PB1A

Link to the Google Doc of PB1A

Letters to the Editor 

The 24-hour study spot: a preamble to student protest (The DP)

A Lack of Respect for the Working Class in America Today (New York Tims)

Is Legalizing Marijuana Too Risky? (New York Times)

Genre Conventions

1. Purpose / Concerns
2. Current Situations
3. Follow up action/ solutions
4. Explanation of whats wrong about the event / why is it necessary to act on it
5. Statement of their identity / who they are
6. MAYBE, a personal anecdote (only found on one letter)

Part 2

• Exigence: What prompted the writer’s need to communicate in this particular text?  What’s the urgency behind the need to enact this genre? Why this, why now?  What event/moment sparked the creation of this text? ( make assumptions based on the content )
• Worries that eliminating 24-hour study spot will send a negative cultural message to about the institutional support for students wellness ( L1)
• Shorten students study time (L1)
• Institutions and mainstream politicians fail to meet the needs of working-class community (L2)
• While the country is economically progressing, working class people see only a little improvement in terms of worker benefit and wages. (L2)
• Unfair treatment towards working people such as eliminating pensions, dismantling unions and demanding higher efficiency. (L2)
• Marijuana has been criminalized in the US out of racist agenda. (L3)
• Prohibition of marijuana caused more harm than marijuana itself. (L3)

Writer: Who is the writer?   What do we know about them?  What’s their name? Are they affiliated with a particular organization/company?  What’s their role/position?

• Samson Hennessy-Starhs is a research assistant in the Department of Surgery at The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.  
• Former Cornell University undergraduate.  
• Daniel Wasik, a precision machinist.
• Shaleen Title, member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission

• Primary/Intended Audience: Who is the intended/primary audience for this genre?  Is it addressed to a particular person? If so, what’s their name, what organization/company are they affiliated with, and what’s their position/role?  Is it a group? If so, what’s their organizational mission and/or identity?
• Student leaders and faculty
• As stated in the letter, the decision of shortening the study time was made by the student leaders and school faculty, and since she is asking the school to return to status quo, these people would be her best target.
• Politicians who are in charge of setting the rules / who are negotiating with the working class community

• Alex Berenson
• The letter is a response to Alex Berenson’s letter: “What Advocates of Legalizing Pot Don’t Want You to Know”

• Secondary/Peripheral Audience:  What additional peripheral/secondary audiences might play a role in how we can understand this genre?  Might other people be interested in the message that’s being communicated? Could the writer have additional people in mind beyond the specific person(s) that they’ve contacted?  Who else could be “at stake” regarding the ideas embedded within this text?
• Wharton school students / students in general
• Working class people
• Government (federal, state, local)
• Family, Children, Parents
• People who smoke Marijuana
• Readers

• Writer’s Purpose/Goal: What’s the writer’s goal?  What are they trying to achieve?  What outcome(s) do they hope that this piece of communication achieves?
• Return to the status quo + open free gym membership
• Government raise the minimum or average salary of the working class + Stop the unfair treatment towards working class
• To Legalize marijuana / to not legalize marijuana

• Context/Background Info: What additional information is necessary to make the most sense of this rhetorical situation?  Is there any sort of history between
• What are some changes that had been made towards working class ?
• The letter they are responding to ( What Advocates of Legalizing Pot Don’t Want You to Know)

Conventions	L1	L2	L3
Express certain concerns	✅	✅	✅
States current situations on that matter	❌	✅	✅
provide solutions/ expected outcome	✅	✅	✅
Whats wrong about the event	✅	✅	✅
Author’s identity	✅	✅	✅
personal anecdote	✅	❌	❌
To the editor	✅	✅	✅
Respond to another letter	❌	✅	✅
Big picture on top ??	✅	✅	✅

After creating a chart, we can see that a letter to the editor is expressing certain concerns writer has on its community, country or society. Writer will always state their identity at the end of the letter for its authentication and credibility. In the letter, reasons that explain why is the event worth discussing are provided. And depend on the situation, writer may refers to personal anecdote as an example and evidence to back up it’s main argument. So far, it occurs to me that letter to the editor prefer to end with a call to action to urge the reader to join them and follow up on this particular issue.

By the way, not so sure if it's just because of the website, but every letter to the editor contains a huge photograph or cartoon image on top of the letter.

Part 3

Based on these three letters to the editors, I came up with conclusion that in order to be persuasive, a letter to the editor need to have solid evidence ( or better yet example and personal anecdote) to convince us that we should act on this event. As to author’s identity information, in my opinion, it also plays an important role. A former cornell student will give the reader a completely different  impression than, let’s say, some random worker who lives in his family’s basement. Your identity sends a message that indicates whether or not your words are trustable. Indeed, writer’s identity isn’t the only factor that we should take into account. When it comes to the persuasiveness of the letter to the editor, a practical solution will really show the reader your understanding of this matter and your dedication to make a difference.