What's funny about this statement is that it makes it seem like students need "procedures" or "heuristics" whenever they're writing so that they can achieve writing in cohesion, and this kind of conflicts with what Mike Rose found in “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language.” While Nancy Sommers says students don't have the "heuristics" to get a complete understanding of the larger issue in their writing, Mike Rose gives examples of students who struggle because of the heuristics they follow to do such. This makes me feel kind of conflicted as to how I should write in my projects, but I think a good compromise would be to first write drafts that don't follow rigid rules that would restrict me in my ideas, and then to consider certain "heuristics" to helps me understand what larger issues are at hand.

I'm seeing a good amount of logical appeal made by this author, such as her inclusion of the methods she used to approach her conclusion and her experimental data. Her clarification of the procedures she used makes me feel secure in her reasoning and trust more on whatever she says.

This footnote caught my attention because reading from the first paragraph, I knew this text was one written by a professional due to its type of language and serious tone. When I looked further and found this footnote, I was able to confirm my suspicions and find credibility behind the author who wrote this.

What I found interesting about this was the fact that this statement is very true. It would be amazing if we could speak and suddenly be able to reverse time if we believed what was said wasn't accurate. This ties well with the common saying, "think before you speak," since revising our speech isn't possible.

When I read this, I instantly thought of Mike Rose's "Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language." This article about writing great researched arguments introduces the conversation by gently addressing that there are "no simple" rules that can bring the readers' papers to be its absolute best. This ties with Mike Rose's concept of how no algorithms exist to create the perfect text every time it is written. With this stress made by two different sources, I feel more inclined to write freely and not focus on specific writing rules step-by-step.

I feel like this ties well with chapter six from The Digital Writer about digital audiences. It's important to research not just a paper's topic, but also the audience that will be reading the paper to argue/inform/explain some claim in a more effective way.

I love the author's way of writing to the audience here. They use a bit of humor by comparing characteristics of loved ones to those of paragraphs. From this amusing text, I was able to better understand how paragraphs work well in an argument: by being supportive, strong, and considerate.

Practice makes perfect! Whenever you are offered to read and peer review a friend's paper, it's more of an opportunity to improve your own skills in giving suggestions/advice.

I heard Hannah Montana's voice.

I instantly noticed the way Richard Straub's writes: his short, quick sentences help me follow along the story easily rather than restrict me from trying to process what he's talking about.

Relatable; In high school, I remember students peer grading others' papers and those who'd be constructive would seem too critical, giving people the idea that they should be supportive and nice instead.

I can relate to Sylvia here: whenever I do an in-class essay, I never consider the time ticking as I try to perfect my first paragraph, and before I know it, I'd rush my last few paragraphs.

Laurel's story shows how outside sources such as "college" and "high school" can have a big impact on students, especially on the like or dislike of a certain subject. In this case, Laurel has been taught by schools to look at writing as a task that required to follow rules, rather than an activity she could do for leisure.

Ruth's inability to write freely with different writing styles illustrates the frustration that comes from writer's block. This "rule" that Ruth tries to follow "restricts her" from exploring different techniques, and this relates to the message from Shitty First Drafts. From SFD, Anne Lamott highlights how significant it is to trust the process and be able to write without consciously keeping rules in check at all times. Ruth doesn't do this, and this proves Lamott's point that writing with care for errors can cause a writer to stay at one place and not make any steps forward.

This quote is one of the many similes that Lamott includes in her piece, and this one specifically helps the reader understand that not all great writers have the ability to easily write sentences without a stressful thought.

Lamott can be really relatable in these instances when taking a break in between assignments, especially her kitchen visit and "ten minutes" of sighs before continuing her project.