1. Jake McKay Teacher: Dr. Michelle Trim

2. Bio Statement  My name is Jake McKay and I am from Cleveland, Ohio. I do not have a declared major, but I am leaning towards either elementary school education or business. Some of my extracurricular activities inlcude playing soccer, running, fishing and lifting weights. I enjoy traveling to foreign countries (primarily Central America) to do service work.

3. Letter to the Editor  In my letter to the editor, I discussed how the degree of reality in violent video games can determine how much it affects the adolescents who play them.

4. ENG 110 Objective: A more sophisticated writing process-- including invention, peer responding, revising, and editing-- that results in a clear, effective, well-edited piece  I feel as though my revision of the letter to editor allowed me to develop an elevated writing process for a few reasons. It forced me to completely alter my typical writing methods. In the initial letter to the editor, I wrote in the same style that I normally write in. After realizing that was not the most effective technique for this project, I had to invent a new style of writing for the particular assignment. Instead of choosing an issue that had many sub-topics behind it, I decided to focus on one of those topics to discuss. Even though I had never really written in that manner before, I knew that it would drastically improve the letter. Arguing one specific idea made my paper stronger because it kept the reader focused on what I was throwing at them. It also made my argument seem very substantial through the seemingly overwhelming support that I provided for it, which was how I was able to win over the audience and come out victorious.

5. Writing Process & Challenges  My writing process consisted of taking the mistakes that I made in my original letter to the editor and building off of them in a way that would strengthen my revision. Because my original topic was too broad and not very accurate, I had to decide whether or not I should stick with it and take my chances, or play it safe and smart and choose a sub-topic of my original one. I decided to argue that the degree of reality in video games can determine how much an adolescent gamer can become aggressive in real life. I concluded that this was a much more manageable and stronger topic to argue than my initial one, which was that there is no correlation between video game violence and aggression in kids who play them.  I did not experience many problems while I was writing my revision. This was the case because most of my issues came up in the original letter to the editor. I feel as though my revision was so successful because I knew what I did wrong in the original letter and so I knew what not to do in the revision. In a nutshell, the topic that I tried to argue in my original letter was too large, and it was too hard to find enough supporting evidence to successfully persuade the audience. In my revision, I decided to take only part of the larger, opposing topic to argue, which turned out to be much more effective.  My writing process consisted of taking the mistakes that I made in my original letter to the editor and building off of them in a way that would strengthen my revision. Because my original topic was too broad and not very accurate, I had to decide whether or not I should stick with it and take my chances, or play it safe and smart and choose a sub-topic of my original one. I decided to argue that the degree of reality in video games can determine how much an adolescent gamer can become aggressive in real life. I concluded that this was a much more manageable and stronger topic to argue than my initial one, which was that there is no correlation between video game violence and aggression in kids who play them.  I did not experience many problems while I was writing my revision. This was the case because most of my issues came up in the original letter to the editor. I feel as though my revision was so successful because I knew what I did wrong in the original letter and so I knew what not to do in the revision. In a nutshell, the topic that I tried to argue in my original letter was too large, and it was too hard to find enough supporting evidence to successfully persuade the audience. In my revision, I decided to take only part of the larger, opposing topic to argue, which turned out to be much more effective.

6. What did I learn?  Regarding the subject of my project, I new that the debate as to whether or not violent video games have led to real-life aggression has persisted for a while. Although I somewhat knew that they did have at least some affect, that was pretty much where my knowledge had ended. I never knew any of the logistics behind the issue. This project forced me to highlight a specific factor and then really dig deep to discover how big of a role it played in the causation of real-life aggression. The results were both interesting and surprising. I never knew just how extensively the reality of video games could program kids into developing hostile behavior in real-life. Until now, I never thought that playing a video game involving aliens and playing a video game involving real life situations and behavior could have such different effects on the brain. I always thought that, in the end, they were still just games and should therefore always be noted that there is a big difference between real and fake. Apparently this distinction is just not that easy to make, which can be credited to the reality of violent video games.  Regarding my writing in general, this project taught me that a letter to the editor needs to be short, sweet, and to the point. The topic that you defend needs to be specific and should pertain to one certain issue. I found that it is much harder to persuade the audience when the topic has multiple components to it because discussing all of them will lose the reader’s attention more quickly. Having one narrow argument allows the paper to be more powerful, making it more persuasive and therefore more effective.  Regarding the subject of my project, I new that the debate as to whether or not violent video games have led to real-life aggression has persisted for a while. Although I somewhat knew that they did have at least some affect, that was pretty much where my knowledge had ended. I never knew any of the logistics behind the issue. This project forced me to highlight a specific factor and then really dig deep to discover how big of a role it played in the causation of real-life aggression. The results were both interesting and surprising. I never knew just how extensively the reality of video games could program kids into developing hostile behavior in real-life. Until now, I never thought that playing a video game involving aliens and playing a video game involving real life situations and behavior could have such different effects on the brain. I always thought that, in the end, they were still just games and should therefore always be noted that there is a big difference between real and fake. Apparently this distinction is just not that easy to make, which can be credited to the reality of violent video games.  Regarding my writing in general, this project taught me that a letter to the editor needs to be short, sweet, and to the point. The topic that you defend needs to be specific and should pertain to one certain issue. I found that it is much harder to persuade the audience when the topic has multiple components to it because discussing all of them will lose the reader’s attention more quickly. Having one narrow argument allows the paper to be more powerful, making it more persuasive and therefore more effective.