LaPlant 1

Joshua Stephen LaPlant Ms. Ella Frances Voltz ENGL 1102-022 December 4, 2013

EIP Reflection

At the onset of my Extended Inquiry Proposal, I had an idea to write about something I was not only greatly concerned about, but something that I was passionate about. These concerns and passions led me to an area that dealt with one of my favorite research topics, governmental conspiracies. With such a broad spectrum to deal with, I began to narrow it down to one of the greatest government conspiracies of our time, the attacks of September 11, 2001. Once again, I found myself faced with a very broad topic that would require extensive research to exert my desired thesis. From the multitude of micro-events that occurred on that day, I decided to single out two particular cases in which I found to be blatantly false. These two cases were the collapse of WTC 7 and the attack on the Pentagon. However, I found myself in the same boat, too much! So I narrowed it down to the collapse of WTC 7. In doing so, I found it much easier to elaborate on one single incident of that fateful day, instead of trying to chew the whole endeavor in one bite. When I actually began to compile my research, sifting through what was reliable and unreliable, I found that most of the information I would come across was very polarized. It was either on one end of the spectrum or the other. I rarely came across a source that had a middle-ofthe-road standpoint. Seeing the polarity, I was spurred on to take a standpoint that started out

LaPlant 2

somewhat neutral. So I gathered information from both sides and evaluated which argumentative approach I was going to take. As I have stated above, my research findings compelled me to choose a tactful argumentative style. In accordance with these characteristics, I found the Rogerian argumentative writing style to be the most effective. This was the most effective for my EIP subject matter because with something as drastic as accusing your own government of heinous acts of tyranny, you must warm up to them first and present the argument in such a way that they might be willing to buy into once a tactful transition has occurred. As I wrote this research inquiry, I found it best to plot out the essential points of argument that would give my audience a generalized view of what I was intending to convey. However, I didnt make a gathered attempt to make a detailed outline. Instead I allowed my passion for the subject to pour out onto the page, which I find to be the best way of coming to a sincere conclusion. Im just going to flat out say it, my writers group sucked. Not because the people sucked, but because we sucked as a unit. This was because we would show up on opposing days, never fully having our writers group there to actually have a productive workshop. On the other end of things, when someone did bring their papers too workshop, we were able to give that one person in particular a great amount of attention, thus resulting in more feedback. Overall I think the writers group was a neutral zone for me, neither hurting nor helping. This inquiry project has been different from my other various research projects because I finally had the opportunity to choose something very controversial without a big no-no slap. It felt great to be able to elaborate on something that I actually cared about, which was a first for me in the world of research papers. Overall, I didnt learn that much that I didnt already know about the subject. Not to be mistaken as a pretentious statement, its just that I have been very

LaPlant 3

interested in this topic for a good portion of my life. But I did learn a few more scientific perspectives about the collapsing of the buildings. Overall I greatly enjoyed revisiting these topics in hopes that I can greaten my knowledge on the subject.