As support for their claim that science is social, Penrose and Katz discuss the model for community knowledge that Thomas Kuhn presents in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Given that we are not specifically studying writing scientific research, how does this model relate to the philosophical underpinning of our course?

Question 1. As support for their claim that science is social, Penrose and Katz discuss the model for community knowledge that Thomas Kuhn presents in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Given that we are not specifically studying writing scientific research, how does this model relate to the philosophical underpinning of our course? (A good answer should contain a recounting of Kuhn’s model as well as the terminology we used in discussing elements of the rhetorical situation.)

Question 2. The central concept through which we have been critiquing documents (or at least associating them for observation) is the idea of genre. We have used the term genre loosely to group documents that seem be situated similarly in terms of purpose and audience and in the context of the community in which the author (identity is the word we used) and audience are set. The Swales reading from early in the semester is quite deliberate in describing the properties of genre, however, and Swales would exclude a number of the documents we have looked at on the basis that the documents are not sufficiently intracommunal. Considering Swales’s definitions of genre and discourse community, how does our usage of these terms correspond to his? (To answer this question, you may want to begin by distilling Swales’s requirements for genre and discourse community and then proceed to discuss why each point he makes to discussions, resources, and activities from our weekly classes.)

Question 3. Penrose and Katz, in their chapter “Reading and Writing Research Reports”, describe a variety of high-level, argumentative, and linguistic patterns which are generic to scientific research articles. Importantly, however, they ground these observations in the rhetorical situation by describing the venues in which these articles appear and the way these articles are constructed, read, and referred to. This grounding presents the opportunity to recognize multiple (often simultaneous) rationales for the structures observed. Consider specifically citation in journal articles. What are two (or more) co-existing reasons the authors of the chapter list for research article authors to cite the work of others? How might these reasons be rationalized in terms of their connection to elements of the rhetorical situation?  And how might those rationalizations be used to supplement Hyland’s empirical/linguistic discussion of citation patterns?

Question 4. In class we talked about how the mechanical connection of phrases is a strong syntactic technique for imparting emphasis. We also discussed how syntactic and lexical techniques deployed with the purpose of manipulating the feel of text in one way might also impact other textual properties. Considering our exercises and readings over the last few weeks, describe how the concepts of co- and subordination discussed in class might connect to the “rudimentary” idea of unity, identified in our reading as a property necessary but not sufficient for paragraph cohesion. (To answer this question, you may want to begin by defining the terms unity and coherence as they are defined in the text and then detailing how they are related to cohesion. From there, you can comment on how the phrasal coordination techniques discussed in class function in terms of these terms, as well as in terms of emphasis and cohesion.)

Please give me a good rate and quality work with deadline in mind.
(university level paper)