21 Apr. 2018
Rhetorical Analysis
Adam Ruben is a practicing scientist who is also an adjunct columnist writing for American Association for the Advancement of Science. He employs numerous personal anecdote, real-life examples and humorous style to establish his style. While he mainly writes about science, his diction are straightforward rather than technical, welcoming wide range of audience to read. The Similarly, his citations of sources are casual, reflecting the variety of the intended audience.
In his recent column “What the heck is an engineer anyway?”, Ruben utilizes personal anecdotes and rather brief mentioning of sources to supplement his central idea of there is little difference between scientists and engineers. For example, in his work, he humorously displays his experience in a college fair, raising questions about the distinction between scientists and engineers: “What’s an engineer? How is an engineer different from a scientist? And, most importantly, can I keep this pen?” By following a serious of questions by an unrelated but realistic question, Ruben successfully draws audience interest of the answers of the questions, reflecting his humorous style. Although some may say such irrelevant information may distract the audience from focusing on the main subject of the difference between scientists and engineering, Ruben uses just the right amount of humor to keep the audience’s interest on the topic while not blurring the focus of introducing the subject. Ruben also presents his sources through a swift manner, acknowledging the source while not distracting the audience’s interest: “One of the first answers someone gave me was that ‘engineers solve problems.’” He establishes the discussion by bringing up an argument from an anonymous speaker. He simplifies the speaker of the argument to keep his flow of essay moving. While not throwing the general audience a burden of works cited, he manages to keep the acknowledgement as simple as possible, providing audience who have little background knowledge an effective introduction of source. Furthermore, Ruben displays expert’s opinion on the subject: “I asked Science Careers reporter Maggie Kuo, who trained as a biomedical engineer, what she had understood as the distinction between the two when she chose her field. ‘Engineers build things,’ she wrote, ‘and scientists understand things.’” He cites her quotation by listing her title and education background, enhancing the ethos of the argument. Although asking an engineer about the distinction between scientists and engineers may be biased, the instant authority that the title gains for the argument covers for such flaw. The introduction of new concept brings the discussion further to the complex and overlapping roles of scientists and engineers.
In his column “Because Scientists Say So”, which discusses the automatic authority that scientists gain from their education background, Ruben utilizes the use of personal experience and rhetorical devices to show his humor, synthesizing multiple non-scholar sources to keep the wide range of audience in focus. For instance, Ruben uses anaphora to introduce his subject of why people become scientists, he writes, “Some want to answer important questions, or fix the world, or invent something fantastic. Some like the smell of β-mercaptoethanol in the morning. Some want to stick it to their flat-earther parents.” Through the repetition of the structure, Ruben neatly presents various reasons why people become scientists, ranging from common answers to unique answers that startles the audience. Although he employs a jargon of a chemical’s name, Ruben manages to provide context clues to the audience who have little chemistry background knowledge, making his idea easy to understand: it is just a chemical that a “nerd,” as he would call, like to smell. By inserting scientific jargons but not disturbing the flow of his work, Ruben reminds the audience of the essence of his writing––a scientific column––while the audience is able to understand his intention easily. Ruben also recalls his personal experience with his cousin, “who sells essential oils on Facebook,” to portray how science has become an advertisement for people to promote their product. He portrays the problem that science faces when products can gain instant authority from science by just claiming “the science is there.” While not criticizing such phenomenon, he plainly describes the wide effect that science can make, leaving the audience space to develop their own position. Ruben further provides personal experiences of a “former co-worker, a research associate, who was pursuing a master’s degree in biochemistry” for the authority that she can gain from the degree, which can improve the sale of her products on amazon. The half-joking example of the authority of science reflects his humorous style and his broad range intended audience. The flexible integration of source and his personal experience suites his wide range of audience, ranging from people with no scientific background to people who are scientists.
In his column “Do You Believe in Life After Lab?”, Ruben uses playful diction and casual citations to create a humorous and relaxing style. He describes his real graduate school life as a life outside the lab, instead of “repeating the same damn fluorimetric assay six dozen times.” The light-hearted diction of “damn” reflects his light tone and his view of the separation between “work-life” and “life.” While he sees the life after lab as private, “a professor … strongly disagrees” with his argument, accusing his opinion as a “‘provocative’ recommendation of secrecy.” Instead of attack the counterargument back, he humorously places the issue into context and provides real-life examples such as the “thesis advisor horror stories” that suggest not all advisors are empathetic and respect the students. While not dragging the conversation off topic, Ruben brings up the comments of several students: “This guy clearly hasn’t met my adviser,” supporting his refutation and displaying the wide support of his argument. Ruben further brings up a survey question that evolves into Twitter battle, presenting an associate professor’s opinion: “For real academics work=life.” The casual use of symbols to substitute academic words, Ruben simplifies his audience’s thinking process, providing an quick equation view of the professor’s opinion. By visualizing the quotation, he establishes a relaxing tone and gets his point through straightforwardly.
While the three columns may have slight differences on the depth of the topic, Ruben nonetheless remains the same style through out his work. The light diction and multiple personal experiences facilitate the audience’s understanding on the discussion subject. His use of satirical language and self-deprecation demonstrates his ability to remain the interest of a wide variety of audience. The simple citation of sources within his column keeps his argument moving, avoiding unnecessary pause for the audience. The employed sources include expert testimonies, personal experiences, and interesting anecdotes, providing the audience a broad range of sources.
Ruben, Adam. “Adam Ruben.” Science, AAAS, 2018, http://www.sciencemag.org/author/adam-ruben.
Ruben, Adam, et al. “Because a Scientist Says So.” Science, AAAS, 21 Feb. 2018, www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/02/because-scientist-says-so.
Ruben, Adam, et al. “Do You Believe in Life after Lab?” Science, AAAS, 25 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/10/do-you-believe-life-after-lab.
Ruben, Adam, et al. “What the Heck Is an Engineer Anyway?” Science, AAAS, 8 Dec. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/11/what-heck-engineer-anyway.