PB@A

My article: “COMPLETIONS OF (epsilon)-DENSE PARTIAL LATIN SQUARES” by Padraic Bartlett.

Part 1:

There are things that these articles have in common. Both the real scholarly article and the fake one have introductions. The introductions serve to both educate the reader in the subject matter that follows and introduce the reader to the claim being made. However, the real scholarly article also contains a history sub-section with the introduction section. This gives the reader even more background into the subject matter. A history sub-section is probably needed because the specialization of these papers are so specific that even people within the field are not expected to know everything within the field to this degree. Since this article is a math article, the introduction also lists a series of conjectures and theorems that will be used or—in extraordinary articles—proved in the paper. Conjectures are ideas that have not been proved yet but are theorized by great scientists that came before.Theorems are facts that have been proven by previous scientists. In my article, the section after the introduction is “The proof”. At the start of it, he states the fact that he wants to prove, the he proves this fact using the previously established theorems in addition to original ideas and logic. This is very different from the computer generated paper, which had no logical flow or claim to prove. The only part after the proof is references where the author cites where he got his theorems as well as his background in the field. The computer generated paper had a reference page as well; however, when if you look closely you will find that it is filled with high-brow jokes instead of real sources.

Rhetorical Features:

The are both being made for a higher education level audience. The main difference is that while Dr. Bartlett’s paper is being made for people within his field, the computer generated one is made to confuse people who are not in the computer science field. The tone of both is scholarly, clear, and concise. They are both trying to make a claim, and an important part of any claim is the ability for people to understand it and follow it. In order to achieve this, the authors both try to make a very straightforward argument. Although the vocabulary of the argument is overflowing with words that would make the Mr. T shit himself, the actual logic behind the argument as well as the way the argument is presented are both relatively straightforward. As for visual literacy, they both use graphs or picture or such to further illustrate their arguments.

Part 2:

The specific aspects of the scholarly piece that struck me as the most important parts were the claim, data, and warrant. This is because they are the building blocks of any argument, this paper included. The claim tells the reader what the paper is trying to prove. In my article the claim is the theorem that he is trying to prove. He starts by proving three lemmas, assistant theorems, then uses these lemmas as well as outside theorems and critical thinking to prove his claim: any (epsilon)-dense partial latin square P containing no more than (gamma)n^2 filled cells in total is completable for (epsilon)<(1/12),(gamma)<(1-12(epsilon)^2/10409)(Bartlett 15). The data is the outside evidence(theorems, conjectures) that he uses to give credibility and legitimacy to his claim. The warrant is his use of the evidence to prove his claim. it is his own thoughts and it is the root of the paper.