The CARS model is applied when writing the introduction.
Around the whole introduction, but especially in the beginning of the introduction, you see
references in brackets which makes clear that they are establishing territory by reviewing previous
research. This is at the same time the ‘move’ I think they use the most around the whole
introduction. First sentence on page 3: occupying the niche by announcing present findings.
Establishing territory by claiming centrality in for example the sentence ‘consequently, there is a
growing interest in targeting the spliceosome to treat cancer’. Also, in the first sentence of the intro
they are making a generalization, which indicated the ‘move’ establishing territory.
The introduction seems like it has all the three in kind off a similar degree, but the authors may have
used establishing territory the most (by referring to other/ previous research quite a few times).
Since the authors use all three moves laid out in the lecture (as far as I understood and read in the
article), I deem the introduction effective at persuading a reader like me to continue reading. Also,
because they mention previous research a few times. It is nice to read that the authors their
research did not come out of nowhere but is based on ideas from research that is previously done
and already show some kind of ‘evidence’.
The discussion section in this paper also used a few crucial ‘moves’.
In a variety of headings, the authors chose for a discussion with paragraphs for conclusions instead
of using separate sections for each. I can identify the common moves in discussion sections as laid
out in the lecture. The authors also relate to findings of previous research a few times, which is good
to mention in the discussion and conclusion. See the sentence ‘In this light, our finding that
interfering with expression of these proteins is only lethal in cancer cells, but not in non-malignant
cells was quite surprising’, where the authors talk about the role of Sm proteins, relating to what
previous research has found before.
They end with an implication by mentioning a recommendation for further research, which is a good
way the end the section in my opinion. But maybe a better way to end the discussion would be a
strong ending with a summary of the key results instead of the further research idea that may be
mentioned a bit earlier in the discussion section.
I think that the move about mentioning the limitations of the study gets less attention in this article,
which may be due to the fact that the researchers may think that the shortcomings of for example
their methods would affect the readers’ opinions while reading about it. I may have overseen it, but
I did not read about the shortcomings of this study. I do think that it is necessary to mention
shortcomings to seem more realistic and thus more reliable in my opinion.
The article employed boosting and hedging to increase its persuasiveness in a balanced manner.
The article uses hedging or boosting in sort off a 50/50 manner. They used around 3x might, 5x could
in discussion, but for example ‘is’ is used as much as could.
This makes clear that the authors tried hedging to not give the idea that they are 100% sure, but at
the same time they try to show a bit persuasiveness by boosting.
In my opinion, the article seems to strike an appropriate balance between boosting and hedging to
reach maximum persuasiveness since for as far as I noticed, the hedging is used around the same
amount of time as they used boosting when looking at the model verbs like could/ will. But when
looking deeper into the other verbs, the authors seem to soften the stance a bit more than
strengthening it. Think about: non-model verbs indicating possibility, adverbs indicating frequency
(e.g. often, sometimes), quantifying words (e.g. some, a few), weaker academic verbs (e.g. suggest,
indicate). I did not see any qualifying adjectives like fairly, somewhat.
Around the whole introduction, but especially in the beginning of the introduction, you see
references in brackets which makes clear that they are establishing territory by reviewing previous
research. This is at the same time the ‘move’ I think they use the most around the whole
introduction. First sentence on page 3: occupying the niche by announcing present findings.
Establishing territory by claiming centrality in for example the sentence ‘consequently, there is a
growing interest in targeting the spliceosome to treat cancer’. Also, in the first sentence of the intro
they are making a generalization, which indicated the ‘move’ establishing territory.
The introduction seems like it has all the three in kind off a similar degree, but the authors may have
used establishing territory the most (by referring to other/ previous research quite a few times).
Since the authors use all three moves laid out in the lecture (as far as I understood and read in the
article), I deem the introduction effective at persuading a reader like me to continue reading. Also,
because they mention previous research a few times. It is nice to read that the authors their
research did not come out of nowhere but is based on ideas from research that is previously done
and already show some kind of ‘evidence’.
The discussion section in this paper also used a few crucial ‘moves’.
In a variety of headings, the authors chose for a discussion with paragraphs for conclusions instead
of using separate sections for each. I can identify the common moves in discussion sections as laid
out in the lecture. The authors also relate to findings of previous research a few times, which is good
to mention in the discussion and conclusion. See the sentence ‘In this light, our finding that
interfering with expression of these proteins is only lethal in cancer cells, but not in non-malignant
cells was quite surprising’, where the authors talk about the role of Sm proteins, relating to what
previous research has found before.
They end with an implication by mentioning a recommendation for further research, which is a good
way the end the section in my opinion. But maybe a better way to end the discussion would be a
strong ending with a summary of the key results instead of the further research idea that may be
mentioned a bit earlier in the discussion section.
I think that the move about mentioning the limitations of the study gets less attention in this article,
which may be due to the fact that the researchers may think that the shortcomings of for example
their methods would affect the readers’ opinions while reading about it. I may have overseen it, but
I did not read about the shortcomings of this study. I do think that it is necessary to mention
shortcomings to seem more realistic and thus more reliable in my opinion.
The article employed boosting and hedging to increase its persuasiveness in a balanced manner.
The article uses hedging or boosting in sort off a 50/50 manner. They used around 3x might, 5x could
in discussion, but for example ‘is’ is used as much as could.
This makes clear that the authors tried hedging to not give the idea that they are 100% sure, but at
the same time they try to show a bit persuasiveness by boosting.
In my opinion, the article seems to strike an appropriate balance between boosting and hedging to
reach maximum persuasiveness since for as far as I noticed, the hedging is used around the same
amount of time as they used boosting when looking at the model verbs like could/ will. But when
looking deeper into the other verbs, the authors seem to soften the stance a bit more than
strengthening it. Think about: non-model verbs indicating possibility, adverbs indicating frequency
(e.g. often, sometimes), quantifying words (e.g. some, a few), weaker academic verbs (e.g. suggest,
indicate). I did not see any qualifying adjectives like fairly, somewhat.
