{"id":160,"date":"2020-04-22T22:17:24","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T02:17:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwritingh5p\/chapter\/appendix-g-writing-comparisons\/"},"modified":"2021-07-16T15:53:40","modified_gmt":"2021-07-16T19:53:40","slug":"appendix-g-writing-comparisons","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwritingh5p\/chapter\/appendix-g-writing-comparisons\/","title":{"raw":"Appendix G: Writing Comparisons","rendered":"Appendix G: Writing Comparisons"},"content":{"raw":"University classes often ask you to write comparative analyses in which you compare 2 or more items in a way that offers some meaningful conclusions.\u00a0 You can compare almost anything \u2013 even porcupine and mushrooms \u2013 as long as you have a clear reason for your comparison (a thesis) and logical criteria for comparing the items.\u00a0 For example, although porcupines and mushrooms seem to have very little in common (different life forms) you might compare how both porcupines and mushrooms have developed similar self-preservation methods to avoid predators.\u00a0 In order to compare two items, they must have obvious differences, but interesting similarities \u2013 or, conversely, obvious similarities, but interesting differences.\u00a0 Your reason for comparing can often be expressed by clearly articulating these interesting similarities or differences.\r\n\r\nThis chapter will review\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. the basic grammar of comparative sentence structure<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. overall comparative essay structures.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n \r\n

    1. Comparative Grammar<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nWe frequently engage in making comparisons in daily life.\u00a0 This leads to a sort of \u201cshort hand\u201d in the way we express comparisons. This shorthand might be understood in a conversational way, but in formal writing, we must adhere to certain grammatical standards.\u00a0 A correct comparative sentence should adhere to the following rules:\r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. Clearly identify the things being compared<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. Ensure the compared items are equivalent and comparable<\/li>\r\n \t
    3. State the specific criteria for comparison<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThese rules might seem obvious, but we often break them in our informal conversational comparisons. For example, the following sentence wants to compare the difficulty of dealing with the peels of apples and oranges, but grammatically compares apple peels to \u201cmy lab group,\u201d which are not equivalently comparable.\r\n

      Compared with apples peels, my lab group found orange peels more difficult to deal with.<\/em><\/p>\r\nHow would you fix this sentence to correctly express the comparison of apple peels to orange peels?\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThey say you can\u2019t compare apples and oranges, but you actually can as long as you have established their equivalence, have stated a purpose, and defined clear criteria for comparison.\u00a0 For example, you CAN compare apples to oranges, but you cannot compare apples to fruit.\u00a0 You can compare fruit to vegetables, but you cannot compare fruit to carrots.\u00a0 These are non-equivalent.\u00a0 Non-equivalent comparisons are often a result of faulty sentence structure.\r\n\r\nHere is an example of effective comparative topic sentence:\r\n

      There are significant differences between apples and oranges, in terms of their culinary uses, nutritional content, and growing needs.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nComparative sentences can fail for several reasons:\r\n

        \r\n \t
      1. They are incomplete (do not clearly identify the two items being compared)\r\n
          \r\n \t
        • Apples grow better in northern climates. <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
        • Oranges have twice the vitamin C content. <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
        • Apples are considered more effective \u201ccomfort food.\u201d <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
        • This design is better.<\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
        • <\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
        • They are too vague (they don\u2019t provide enough meaningful information about the items)\r\n
            \r\n \t
          • There were some differences in the characteristics of apples and oranges.<\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
          • There were some similarities in the teamwork between the two lab. <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
          • Lab 2 was better than lab 1.<\/em><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
          • The comparisons are faulty (often missing information, a sentence structure error, or idiom error)<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
              \r\n \t
            • \r\n
                \r\n \t
              • This process of juicing oranges is different than apples. <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
              • Compared with the first lab exercise, my team and I have a more professional approach toward our common goal.<\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
              • Cooking apples is easier as<\/strong> opposed to<\/strong> oranges. <\/em><\/li>\r\n \t
              • This lab helped us understand the value of teamwork as against<\/strong> individual work.<\/em><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n
                \r\n

                Exercise G-1<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

                \r\n\r\nTry writing 2 or 3 comparative sentences, making sure you follow all three rules, and watching out for incorrect vernacular phrasing.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n2. Comparative Structure:\u00a0 Alternating vs Block Structures<\/strong>\r\n\r\nJust as there are rules at the sentence level, there are also guidelines for comparative paragraph and essay structure.\u00a0 Alternating (also called Point-by-point) and Block (also called Whole-to-whole) structures are common ways of organizing a comparative analysis, and the structure you use will depend on what, how, and why you are comparing.\u00a0 Let\u2019s say you are writing a comparative analysis of how two different articles make use of the three rhetorical appeals.\u00a0 Your overall purpose might be to analyze how (or evaluate how well) each article uses rhetorical appeals to effectively convince its specific target audience.\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                1. Alternating Style<\/strong> arranges the structure based on the criteria for comparison (the appeals).\u00a0 Your first section will focus on one of the rhetorical appeals (logos<\/em>?), and compare how both articles use the appeal to logic to convince their respective audiences. The second section will focus on a second rhetorical appeal (pathos<\/em>?), and again, compare how both articles employ the appeal to emotion differently to appeal to their different audiences.\u00a0 In each case, the topic sentence focuses on the criteria for comparison and compares both items according to that criteria.<\/li>\r\n \t
                2. Block Style<\/strong> arranges the structure based on the items being compared (the articles).\u00a0 Each paragraph will focus on one of the articles, and may discuss more than one criteria for comparison.\u00a0 For example, the first section might focus on one article in detail, and might discuss how it uses both appeals to logic and credibility. The next section would focus on the other article, perhaps discussing its reliance on appeals to emotion.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nOften, Alternating<\/strong> structures work well for this kind of comparison, as you can structure your analysis based on a discussion of each rhetorical appeal in turn.\u00a0 You might choose to organize your analysis in a Block<\/strong> style, if the articles are quite different and you are focusing on different criteria for comparison in each article.\u00a0 The table below shows simplified outlines for each structure\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nTable G-1 Simple Outlines of Block and Point-by-Point Structures <\/em>\r\n<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
                  Block Style<\/strong><\/th>\r\nAlternating Style<\/strong><\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n
                  Introduction<\/strong>:\r\n\r\nIntroduce items being compared and state the purpose of your comparison (thesis)\r\n\r\nItem 1 (Article A)<\/strong>\r\n
                    \r\n \t
                  • In-depth analysis of item 1, focusing on several criteria (may need more than 1 paragraph)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nItem 2 (Article B)<\/strong>\r\n
                      \r\n \t
                    • all the things you want to say about item 2<\/li>\r\n \t
                    • you may compare a bit to item 1<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nDirect Comparison<\/strong>\r\n\r\nYou will likely need an extra paragraph here for direct comparative analysis based on the discussions in the previous sections.\r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong><\/td>\r\n
                  		Introduction<\/strong>:\r\n\r\nIntroduce items being compared and state the purpose of your comparison (thesis).\r\n\r\nCriteria 1 (appeal to logic)<\/strong>\r\n
                    \r\n \t
                  • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 1<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nCriteria 2 (appeal to credibility)<\/strong>\r\n
                      \r\n \t
                    • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 2<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nCriteria 3 (appeal to emotion)<\/strong>\r\n
                        \r\n \t
                      • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 3<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
                  PROs and CONs<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf\u00a0 your items are different enough that you aren't using the same criteria for comparison, use Block style.\u00a0 But this can end up being a bit repetitive in that you have to remind your reader of your analysis when you get to the direct comparison part at the end.<\/td>\r\nPROs and CONs<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf you have the same criteria for each item, this is the most economical way to organize your essay.\u00a0 But it can sound a bit \"ping-pong\" like if you are not careful with transitional words and phrases.\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nH5P Instructions:<\/strong> In this exercise, you are writing an essay comparing apples and oranges. The criteria that was chosen is the they are both fruit, the growing method, and vitamins. Dragging the boxes, complete a simple outline for both the block style and the alternating style.\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"27\"]\r\n\r\nBlock and Point-by-point structures are helpful principles for organizing your ideas, but keep in mind that you do not have to rigidly follow these outlines.\u00a0 You can mix these up a bit and use hybrid methods.\u00a0 Examine the excerpt below, from Douglas Rushkoff\u2019s book Program or Be Programmed:\u00a0 Ten Commands for a Digital Age<\/em>.[footnote]D. Rushkoff, Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age<\/em>. Soft Skull Press, 2011. pp. 52-54.[\/footnote]\u00a0 Identify where the author has used block style, point-by-point style, and a mixture of the two.\u00a0 Also note the use of comparative transitional words and phrases <\/strong>(highlighted for emphasis).\r\n
                  \r\n

                  Sample Comparative Passage \u2013 by Douglas Rushkoff<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

                  \r\n\r\nThe difference between an analog record and a digital CD is really quite simple.\u00a0 The record is the artifact of a real event that happened in a particular time and place.\u00a0 A musician plays an instrument while, nearby, a needle cuts a groove in a wax disk....\u00a0 The sound vibrates the needle, leaving a physical record of the noise that can be turned into a mold and copied.\u00a0 When someone else passes a needle over the jagged groove over one of the copies, the original sound emerges.\u00a0 No one has to really know anything about the sound for this to work.\u00a0 It's just a physical event -- an impression left in matter.\r\n\r\nA CD, on the other hand<\/strong>, is not a physical artifact but a symbolic representation.\u00a0 It's more like a text than it is like a sound.\u00a0 A computer is programmed to measure various parameters of the sound coming from a musician's instrument.\u00a0 The computer assigns numerical values, many times a second to the sound in an effort to represent it mathematically.\u00a0 Once the numerical \u2013 or \u00a0\"digital \u2013 equivalent of the recording is quantified, it can be transferred to another computer, which then synthesizes the music from scratch based on those numbers.\r\n\r\nThe analog recording is a physical impression, while<\/strong> the digital recording is a series of choices.\u00a0 The former<\/strong> is as smooth and continuous as real time; the latter<\/strong> is a series of numerical snapshots.\u00a0 The record has as much fidelity<\/strong> as the materials will allow. The CD has as much fidelity<\/strong> as the people programming its creation thought to allow.\u00a0 The [configuration of] numbers used to represent the song \u2013 the digital file \u2013 is perfect, at least on its own terms.\u00a0 It can be copied exactly, and infinitely.\r\n\r\nIn the digital recording, however, only the dimensions of the sound that can be measured and represented in numbers are taken into account. Any dimensions that the recording engineers haven't taken into consideration are lost.\u00a0 They are simply not measured, written down, stored, and reproduced.\u00a0 It's not as if they can be rediscovered later on some upgraded playback device.\u00a0 They are gone.\r\n\r\nGiven how convincingly real a digital recording can seem -- especially in comparison<\/strong> with a scratchy record \u2013 this loss may seem trivial.\u00a0 After all, if we can't hear it, how important could it be?\u00a0 Most of us have decided it's not so important at all.\u00a0 But early tests of analog recording compared<\/strong> to<\/strong> digital ones revealed that music played back on a CD format had much less of<\/strong> a positive impact on depressed patients than<\/strong> the same recording played back on a record.\u00a0 Other tests showed that digitally recorded sound moved the air in a room significantly differently than<\/strong> analog recordings played through the same speakers.\u00a0 The bodies in that room would, presumably, also experience that difference \u2013 even if we humans can't immediately put a name or metric on exactly what that difference is.\r\n
                    \r\n \t
                  1. Rushkoff, Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age<\/em>. Soft Skull Press, 2011, pp. 52-54<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

                    University classes often ask you to write comparative analyses in which you compare 2 or more items in a way that offers some meaningful conclusions.\u00a0 You can compare almost anything \u2013 even porcupine and mushrooms \u2013 as long as you have a clear reason for your comparison (a thesis) and logical criteria for comparing the items.\u00a0 For example, although porcupines and mushrooms seem to have very little in common (different life forms) you might compare how both porcupines and mushrooms have developed similar self-preservation methods to avoid predators.\u00a0 In order to compare two items, they must have obvious differences, but interesting similarities \u2013 or, conversely, obvious similarities, but interesting differences.\u00a0 Your reason for comparing can often be expressed by clearly articulating these interesting similarities or differences.<\/p>\n

                    This chapter will review<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. the basic grammar of comparative sentence structure<\/li>\n
                    2. overall comparative essay structures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                      1. Comparative Grammar<\/strong><\/h2>\n

                      We frequently engage in making comparisons in daily life.\u00a0 This leads to a sort of \u201cshort hand\u201d in the way we express comparisons. This shorthand might be understood in a conversational way, but in formal writing, we must adhere to certain grammatical standards.\u00a0 A correct comparative sentence should adhere to the following rules:<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. Clearly identify the things being compared<\/li>\n
                      2. Ensure the compared items are equivalent and comparable<\/li>\n
                      3. State the specific criteria for comparison<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        These rules might seem obvious, but we often break them in our informal conversational comparisons. For example, the following sentence wants to compare the difficulty of dealing with the peels of apples and oranges, but grammatically compares apple peels to \u201cmy lab group,\u201d which are not equivalently comparable.<\/p>\n

                        Compared with apples peels, my lab group found orange peels more difficult to deal with.<\/em><\/p>\n

                        How would you fix this sentence to correctly express the comparison of apple peels to orange peels?<\/p>\n

                         <\/p>\n

                        They say you can\u2019t compare apples and oranges, but you actually can as long as you have established their equivalence, have stated a purpose, and defined clear criteria for comparison.\u00a0 For example, you CAN compare apples to oranges, but you cannot compare apples to fruit.\u00a0 You can compare fruit to vegetables, but you cannot compare fruit to carrots.\u00a0 These are non-equivalent.\u00a0 Non-equivalent comparisons are often a result of faulty sentence structure.<\/p>\n

                        Here is an example of effective comparative topic sentence:<\/p>\n

                        There are significant differences between apples and oranges, in terms of their culinary uses, nutritional content, and growing needs.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

                         <\/p>\n

                        Comparative sentences can fail for several reasons:<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. They are incomplete (do not clearly identify the two items being compared)\n
                            \n
                          • Apples grow better in northern climates. <\/em><\/li>\n
                          • Oranges have twice the vitamin C content. <\/em><\/li>\n
                          • Apples are considered more effective \u201ccomfort food.\u201d <\/em><\/li>\n
                          • This design is better.<\/em><\/li>\n
                          • <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                          • They are too vague (they don\u2019t provide enough meaningful information about the items)\n
                              \n
                            • There were some differences in the characteristics of apples and oranges.<\/em><\/li>\n
                            • There were some similarities in the teamwork between the two lab. <\/em><\/li>\n
                            • Lab 2 was better than lab 1.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                            • The comparisons are faulty (often missing information, a sentence structure error, or idiom error)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                \n
                              • \n
                                  \n
                                • This process of juicing oranges is different than apples. <\/em><\/li>\n
                                • Compared with the first lab exercise, my team and I have a more professional approach toward our common goal.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                • Cooking apples is easier as<\/strong> opposed to<\/strong> oranges. <\/em><\/li>\n
                                • This lab helped us understand the value of teamwork as against<\/strong> individual work.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                  \n
                                  \n

                                  Exercise G-1<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

                                  \n

                                  Try writing 2 or 3 comparative sentences, making sure you follow all three rules, and watching out for incorrect vernacular phrasing.<\/p>\n

                                   <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

                                   <\/p>\n

                                  2. Comparative Structure:\u00a0 Alternating vs Block Structures<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                  Just as there are rules at the sentence level, there are also guidelines for comparative paragraph and essay structure.\u00a0 Alternating (also called Point-by-point) and Block (also called Whole-to-whole) structures are common ways of organizing a comparative analysis, and the structure you use will depend on what, how, and why you are comparing.\u00a0 Let\u2019s say you are writing a comparative analysis of how two different articles make use of the three rhetorical appeals.\u00a0 Your overall purpose might be to analyze how (or evaluate how well) each article uses rhetorical appeals to effectively convince its specific target audience.<\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Alternating Style<\/strong> arranges the structure based on the criteria for comparison (the appeals).\u00a0 Your first section will focus on one of the rhetorical appeals (logos<\/em>?), and compare how both articles use the appeal to logic to convince their respective audiences. The second section will focus on a second rhetorical appeal (pathos<\/em>?), and again, compare how both articles employ the appeal to emotion differently to appeal to their different audiences.\u00a0 In each case, the topic sentence focuses on the criteria for comparison and compares both items according to that criteria.<\/li>\n
                                  2. Block Style<\/strong> arranges the structure based on the items being compared (the articles).\u00a0 Each paragraph will focus on one of the articles, and may discuss more than one criteria for comparison.\u00a0 For example, the first section might focus on one article in detail, and might discuss how it uses both appeals to logic and credibility. The next section would focus on the other article, perhaps discussing its reliance on appeals to emotion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Often, Alternating<\/strong> structures work well for this kind of comparison, as you can structure your analysis based on a discussion of each rhetorical appeal in turn.\u00a0 You might choose to organize your analysis in a Block<\/strong> style, if the articles are quite different and you are focusing on different criteria for comparison in each article.\u00a0 The table below shows simplified outlines for each structure<\/p>\n

                                     <\/p>\n

                                    Table G-1 Simple Outlines of Block and Point-by-Point Structures <\/em>
                                    \n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                                    Block Style<\/strong><\/th>\nAlternating Style<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
                                    Introduction<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

                                    Introduce items being compared and state the purpose of your comparison (thesis)<\/p>\n

                                    Item 1 (Article A)<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    • In-depth analysis of item 1, focusing on several criteria (may need more than 1 paragraph)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                      Item 2 (Article B)<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      • all the things you want to say about item 2<\/li>\n
                                      • you may compare a bit to item 1<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                        Direct Comparison<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                        You will likely need an extra paragraph here for direct comparative analysis based on the discussions in the previous sections.<\/p>\n

                                        Conclusion<\/strong><\/td>\n

                                    		Introduction<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

                                    Introduce items being compared and state the purpose of your comparison (thesis).<\/p>\n

                                    Criteria 1 (appeal to logic)<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 1<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                      Criteria 2 (appeal to credibility)<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                        Criteria 3 (appeal to emotion)<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        • Article A directly compared to Article B in terms of criteria 3<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                          Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                           <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                    PROs and CONs<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                    If\u00a0 your items are different enough that you aren’t using the same criteria for comparison, use Block style.\u00a0 But this can end up being a bit repetitive in that you have to remind your reader of your analysis when you get to the direct comparison part at the end.<\/td>\n

                                    		PROs and CONs<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                    If you have the same criteria for each item, this is the most economical way to organize your essay.\u00a0 But it can sound a bit “ping-pong” like if you are not careful with transitional words and phrases.<\/p>\n

                                     <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                    H5P Instructions:<\/strong> In this exercise, you are writing an essay comparing apples and oranges. The criteria that was chosen is the they are both fruit, the growing method, and vitamins. Dragging the boxes, complete a simple outline for both the block style and the alternating style.<\/p>\n

                                    \n