Trump uses his whole introduction on explaining how terrible America is right now. I don't think this is the best way to get Americans' support. Most Americans are very proud of their country and will not hear it spoken ill of. But because he ends it saying that he will fix all of this and "make America great again", he will most likely get the votes of those who agree with him and want a more traditional/old fashioned America.

Cruz is using ethos to show that he is a true Texan, and he is one of them. He proves that he is proud of his state and will continue to fight for their rights as well as the rights of the rest of America.

Rubio is using logos to gain support. He proves that he has knowledge about American political history, and he is planning on using this to run America in the greates way possible.

Kasich is using pathos and ethos to make himself relatable. He is telling the voters about how he went through a lot, and he knows what its like to work for what you have. He also brings out the patriotic feeling in people by telling his story of the American dream that says you can become anything you want with enough hard work.

Carson is smart to include this in his introduction. It proves that he is not running for President for personal gain but to improve America and the life of the average American.

Hillary Clinton ends her opening statement in a very American way. She talks about how we can make America live up to its greatness, and how this can only be done if everyone is given the chance to thrive. Using pathos like this she brings out the patriotic feeling that is so strong for many Americans. This is a helpful tool to gain votes from anyone, but I think maybe she did it to get some respect from the "make America great" part of the republican party and their voters.

Here Clinton wants to show that she will do more than what is necessary. She gives attention to minorities, promising to help with the difficulties so many have to face everyday. This will engage those communities and gain her votes.

Sanders is using pathos to make the voters like him again. He tells a story that all ordinary American can relate to, and when they hear him understand and know how they feel, it makes him relatable and gives them hope that he will actually fix the things they worry about.

This is something a lot of Americans have a problem with and by brining it up Sanders prove that he does not support a system like that, by doing this he gains support of those who are bothered by how much money drives elections.

Sanders is using pathos to make himself seem more relatable to the audience (the voter). He is doing it by showing them that he had the same starting materials as anyone else would and he knows what its like to be "just a normal person".

In this introduction Woodruff is taking care of the formal introduction of todays event and thanks the people making it possible. Without this, the whole debate would've started off on an unprofessional note.

Phillips, T. (2008) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education 1(1):213

Doctor Philips has a wealth of knowledge in this field. Her sources for this article are also from respected publishers and authors. This all adds to her credibility for this topic and article.

At this point does genetic modification become inhumane? Other documentaries point out inhumane living conditions of animals, how would this play a role in that?

Philips is identifying the risks associated with GMOs, without "bashing" them, it shows that she is seeing the topic from a unbiased perspective.

This sort of address the question I had about widespread adoption of GMOs. Since there are so many different takes on the positives and negatives surrounding GMOs, we would need something to try and educate people about them.

Philips is saying that with proper research and diligence that the use of GMOs can be safely commercialized. This doesn't seem too bias, because she doesn't immediately say GMOs are going to be a big success or failure.

Would the history and the perception of GMOs effect its widespread adoption in the future? Or are the use of GMOs just so necessary, the benefits outweigh the consequences?

This is a good way to show the downsides of the GMOs, but do the positives outweigh the negatives? The author is both showing the positives and negatives of the use of GMOs.

The introduction of "Golden Rice" has the advantage of having a high amount of Vitamin A in it that normal rice, why wouldn't more people want to eat it?

This is a good question to pose, if people already get injected with a low dose of a disease, what is the problem with genetic modification? Also it is a good way to get the reader engaged, because of the great question it poses.

Belyy, Vladislav, and Ahmet Yildiz. "Processive cytoskeletal motors studied with single-molecule fluorescence techniques." FEBS letters 588.19 (2014): 3520-3525.

Would the inhibition of the motor domains effect the organism as a hole? What would be the effects of inhibition on a consumer product? Would there be any adverse side effects?

A detailed measurement like this will reveal information useful to learn about how kinesin, dyenin, and myosin move. All of the evidence and explanations for this is included in the article as well as citations to where the information can be found and explained in more detail.

The authors claim that it is extremely important to understand how cytoskeletons move along their paths. By knowing more about how they move, we can find out how speed as well as number of steps affects mechanisms. This article will explain and explore how this works to give us a better understanding of how and why it works the way it does.

Both of the authors of this article are credible writers. They are both part of physics and biology departments at Berkeley University in California. Their degrees prove that they know what they are taking about.

This article is posted on an online database called www.sciencedirect.com. This helps prove the credibility of the article because this website only posts scholarly articles and book chapters related to scientific topics.

The audience for this article would be people interested in the topic with previous information about the subject. It is expected that the audience already knows the basics of the mechanisms studied. This is necessary to be able to explain a topic like this in a way detailed enough to prove and explain its points. As this is a strictly scientific article there is no bias, and the authors are just presenting and explaining the facts.

Pray, L. (2008) Recombinant DNA technology and transgenic animals. Nature Education 1(1):51

What are the ethics behind this? Once again are we taking the role of God a little too far? However, if their practical benefits outweigh the consequence, would it be worth it then?

Why would they not want them to be available to the general public? I feel as if, when there are more people being able to look and study them, only more knowledge will come of it.

Could we be able to recombine plant genes with an animal or vis versa? Would this be taking the role of playing God too far?

The author of this article, Doctor Leslie Pray, proves the credibility of her article by citing and referring to scientific articles. Her doctorate give not only her but also her writing credibility.

This liberal news source's article on gene modified organisms takes a different stand than the conservative article. Right from the start the language and writing style gives away that the author of the article does not think highly of GMO's or at least that she is for labeling of them. It is made to seem that rights are being taken away from us by there not being mandatory labeling of gene modified food. The article is ended by telling us that labeling is common sense, and that anyone not labeling their products are being dumb and disrespectful.

In this article on genetically modified organisms published by a conservative news source, the author Mike Opelka keeps his writing neutral. It starts off with a positive statement about GMO's making me think it would be a pro GMO article, but overall it is informative and includes statements about different stores not carrying gene modified products. I was expecting a positive or at least not negative attitude towards GMO's from the conservative news source, but I am glad to say the article was written in a way that didn't make me feel like they were pushing GMO's onto me.

This is a very good point. It is not likely that Serial would be as popular if it was executed in a more academic form. The casual style and language from the podcast is part of what keeps people interested. You can even notice that reading this article, it is a lot harder to stay focused and actually understand what is being said when the language is more complicated. This makes one lose interest a lot faster than when listening to an easy going podcast like Serial.

All of the questions being asked are very good. They lead to good, descriptive answers. Its important to ask questions that are open and that can not be answered in short sentences.

All references are cited for this article, this is a part of proving it is a scholarly article.

This article is written by a professor and is a scholarly article. The article's language is technical and everything is based of off research.

This is a popular source. I know this because it is an interview published on theintercept.com. It is written in an easy-to-read language, and is meant for the general public/those interested in Hae Min Lee's murder.

In this paragraph Jay comes of as the good guy, almost heroic. "Without him they would not have been able to catch the murderer" is what it says to me. Knowing the story I already have my own opinion of Jay, but if this was the first time I heard of this case, this paragraph would make me think highly of Jay.

It is clear that Jim Trainum does not believe Jays story. He thinks they shut down the case before it got too complicated. The fact that he is a real detective and knows how the system works, makes the audience believe him when he tells that this is not an uncommon thing and that taking "the easy way out" si not a rare thing to see in the business.

Koenigs belief that "all facts are friendly" goes against what Trainum is saying about building your case. It makes her seem very neutral and like she truly want to know the truth even if she doesnt like it.

This explanation is very helpful in understanding what she is talking about for those of us who are not familiar with the process. It also proves that she knows what she is talking about, which gives her credibility.

The way Jim says this makes it seem like he think convicting Adnan was just the simplest way to solve the case and maybe not the right decision.

Koenig proves that Trainum is fit for the job and has experience with similar cases.

Here Koenig is giving credibility to Jim Trainum, making sure it is clear that he is the expert and he will be able to investigate the case on a higher level than Sarah.

This fun add on helps catch the attention of people who does not have a big interest in the sport, but enjoys the social aspect.

All the background information given helps paint the whole picture, and makes it more interesting and understandable for readers that don't usually follow sports.

A nice way of summing up an informative article about this weekends big football game.

The way this is written makes the article more directed towards fans of the Denver Broncos. I say this based on the authors use of the word "smothered". Another more neutral word could have been used, but because more Broncos fans will read this article than Panthers fans it is a nice way of "hyping up" the winning team.

BBC is a well known news outlet, and would not be able to get away with printing false information. This makes me believe this is a credible author.

The very simple, yet explaining title gives the impression that this article will give me the facts I need to know about this event.

Here Koenig shows her own personal wish in this case. She wants to catch Adnan in a lie. Nad if she thinks she can catch him lying, that must mean she believes he isn't innocent.

Here Koenig is using straight facts to prove her point. In a case like this; opinion and interpretation plays a big part, but you can't deny hard facts.

By using a friendly tone like this, like it is an ongoing conversation between Koenig and the audience, Sarah is able wheel us back into the story by bringing up points from the first episode. It helps the listener feel engaged in Adnans story.

In this sentence Koenig proves both that she might have been bias in the past, and that even though she favors Adnan she is not going to withhold facts. This proves that even though it is hard to stay neutral in a case like this it is important to let the facts speak for themselves and to not leave out anything.

Including this automatic message instantly puts us in the middle of the situation. It makes a point of Adnan actually being in prison for what happened, and it points out the importance of actually figuring out what happened.

A map or a visualization of where they went, with the corresponding times, would be nice, it would give the audience a sense of setting and direction. This would just lead to a more immersive reading for the audience.

The constant "Narrative" voice of Koenig helps keep a timeline for the reader. When finishing each passage, it is nice to have a clear progression in the story line. It allows the reader to stay more engaged in the reading, because they are able to see the clear progression to the next scene of the podcast.

The vocabulary gives you a sense of how the interrogation went but, I wish there was more imagery. For example, to give details about the way Jay and the detective reacted to each other; such as describing tone, setting, mood, etc.

The author is able to connect / appeal to a younger audience with the use of a more "laid back" vocabulary. This helps hold the attention of the audience, because the diction is more relatable.

Koenig immediately gives you the details to the murder, which grabs the audience's attention. The use of flashback sets up the scene nicely and gives the proper introduction into the story.

Solveig Dahlberg Gonsholt, solveigdg