I work at the IT Center here at Miami. Every day, we get at least one computer with the Reveton virus.  When you boot your computer, your desktop is taken over and an image like the one below is shown. The hackers masquerade as the FBI and try to convince you to pay them fees ranging from one to four hundred dollars. Surprisingly, a lot of people believe their message, and the hackers have made millions of dollars. My Inquiry two paper analyzed this message, trying to figure out why so many people have fallen for it. My conclusion was pathos and a lack of legal and computer knowledge. 



In terms of execution, this paper was better than that of the previous inquiry. I had an easier time drafting. I find it easier to analyze condensed, static things than to analyze myself. I had a great title, "Viral Rhetoric". I used it because hearing "viral" and "rhetoric" together is odd. I capitalized on the double-meaning of "viral", and alluded to that in my introduction.



"Viruses are spreading! Infecting everything in their paths, these viruses are evolving faster than scientists can formulate vaccines. They fully debilitate their victims, and they’re destroying warehouses of data. I work in the Information Technology Department of Miami University, and we are in no shortage of infected computers."





I used "warehouses of data" to illustrate what I meant by "viruses", and to interest the user more. 



My favorite part of the paper was my illustration of the public's naivety regarding computers. 



"​The average Internet user’s knowledge of the hardware aspect of a computer is attested to by the popularity of the website DownloadMoreRam.com, which downloads files containing “RAM” of different sizes to users’ machines. RAM is physical memory. Not software. You can’t download RAM. In light of this naivety, it’s no surprise people get scared when they see the “FBI” has taken over their machines."



It succinctly demonstrated how little the public knows about computers and explains where they're at. It also helps the reader understand why viral rhetoric is effective, and why the hackers included the information they did. 



With this paper, I demonstrated stronger organizational skills than in inquiry one. In reading examples from the CCM and from notable authors, I was able to figure out better ways to transition to new ideas. I used a lot of rhetorical questions to segue in this paper, asking questions that I attempt to answer in my next paragraph. It keeps the reader engaged and interested.



While I thought this paper was more effective than my first, there were some weak elements. I got a bit too long in explaining the lack of knowledge in the public, and I didn't go as deep in my analysis as I could have. I should have tied it all together in my conclusion, instead of using my conclusion to tell the reader how the hackers were caught and that the virus is still out there.​ This paper had more voice than my first paper, and I used a lot of craft elements like rhetorical questions and short sentences, which helped keep my audience engaged. I started drafting earlier, and used brainstorming techniques and peer-reviews to help strengthen my writing. Overall, I'm happy with the improvement I made from inquiry one, and even prouder of my third paper.