1. Monday, September 22
Revising Content
Writing Process Map

2. Process Activity: Revising Content
Step 1: Read over your draft and mark each section or paragraph by the rhetorical goals that you were trying to accomplish.
Step 2: For the content associated with each of your rhetorical goals, raise diagnostic questions to identify strengths and weaknesses.
Step 3: Using your diagnostic questions and the "think-ahead" technique, evaluate strengths and weaknesses in your draft.
Step 4: Brainstorm and apply different ways to reinforce the strengths and resolve the weaknesses you've diagnosed in your draft.

3. Diagnostic Questions for Revising Content
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?

4. Diagnose the Content: Samaha et al.
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?

5. Diagnose the Content: Samaha et al.
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?

6. Revision Plan
Writer’s Rhetorical Goal: Answer the research question; speculate on underlying mechanisms.
Content-level Problems
In the first paragraph, you conclude that the greater weight loss experienced by subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet was due to a relatively greater degree of calorie restriction. In addition, you are suggesting that this result was not to due any metabolic advantage. Whereas you present your suggested conclusion directly and clearly, your study’s results do not strongly support it. The argument is problematic for several reasons. First, as you acknowledge in your results section, the difference in calorie restriction across the two diet groups was not statistically significant. The P-value (0.33) reflects a fairly unreliable result. Second, your argument lacks convincing support for why subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet may have restricted their calorie intake. Even though you admit that the underlying mechanism is unclear, you do go on to suggest that the diet might have influenced satiety due its high protein and fat content. The problem is that the argument contains no empirical or conceptual support for that suggestion. In the literature, researchers have questioned whether the macronutrient content of low-carbohydrate diets can influence satiety to a sufficient degree that would promote practically significant reductions in calorie intake and weight (see Halton and Hu, 2004).
Plan for Solving the Content-level Problems
One suggestion for revision is to delete your speculation about the mechanisms by which the low-carbohydrate diet was associated with greater weight loss than the conventional diet. After all, your study was not intended specifically to determine these mechanisms. If, however, you feel that it is important to raise speculations about the underlying mechanisms, I suggest that you acknowledge the limitations to your argument. Most important, I suggest that you acknowledge the nonsignificant statistical analysis for differences in calorie restriction across the two groups. You might explain that the very high P-value was largely due to the extremely large standard deviation values for the two groups. It would be good to speculate on why the inter-individual variation in calorie restriction was so great. Another suggestion is to provide data and conceptual explanations from previous research concerning the potential satiating effects of dietary protein and fat. In addition, you’ll need to acknowledge and refute studies that have revealed little or no effect of record in composition on satiety, calorie intake, and weight loss.

7. Diagnose the Content: Johnston et al.
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?

8. Diagnose the Content: Halton and Hu
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?
Johnston et al.
Luscombe et al.

9. Diagnose the Content: Rabast et al.
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?

10. Diagnose the Content: Rabast et al.
1. How successfully does the draft's content achieve the key rhetorical goals for the paper type and section?
2. How successfully does the draft's content meet the needs, expectations, and values of primary and secondary audiences as well as target populations for the research?
3. To what extent is the draft's content accurate and comprehensive in covering the research field?
4. How clearly are the writer's ideas expressed?
5. How well developed are the writer's ideas?
6. To what extent is the content conceptually unified within and across sections of the paper?
7. How convincing are the writer's arguments?