Josue Montenegro

Professor De Piero
Writing 2
11 May, 16
Welcome to the Jungle
Lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD, is a psychedelic drug that has had a
fascinating history and a remarkable effect on modern society. Since Albert Hofmann
synthesized LSD in 1938 and after the CIA did atrocious things with it in their program
MKULTRA, LSD has always been a subject of controversy. After it was banned in California in
1966, very little scientific research has been done about the effects and properties of the drug.
Consequently, most of the information about LSD is scientifically unsubstantiated. Two
examples of the few publications about LSD are the academic journals Lysergic Acid

Comment [1]: This may be a personal pet peeve of

mine, but Id like to advise you to steer clear of things
in academic writing (maybe even all writing!). Its
suuuuuuper vague. Academic writing requires
precision and specificitybe direct and tell me exactly
what youre talking about. Pick the 1 word that really
captures the idea(s) that you want to get across.
(Didn't I say this in your last paper??)
Comment [2]: ?

Diethylamide: An Historical Perspective by Doctor David E. Smith, and LSD enhances

suggestibility in healthy volunteers by Doctor Carhart-Harris. In addition to the scientific
literature, there are many non-academic resources about LSD like the online article LSD
Timeline by Erowid. Since each of these pieces belong to different disciplines and genre, the
way each of them approaches the topic is unique. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how
rhetorically similar non-academic publications can be to academic ones.
In order to see this, lets analyze the mentioned academic articles first. The article written
by Smith is a medical article and the piece written by Carhart-Harris is a Psychopharmacology
research paper. Although each of them belong to different disciplines, it was surprising to see
how little they have in common given that they are categorized as academic. Usually, academic
journals follow the IMRAD introduction, methods, results and discussion - format, but in this

Comment [3]: I like your Intro, Josue -- you captured

my interested and provided a solid overview. However,
I need (a lot) more of an argument here.
They're different and they're the same... (very vague)
OK, so I'm wondering... based on what, specifically?
And so what? What does it matter that they're similar
and different?
What are you trying to convince me of? What does
your textual data point to?
Comment [4]: So are they two different disciplines? If
so, how? I'm unclear on this. (Remember, I haven't
read these pieces.)

case the article written by Smith fails to do so. This article not only omits the IMRAD formatting
but it also omits citations, a publication date and any use of relevant sources to support its
claims. Furthermore, the title Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: An Historical Perspective is
completely misleading. The words Historical Perspective give the audience the hint that the
article was written by a Historian or that it will mostly discuss dates, historical events and their

Comment [5]: OK, why does this matter? How does it

pertain to your argument?
(Please remember: I'm not trying to beat you up here
with my feedback, Josue -- I'm just trying to get you to
think more critically about allllllllll the considerations
that contribute to "good writing.")

impact on society. In reality, the article was written by a doctor and it mostly talks about the
effects of LSD on people. For example, here are some of Smiths claims: When someone
ingests an average dose of LSD, nothing happens for the first 30 to 45 minutes... (2), or There
is a marked emotional liability and the changes in emotion are very frequent. (2), black and
white become equal, or good and bad frequently become equal (3). He claims all these things
without citing or explaining where they came from. Unfortunately, the poor choice of words for
the title and lack of citations affect the logos argument from reason (Carrol 52) - and ethos
the credibility of the rhetor (Carrol 54). This reduces the rhetorical impact of the article and adds
an element of ambiguity to the piece.
On the other hand, the article written by Carhart-Harris makes sure to follow academic
conventions which makes its rhetoric much stronger. Following the IMRAD convention, the

Comment [6]: You're jumping around quite a bit in this

paragraph, Josue.
How do all these ideas fit together? Why bring all of
them into the discussion? If I'm (your
reader/"audience") having trouble understanding why, it
might be useful for you to explain how/why you're using
them in more explicit detail.
Remember: use each paragraph to further your overall
argument in *one specific way* -- one piece at a time.
Comment [7]: Yes, this seems important... but
important *for what*? Why are you telling me this?
How does your claim, here, fit into the bigger picture of
your analysis on LSD through our "Writing 2" lens?
Comment [8]: I like how you're weaving the course
readings into this, but your usage of dashes here is it a
bit clunky. I'd stick to one set (2) tops per sentence.

Comment [9]: Love this transitional "move"!

Comment [10]: Which ones?

article curated the information in an organized and logical way strengthening the logos of the
article. The author of the article knows that the articles audience will consist of people who
want veridical and trustworthy information about LSD rather than information from unreliable

Comment [11]: ?

non-academic sources. This is why, in contrast with the article written by Smith, this article uses

Comment [12]: Again, I really like how you're using

this little phrase here to remind me of how this
compares to the other source. I'll call this move the
"Josue Shuffle."

the move Watch my back by making sure to cite other sources in order to strengthen its
credibility and watch out to not fall in ambiguity. For example, when Carhart-Harris talks about
the implications of suggestibility he argues, the issue of false memory is one of the most

controversial in mental health (Rosen et al 2004), and accusations of a therapists suggestion are
often made in such cases (790). By doing this, Harris makes sure the audience feels that
possible concerns about the truth of the articles claims are being addressed.

Comment [13]: I'm not quite sure what you/he means

here. I think I need more explanation and/or analysis
of the quote.

Although its been seen how both academic articles are very different in the way they
expose their information, they are similar in one way. Both authors know that not everyone in
their audience will have a familiarity with the subjects of suggestibility or LSD, and they make

Comment [14]: I don't feel like you actually went too

far in depth on this -- I don't feel like I've "seen" the
differences.

sure to include a brief introduction on these topics in the first page of their articles. For example,
Harris explains that Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is an ergotamine derivative with a high
affinity for and agonist properties at several different neurotransmitter receptors (785), and
that Suggestibility refers to an individuals susceptibility or responsiveness to suggestion
(785). Smith does the same in the first paragraphs of his article. He explains how [LSD] was
first synthetized in 1938 as an intermediate leading to the synthesis of ergonovine (1). Both

Comment [15]: What does "suggestion" mean here?

Does this play a part in their conceptual or operational
definition?
Can you make any claims about the data that they
collected? The claims that they asked? I want
specifics.

articles successfully use the move Ladies and Gentleman by making their audience feel

How do these different folks see and study LSD in

different ways?

comfortable with the topic by introducing important terms and events.

Comment [16]: Ha!

Even after seeing how both academic articles had something in common, one might
probably still be surprised by how different they are in their rhetoric. But the surprises about
LSD articles dont end there. One might assume that the online article, like many others around
the web, is similar to Smiths piece in terms of its rhetorical features. Well, lets see. At first

(Is it worth defining/describing what you mean by

"move"? Could that enhance your paper/argument in
any way?)
Comment [17]: As a reader, I'd like more direction in
your topic sentences -- what *about* rhetoric?
Comment [18]: Any reason why you chose to do the 2
scholarly sources (and their similarities) FIRST and
then this non-academic text AFTER? I don't know the
answer to this, but could switching them enhance your
paper at all?
Comment [19]: So what? Why do I need to know this?

glance the online articles structure contains a title, and information is listed in chronological
order. Nothing too different from Smiths article. But, if the article keeps being read one can

Remember: *everything* you bring into your paper

needs to -- in some way, shape, or form -- directly
support your argument.

observe that what makes this articles ethos much stronger than others around the web, and

Comment [20]: I'm spotting a recurring thread here -you've mentioned "ethos" a few times.

certainly stronger than Smiths, is its use of references. The author of the online article most

Whenever you can detect a pattern like that, ask

yourself: is this a part of my main argument?

likely examined some scholarly articles, looked at their writing techniques, and decided to adopt

If it is, consider "promoting" it by placing it into your

thesis statement.

them in his article (Bunn 72). The author realized how rhetorically necessary those techniques
(references, chronological organization, etc.) are, especially if an article is found in an online
environment that is not inherently trustworthy, and decided to use them in order to offer a
trustworthy piece of writing.
In addition to making sure to include important scholarly conventions, the online article
also makes sure to use moves that are exclusive to the web. For example, at the end of every
block in the timeline, the author uses different colors for references, and web-links to other
resources like [Details] and [More Info]. The author uses these website resources to make the
reading more interactive, hence more appealing and easy for the reader to digest. For example,
the block that belongs to the date Jun 12, 1943 affirms, Susi Ramstein [Hofmanns assistant]
becomes the first woman in the world to take LSD. 4 [Details] [More Info] (Erowid). This
example shows how the information about the event remains concise and easy to read, while also
letting the reader decide to read more or easily access references about the event - something that
the user might prefer over reading a scholarly article where all the references cannot be easily

Comment [21]: Nice and clear here.

accessed.
After analyzing each of the articles conventions and moves, it is easier to see what each
of them accomplishes for their audience. For example, take Smiths article. It could be said that
although it was lacking important elements to achieve credibility, the article was written in a
very clear way. The use of easy language and lack of citations might have been a move the
author used in order to attract an audience who avoided dense scholarly writing. It makes sense if
its taken into account that the article was written in 1967 (one year after LSD was declared
illegal), when most people who were interested in LSD were not necessarily scholarly. In
contrast, the second academic article by Harris did a splendid job with its rhetoric. Again, it is

Comment [22]: This may just be a pet peeve of mine -though I'd think that a lot of people share my view -- but
I'd like you to really chop down your paragraphs.
You're tackling a ton in each one. Use your
paragraphs like bites during a meal -- one forkfull at a
time, otherwise, I might choke on it.

important to remember that this second article was published in 2014 when interest about LSD
started to significantly increase in the scientific community. All the information was strongly
supported by citations and graphs throughout the paper, and the information was conventionally
organized. Overall, Harris article accomplishes a sense of trustworthiness and accuracy
appealing to a more modern reader who might value the use of scholarly conventions. Finally,
thanks to its use of references the online article achieves persuasion despite not being an

Comment [23]: Persuasion about what? And for

whom?

academic source. It is important to remember that since LSD is an illegal substance, articles of
this kind are the most frequented and used to disperse or acquire knowledge about the drug. This
means that the audience this kind of articles have is much greater than academic ones. That
might be an explanation of how much effort is put on making most of these type of articles as
credible as they are .
Some other important things to think about are the things that each of these pieces can
achieve that the others cannot. Probably the most interesting article to think about in this context
is Smiths. Although Smiths article lacks citations and references, the fact that it is published in
an academic journal gives its readers a sense of reliability. Now, if the same article had been
found on the web, the same could not be said. It is very probable that most people would not take
its information seriously since most online articles about LSD tend to contain a good amount of
references and sources. After thinking about this, one can realize how much credibility a
scholarly article can achieve just by being labeled as academic. Likewise, the piece by Carhart-

Comment [24]: Haven't you mentioned credibility and

references/source use in a couple of your other
paragraphs? Why are you placing it here? Could it be
weaved in elsewhere?

Harris also gains some automatic credibility by being labeled as academic. But from all the
pieces analyzed here, this one is the one that with no doubt achieves the most credibility in its
audience thanks to its use of precise information, references and academic conventions. Finally,
lets take the online article and analyze its exclusive achievements. Probably its biggest

Comment [25]: Gimme an O. O. Gimme an X. X.

Gimme an F. F. Gimme an O, R, D and then a C, O,
M, M, A!
What's that spell? ;)

advantage over the academic articles is how easy it is to access. The amount of people who could
potentially read it is definitely something that the academic articles cannot compete with thanks
to the fact that it is available to anyone who has an internet connection.
Two different types of articles about LSD have been analyzed and it could be seen how
unpredictable they can be in terms of moves, conventions and rhetorical features. While one
would expect all scholarly articles to be accurate and strict in the use of citations or references,
Smiths article showed us this is not always the case. Likewise, it could be seen how an online
article can make good use of web resources and can adopt characteristics of academic articles,
making it more credible and appealing to its audience. Investigation and research about LSD has
not been greatly accepted in the scientific community until recently and that might be the
explanation of how much online sites and non-academic sources have worked in order to offer
the public trustworthy information about this promising and potent drug. For now, academic
research about LSD remains a jungle; mysterious, unknown and ready to show its beauty to
whoever decides to explore it. Lets hope that in the following years we can have more scholarly
articles like the one by Carhart-Harris and that online sites, like Erowid, keep up their good work
resembling the moves and conventions of academic writing.

WORKS CITED
Smith, David E. "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: An Historical Perspective."
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1.1 (1967): 1-5. Web.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., M. Kaelen, M. G. Whalley, M. Bolstridge, A. Feilding,
and D. J. Nutt. "LSD Enhances Suggestibility in Healthy Volunteers."
Psychopharmacology 232.4 (2014): 785-94. Web.
Erowid. "LSD Timeline." Erowid. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 7 May 2016.
Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Writing Spaces. Vol. 2. 2011. 30 Oct. 2015.

Comment [26]: This is "small potatoes," but make sure

you alphabetize your entries here, Josue -- A to Z.

Carroll, Laura B. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis."

WritingSpaces, 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2016

Writing 2 Feedback Matrix for WP2

Table of Textual Features and Qualities

Thesis Statement
Use of Textual Evidence from

Did Not Meet

Met

Exceeded

Expectations

Expectations

Expectations

X
X

Genres
Use of Course Readings

X-

Analysis

Organization/Structure

Attention to Genre/Conventions

X-

and Rhetorical Factors

Attention to Moves

X/X-

Exploration of Disciplinarity

Sentence-level Clarity,

Mechanics, Flow
Josue,
Comments and Grade
I can tell you put a lot of work and effort into this
paper -- thanks. :) Its got a bunch of potential, and I
hope my comments can guide you in a productive
direction.

My overall piece of advice is: find your argument.

Consider what you read here and learned about LSD
and the different ways that folks think about it and
study it -- then formulate a clear argument about it.
Get into their data, their research questions, their
conceptual definitions, their measurements, their

values, etc.

Z
7.5/10