In my research paper I learned how to use the “’moves’ for making and supporting several different kinds of academic arguments, including how to use a range of evidence to support claims.” My research paper focused on the negative effects of Hattiesburg’s sewage lagoons. As I researched our poorly kept sewage lagoons, I found a group dedicated to preserving the environment in Mississippi: the Gulf Restoration Network. They have Flickr account, along with a website, to display their findings and progress. In my presentation, I used their pictures of the discharge into the rivers and their information about suing the City of Hattiesburg over violations of the Environmental Equality Act. These two different mediums helped support my claim condemning the Hattiesburg sewage systems.
Just as Caroline uses balance and strength to support different kinds of claims, represented as books, I used different kinds of evidence to support my claims. Strength doesn’t uphold the claims. Balance doesn’t uphold the claims. A combination of different elements allow Caroline to hold up the books. In the same way, the combination of pictures and data from the Gulf Restoration Network’s websites help uphold my arguments against the sewage systems.
When I began to transfer my research paper to presentation form, I realized the structure of my paper needed to be changed. Although the organization worked on paper, convincing an audience of my thesis would require a revision of my organization. In my research paper, I was able to suggest a change in priorities without using specific evidence directly before my argument. However when I put it on paper, I realized my argument wasn’t as strong because my evidence for my main argument wasn’t position in a way that would verbally flow well. Instead mentioning the $14 million “quick-fix” for Hattiesburg’s sewage systems in 2010 during the beginning of my presentation, I discussed it as evidence for the prioritization of money in Hattiesburg near the end of my presentation.