# data[].attributes.body
Look back at your writing in A1 and Problem 1-6. In what way have you written clearly (with the 3Cs)? Refer to on what they encompass. What aspect of your writing needs improvement (e.g. 3 Cs, vocabulary, structure, using persuasive appeals, etc.)?

I was first introduced to 3Cs in Problem 1. When we were first introduced to Susheela and her problem, I wrote a two-page email about which phone Susheela should buy for her daughter. After I made it more concise, apart from meeting the criteria, I think that writing more concisely allowed me to cover the same topic in fewer words. Like Zinsser said, simplifying the content made it easier to understand, and it also showed that over 50% of the words I wrote were quite redundant.

I think meeting the 3Cs is still something I struggle with, because I tend to have a lot to say (as you can probably tell from my reflections), but when I start writing too much, I lose out on both conciseness as well as clarity, as it gives me room to make grammatical errors (as well as structural errors).

So if there was anything I will continue to work on even after WR, it would be the 3Cs, specifically to be more concise.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 12's reflection, that's not really a  reflection

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 12's reflection, that's not really a  reflection

# data[].attributes.body
Before I answer any questions, I just want to say this platform has been so useful in helping me reflect on what WR has been about, and it helps me to connect ideas across lessons. Not to mention, sometimes in groups, it is difficult for me to say everything I want to say because all of us are very excited to share our thoughts, so this helps me with that too.

After Tuesday's lesson about Russell Conjugations, I got reminded of a reel I saw on the Internet about how certain news/tabloid companies rewrite the narrative using emotionally charged language, which I thought I would link here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJ9pedHMnG2/?igsh=MWh4aGt1anhzdThibQ==

Even though this reel was meant to be humorous, as it pokes fun at classic Disney films, I think it was a good example of how Russell conjugations were used to incite hate towards certain groups of people. It also goes to show how everything can be framed in a sinister manner, so we need to fact-check a lot. Considering the world's capricious socio-political state, I think that it is important to stay informed and update ourselves regularly before taking a stance.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some things in life that I have believed for a long time, but may want to critically think about? How would I go about doing so?

I think pop psychology is pretty interesting, but some of it is a little questionable. It is our job as WR students, and as consumers of media, to understand that some things we see on the Internet may not always make sense. In fact, the MBTI framework that we use to determine people's personality is a part of pop psychology. Realistically, how can we characterize 8 billion people into 16 different categories of people? Human beings are complex, and their personalities are a result of their experience, their upbringing, and their environment. So to put 1/2 a billion people in the same box is impossible.

This particular observation was backed by my real-life interactions with other people. Sometimes I would disagree with people on certain topics, wondering how some people think that way, only to find out they have the same MBTI as me. Not to mention, Hitler has the same MBTI type as me. I might have been rejected from Art school, but I just don't have the tendency to commit mass genocide 🤷🏼‍♀️

TL;DR --> My rant about MBTI just goes to show that things on social media is not to be taken seriously, unless you would like to sharpen your critical thinking skills.

# data[].attributes.body
Choose a scenario where you would need skills in persuasion. Think about how you would use Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to persuade your listener.

There are many instances in which I would need my skills in persuasion. The first thing I think about is in an interview for a Community Service Project. For a community service project, I believe that I would have to strongly rely on Logos and Pathos and not so much on Ethos(because no one would be checking credibility of my source during an interview).

I would use Logos to describe my character and my good traits and how that particular trait can help out during projects. For example, I could say I am good at adapting to different situations (using a particular example), which would help because CSPs are not done alone. Therefore, I can be a team player and being adaptable to fill in whenever someone is unwell, or facing a problem. This way, I am appealing to their sense of logic, because it's only logical to have someone who is flexible work with them in times of crisis.

I would use Pathos to describe how I feel about this project, and what a huge impact it can make on my life. If the project is about helping out the elderly, I could use the fact that Singapore is an aging society and that elderly single-handedly pioneered the growth of Singapore, therefore giving back to them would be my honor, and the least I can do for them. This shows my dedication and personal motive for this project, and my feelings are taken into consideration to make their decision.

# data[].attributes.body
Who do I want to persuade in life?

I believe I need to persuade most people in life, at least those whom I want to be connected to. To be more specific, I need to persuade people to be my friend, which means I need to prove to them that I am likable. Or I would need to persuade an employer to hire me to work in that establishment. I also need to persuade professors at the University to give me a good grade, and to prove that I am doing my best with the work that I present to them. Therefore, I am persuading many people in my life, but for various reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
This week in Writing and Reasoning, I was given an interesting group problem. It stated that I had to write an email regarding Susheela's problem. I think what made this problem interesting is that everyone in my group had a different thought process, which I did not consider. Using CAPS was also a new way to tackle this problem, as it helped me to organise my thoughts in a manner that made this problem more approachable.

# data[].attributes.body
Task 1: Generating an email for Susheela using GAI. Comment on whether AI was able to grasp CAPS well?

Process: Firstly, I copied and pasted the entire task from the Word document onto ChatGPT. Then, it gave me a brief email, explaining both options and how well they fit the description that Susheela had given Ms Esther. However, the email was so brief that some of the details were missing, and it just stated generic things like "great camera." This, in my opinion, doesn't show that I (or ChatGPT) am a reliable source of advice, as I can state these qualities without doing research. Moreover, stating generic qualities like that also means that the comparison is susceptible to similar vocabulary, as there is no specific quality stated.

How would you better use GAI if you were to write an important email in the future?

If I were allowed to use GAI for any email, I would not use it to copy and paste the entire thing given by the tools. I would figure out how to write the email by getting the draft and seeing what the structure and general content look like. In other words, I would use the tools to only get an idea, and not let it generate the entire email.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection on Task 2

1. Why is critical thinking important in life? (relate this to your studies in SMU and life beyond studies)

Critical thinking is important so we don't fall prey to misinformation. That was my first thought. We are made of our experiences, and social media and the Internet are a big part of them these days. Every piece of media we consume may not be carefully curated as advertised. Some are barely backed by scientific data or logic, while others are opinions that tend to affect our view on certain issues that we feel strongly about.

That's why we should think critically about any issue. First, we should stop and ponder the credibility of the source (i.e. this is the Straits Times or this is the Daily Mail, can we trust the information?). Then, we should briefly read through the article and think back to what we already know about the topic. (i.e. going back to the Trump example, do vaccines actually cause autism? I am not sure, let me check.) When checking sources, make sure they have some scientific process or credible information involved. This doesn't HAVE to be about any scientific thing; it can be about opinions as well. For example, if we see a post that says "the President is making use of the national reserves to make the rich richer." We may be tempted to take it at face value, but we should think about who is posting it and what the current situation is. Especially in political issues where social media starts filtering content based on what we consume (e.g. if we see more "liberal" posts, more get recommended to us), we need to step back and form our own opinion before judging anyone or anything too quickly.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection on task 2

2. What is one key learning point I will take away from Problem 2?

I think Problem 2 was interesting in the sense that I had never written an article before, so I was exposed to a new format of writing, and I also appreciate how science journals take time and effort to make sure their article is credible. That being said, I think one key point I took away from this Problem is that as a writer, I need to know how much information to give and how in-depth the information needs to be. As an article writer, I need to explain to my readers that Ovarian Cancer metastasises in this way and that these chemicals affect hormones in a certain way. However, I need to be careful not to overwhelm readers with information and remain understandable and accessible to those with no knowledge of the subject. Hence, if there is anything I had to take away from this problem, it is that there should be a good balance of technical details and narrative details.

# data[].attributes.body
2. What are some of your challenges when trying to uphold academic integrity? How would you overcome these challenges?

Some of the challenges I face trying to uphold academic integrity are knowing when certain sources of generative AI are allowed and when it is not. The rules regarding generative AI are not by any means hazy, but sometimes it is easy to overlook some rules, as they are easy to misunderstand. For example, declaring AI use in brainstorming. If I only brainstormed titles for my opinion piece and didn't use any of the titles given, does that mean I have to declare the use of AI? Such questions give rise to some ambiguity regarding the rules that need to be clarified regularly. I plan to overcome these challenges by clarifying my doubts when I can, and declaring the use of AI regardless of how leniently/barely I have used the generated content.