WB Post #3

I decided to take a step back and reevaluate two of the sources I used for my research paper, hoping to gain a better understanding as to how each source presents their information effectively. The first source, an article from Forbes.com titled 'Workaholics Anonymous', analyzes the characteristics of a "workaholic". The article is successfully persuasive, primarily because it utilizes a wide array of persuasive techniques. For one, the article uses the findings of a psychotherapist, Dr. Bryan E. Robinson. Citing and quoting Robinson gives the article a sense of legitimacy that, without a doctor's opinion, could not be achieved. The author of this particular article, Scott Reeves, makes good use of Robinson's knowledge, too, as Robinson is often quoted directly after Reeves' arguments. This technique successfully supports Reeves' beliefs, and again, contributes to the entire article's relevance.

The Forbes article also uses metaphors and analogies to relate the story to the readers. For instance, when describing the physical attributes of "workaholics", Reeves likens them unto zombies. Reeves also relates the disorder to the readers, explaining that the difference between a workaholic and and hard worker is that "a hard worker sprints at the office, performing complicated tasks efficiently and well. Such people know how to enjoy life away from the office and share outside interests with family and friends" while a workaholic "constantly thinks and talks about work, even while at home or on the beach." Explicitly outlining the disorder like this is an effective way to help the audience understand the meaning of the disorder. When an audience understands what the author is comparing, the effectiveness of the article obviously increases.

The second source, 'Stress Management' from Mayoclinic.com, is quite a bit longer than the Forbes.com article. Thus, to compensate for this extra length, the article uses different tools to make its information more digestible. For example, a list of quick bites of information follows almost every significant paragraph. This is an effective way to speak to an audience, as it allows those who skim articles to understand the important points, while also offering greater detail for those who are more interested or have more time to read the article. Unlike the previous article, which uses analogies and metaphors to relay information, this article presents information without the fluff. Word choice is less interesting than the first article, but the straight-forward tone seems to contribute to the article's overall voice; a voice of confidence and reliability. Such a tone hearkens unto the logos-minded readers, as strict information dominates the bulk of the article.

Though these two sources utilize different techniques, they are both strong in their own right. One thing that the two articles surely have in common, however, is that they are written with the reader in mind. Far too often, writers neglect to be mindful of the way others would perceive their work. Effective articles are written to persuade; to dive into the minds of readers and change the way they think. Both of these articles do just that. While they may be different in style, but both of these articles were written to read, and more importantly, writtento be understood by readers.