of as much as 0.3 degrees countered the
rise at times and resulted in apparent pauses. (Muller, 1). So, in non-academic writings, high
authenticity and rigorous logic, which a strict scientific format boasts, are not as essential as
communication effectiveness. The structure of the opinion article can be divided into two parts:
introduction of two opinions and contradiction against the one the author does not agree. No
specific part designated to give scientific justifications or background information was included,
because the author was more willing to simplify his structure to make his article a more
understandable and friendly reading for audience. Therefore, authors of non-academic writings
have more freedom over the structure to further effective communication with ordinary readers.

Tone and writing style play important roles in both academic and non-academic works.
As Janet Boyd points out, Choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as
the message itself (87). Two academic papers are written in a formal and objective tone to
ensure that no subjective bias is introduced. Moreover, academic works prefer direct and
rigorous descriptions: Our findings are in line with previous assessments of projected changes
in extreme temperatures and heat-waves and illustrate the substantial increase in the likelihood of
heat extremes between 1.5 C and 2 20 C warming above pre-industrial levels, in particular
when putting these changes in perspective to regional natural climate variability. This sentence
was wrote in precise and clear language; the author used in line with and illustrate to suggest
the statement does not simply rely on personal opinion; and words in particular reflect that the
author was very careful with every points he wanted to claim. Such emotionless and objective
writing style embodies the significance of accuracy and unbiasedness of the article, satisfying the
expectation of the audience in science world.
Nonetheless, a scientific writing style is too dull and inflexible for the reader of an
opinion article. The opinion article employs a casual/conversational writing style because such
style is more personal, emotional and relatable. For example, throughout the opinion article, the
author frequently used first personal language, indicating that the author is talking to the reader
instead of presenting a series of cold truths to them, and hence the article is more likely to
resonate among the audience.
To the contrary, first personal language is used very carefully in scholarly pieces; usually
used only when the author attempts to describe experiment method or present experiment data,
because it risks the objectivity of the article.

However, when objectivity is not authors first concern, using first personal language
becomes a move strengthening authors power on persuading the public. Sentences such as
O.K., I (), Most of us hope that () and Alas, I think () (Muller, 2) reflects a very
casual and emotional writing style, which facilitates the audience to think from the authors side.
Since the audience ends up spending so much time in the authors brain, the article garners their
empathy. This persuading approach is pathos, which is related to emotions. Emotions are
contagious. Because the opinion articles writing style evokes the audiences empathy, they feel
what the author feels in the heart and therefore are more likely to agree with authors opinion. In
short, the writing style of the opinion article help it appeal to the audiences emotional side.
In stark contrast, the persuasiveness of academic writings is derived from facts and logic
authors present to the audience. The main persuading tool of the geology article is data, graphs,
and statistics. Based on his comparison between the changes in different key indicators, such as
annual runoffs and crop yields, the author assessed the climate impact at 1.5 C and 2 C
warming level respectively. Such approach to persuade audience is called logos. According to
Laura Bolin Carroll, As audiences we want to know the facts of the matter, and logos helps
present these (52). Apparently, in academic community, the audience is more willing to read a
fact-based paper. They would rather repeatedly browse the experimental data/results than enjoy
the humorous sarcasm in the opinion article. Therefore, the use of logos meets the audiences
expectation and effectively convey the message. In addition to logos, economy article
accomplishes the same goal also with the aid of ethos. As Laura Bolin Carroll emphasized in his
Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis, ethos refers to the credibility and gives power to the credibility
of the article (52). In Global Warming Economics, the author harnesses the established economic
model RICE 2001(Nordhaus, 1283) to estimate the economic impact of the Kyoto-Bonn Accord,

which empowers the article with strong reliabilities because this mathematic model is widely
recognized and accepted in economic world. In both articles, either the comparison of key
climate indicators or the use of mathematic model we can find that authors convinced the
audience by reason and logic. In other words, they appeal to the audiences intellectual side.
All in all, the effectiveness and the persuasiveness of either academic pieces or nonacademic pieces cannot be analyzed without respect to their intended audience. Academic
writings are logical, objective, and data-oriented. For a scholar, who is able to read and interpret
these complicated graphs and numbers, academic writings are more persuasive because he values
facts and logics. However, for an ordinary reader, he may favor the opinion article because he
follows his heart. The emotional writing style and succinct and understandable evidences in the
opinion article arouses his empathy. Therefore, features of each genre determine both limit and
affordance. A scientific publication cannot frequently use first personal language because it
weakens the objectivity, while a non-academic writing has either no reason to writing in an
overly rigid format to bewilder the audience. There is no absolute superiority between two genres
because they are both tailored to meet the expectations of their own audience.

Reverse Outline

Main point:

How/why it supports your argument

Two academic writings have a strict limitation Thesis statement.

on their format, language, and appeal to
audiences intellectual side, while the nonacademic writing, the opinion article, has a
relatively straightforward structure,
casual/conversational writing style and
inclined to appeal to audiences emotional
side.

A strict format is embraced by

academic writings because it
contributes to the effective
communication with the reader

Through analyzing the scientific

format applied in two academic
writings, I support my argument that
Two academic writings have a strict
limitation on their format.

authors of academic writing tend to

mention the background information
of their research/subject and
summarize the experiment and
conclusion at the very beginning
either in abstract or introduction
the structure of a non-academic piece is
unconstrained and casual

It is also related to the fixed

structure of academic writing.

Describing and analyzing the

structure of the opinion article to
support my argument that the nonacademic writing, the opinion
article, has a relatively
straightforward and casual
structure.

Two academic papers are written in a formal

and objective tone to ensure that no subjective Give examples from two academic
writings demonstrating that the
bias is introduced.
language they used are restricted.
The language should be objective
and precise.
The opinion article employs a
The opinion article uses first
casual/conversational writing style because
personal language, which reflects
such style is more personal, emotional and
the casual/conversational writing
relatable
style of the author. And the analysis

of the effect of using first personal

language in this paragraph initiate
my discussion in the next two
paragraphs.
first personal language is used very
carefully in scholarly pieces

Embody the restricted language in

academic writings.

Opinion article appeals to the

audiences emotional side.

By analyzing the effect of

conversational writing style, my
argument opinion article appeals to
the audiences emotional side get
proved.

Academic writings appeal to the

audiences intellectual side.

By discussing how academic papers

persuade their intended audience,
his paragraph supports my
argument that academic writings
appeal to audiences intellectual
side

the effectiveness and the

persuasiveness of either academic
pieces or non-academic pieces
cannot be analyzed without respect
to their intended audience

This paragraph is meant to respond

to the question about each genres
affordance and limitation mentioned
in WP2 prompt. Although, in this
paragraph, I didnt directly echo my
thesis statement, I wrap up all
important main points instead.

Structural analysis:

Upon starting to revise my WP2, I found the trail of my idea reflected by my structure is unclear.
My analysis about pathos in non-academic writing repeated my points in my analysis about nonacademic writings, therefore I decided to combine these two paragraphs together. I think by
doing so, I can achieve more flow and a clear organization. Also, I decided to weaver my
analysis about each genre into each other. Instead of analyzing all features of a genre at a time,
my analysis switched between two genres more frequently. I think such change will make my
article flow more naturally and it is easy to compare two genre in such structure as well.

Works Cited:
Boyd, Janet. "Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)." Writing Space: Readings on Writing. Vol. 2.
Parlor Press, 2011. 87-100. Writing 2 Reader.
Bunn, Mike. "How to Read Like a Writer." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 2. Parlor
Press, 2011. 71-86. Writing 2 Reader .

Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps tpward Rhetorical Analysis." Writing
Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 1. Parlor Press, 2010. 45-58. Document.
Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. ""So what?/ Who Cares?" ." They say/I say the Moves that
Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton, 2010. 92-101.
Muller, Richard A. A Pause, Not an End, to Warming. 25 September 2013. Opinion Article. 16
Feburary 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-towarming.html>.
Nordhaus, William D. "Global warming economics." Science 294.5545 (2001): 1283-1284.
Schleussner, C.-F., et al. "Differential Climate Impacts For Policy-Relevant Limits To Global
Warming: The Case Of 1.5 C And 2 C." Earth System Dynamics Discussions 6.2
(2015): 2447-2505. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.