To: Dr.

Frances Johnson
From: Hannah Garcia
Date: 29 October 2021
Re: Communication in my Discipline
ENGL 1302.W01

Document Analysis Report – Draft

INTRODUCTION
In this document analysis report, three documents using different writing styles regarding
environmental health and monitoring are analyzed. The three documents are the following:

 Document One is an academic document explaining the effects of oil spills on marine
fish through scientific research and writing. The article mentions variations in
population densities and mortality rate.
 Document Two is a professional document explaining why monitoring air pollutants are
important. The article targets certain pollutants and how they affect human health.
 Document Three is a general audience document explaining the negative health effects
of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and gives quotes from a few leaders of
CAFO companies and local environmentalist.

DISCUSSION ANALYSIS
Audience
This section analyzes the target audience for each document. The audience analysis
interprets the text by looking at the primary audience, technical jargon, terminology, personal
experience, slang, humor, irony, and bias.
Who is the primary audience?
1. For Document One, the primary audience is academics in fields of oceanography,
ichthyology, and other related fields.
2. For Document Two, the primary audience are experts in the field of environmental
health and human health specialist. Other professionals in related fields are also
targeted.
3. For Document Three, the primary audience are environmental activist, but the audience
is fairly general. All demographics can read this document and understand what the
writer’s purpose.
Does the writer use technical jargon?
1. Document One uses technical jargon geared toward people who understand fish and
ocean terminology. The author uses terms such as “detoxification” and “emulsification”
within the text.
2. Document Two uses technical terms toward environmental scientist and health
professionals. For example, the authors use terms such as “epidemiological studies” and
“PM” (particulate matter).
 3. Document Three does not use technical jargon in the document. The author’s choice of
words makes it easy for the general audience to understand the content.
Does the author assume readers know the terminology?
1. For Document One, the writers assume readers know most the terminology. However,
some technical terms are linked to a definition in case the reader is unaware of the
word’s definition. For example, the word “detoxification” is underlined with a hyperlink
attached.
2. For Document Two, the writer assumes the reader understands the terminology. There
are no footnotes or index remarks on what the terms mean.
3. For Document Three, the writer does not use technical jargon in the document so there
is no terminology. The author’s choice of words makes it easy for the general audience
to understand the content.
Does the author write from personal experience or use the first-person point of view?
1. In Document One, the authors are writing from personal experiences from research and
uses first-person. For example, in the document the authors write “In this paper, we
focus on the latter” and “we expect the error introduced by ignoring the dynamic
feedback” (Langangen et al, 2017).
2. In Document Two, the authors are writing from personal experiences from their
findings and use first-person. For example, in the document the authors write,”
Therefore, we point out the need for a medical reading of environmental monitoring
data that should be performed both at national and regional or local level by health
authorities…” and,” If we consider that, as Chiabai, Spadaro and Neuman have recently
assessed, each year of life lost for European people corresponds to an annual value of
100,000 euros” (Iriti et al, 2020).
3. For Document Three, the author does not use personal experience or first-person point
of view. The author uses second-person and third-person point of view. For example,
the author uses second-person point of view when they say, “Now imagine the
combined power of thousands of piggies packed into a single building, with each swine
producing 10 pounds of waste per day” and "Almost no one favored the hog facilities,
except a few large landowners wanting to sell out to corporate hog producers," she
argues” (Fryer, 2001).
Does the author use slang, irony, or humor?
1. For Document One, the writers do not use slang, irony, or humor.
2. For Document Two, the writers do not use slang, irony, or humor.
3. For Document Three, the writer does not use slang, irony, or humor.
Does the author have a strong opinion?
1. For Document One, the authors do not have a strong opinion. The authors provide the
conclusion based on their report. In the conclusion they do not use personal pronouns to
give their personal opinions based on the findings. The authors write, “Thus, our results
strongly indicate a general need for explicitly including spatial mortality in oil spill
assessments to better capture the risk of accentuation of oil spill effects over time”
(Langangen et al, 2017).
2. In Document Two, it is difficult to conclude if the authors have a strong opinion because
they only provide research and credible information in the document. However, the authors
do believe that having a strong connection to environmental science and the medical field
 will strengthen the protection and prevention of environmental-related illnesses. The
authors write, “A stronger cooperation between environmental agencies and health
authorities is needed to address the new challenges to human and planetary health arising
from air pollution and climate change” (Iriti et al, 2020).
3. In Document Three, the author has a clear opinion that the detriments of CAFOs outweigh
the benefits. In the document, the author says, “Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
are becoming a horrifically polluting hallmark of competitive agriculture” (Fryer, 2001)
What language tells you this?
4. In Document One the authors provide the conclusion based on their report. In the
conclusion, they do not use personal pronouns to give their personal opinions based on the
findings. The authors write, “Thus, our results strongly indicate a general need for explicitly
including spatial mortality in oil spill assessments to better capture the risk of accentuation
of oil spill effects over time.” (Langangen et al, 2017)
5. In Document Two, the authors provide information from credible sources such as the World
Health Organization (WHO), the European Environment Agency (EEA) and other peer-
reviewed research articles. The documents states, “In 2006, the World Health Organization
(WHO) published updated Air Quality Guidelines for a number of air pollutants, which
recommend for particulate matter annual average concentration levels at half or less the
limit values set by European legislation” (Iriti et al, 2020).
6. In Document Three, the author says, “Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are
becoming a horrifically polluting hallmark of competitive agriculture.” (Fryer, 2001)

Purpose
What is the author’s purpose?
Explaining a process or concept?
1. Document One explains a concept because it explains the impacts of the spatial variation of
natural mortality of fish can impact the severity and distribution of an oil spill. The
experiment is reporting that widening the density of juvenile fish can increase the
distribution of oil from an oil spill
2. Document Two explains a process because it explains how the medial field can aid in the
evaluation of air pollution.
3. In Document Three, the magazine article is explaining a concept because the author is
telling the audience how CAFO farms are harmful to humans and the environment.

Sharing results of research?

1. In Document One, the document provides results from research and experiments done in
the Northeast Atlantic to show how oil spills have effects of disrupting the natural
distribution and proportions of fish egg densities thus effecting the mortality rate. For
example, the document reports that the experiment was able to “demonstrate how
explicitly including the spatial variability in mortality tends to widen the probability
distribution and hence increase the predicted probability of an extreme impact of an oil
spill” (Langangen et al, 2017). This information explains that an increase the spatial
variability in mortality relates to an increase of oil spill impacts. The report then states that
the experiment, “demonstrated a potentially dramatic increase in the effects, e.g., > 50% for
a large oil spill…variability in mortality can accentuate the impact of oil spills to levels that
 may result in significant ecological and socioeconomic effects” (Langangen et al, 2017). This
information explains the same purpose of the previous excerpt from the document.
2. In Document Three, the document does not share their own research results.
3. In Document Two, the document does not share their own research results.

Reporting on a decision or event? Proposing a plan of action?

1. Document One is not reporting on a decision or event and does not propose a plan of action.
2. Document Two is proposing a plan of action. The authors conclude, “health authorities, both
at national and regional or local level, should integrate their medical staff with new
professionals and researchers adequately trained in environmental sciences to foster
population health protection against air pollution” (Iriti et al, 2020). The authors are
pushing for the initiative to integrate health authorities into environmental pollution
studies.
3. In Document Three, the author mentions results of a convention over CAFO businesses. The
article states, “Plans for a massive hog production plant in Eastern Idaho were narrowly
defeated last fall, after a yearlong struggle between hog boosters and local environmental
groups. The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Board, in a close six-to-five vote, denied a
request” (Fryer, 2001).

Trying to sell a product or service?

1. Document One is not trying to sell a product or service.
2. Document Two is not trying to sell a product or service.
3. Document Three is not trying to sell a product or service.

Summarizing research findings?

1. In Document One, the document gives a discussion and conclusion that sums up their own
research findings. The document also gives highlights of the findings before the abstract and
introduction. The overall purpose of the article is to report research findings of the
relationship between the distribution of the natural mortality of fish and the impacts of an
oil spill.
2. In Document Two, the author provides environmental air pollution data in a table collected
from the EEA. The document also provides other written data and statistics from the EEA
and WHO. For example, the document reports, “figures provided by the EEA, which show
that WHO guideline values for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are exceeded at 69% of all
reporting monitoring stations; as a result, 77% of the urban population across the EU was
exposed to air pollution at levels indicated as harmful by the World Health Organization”
(Iriti et al, 2020). The author includes this information because it shows the air pollutants
indicated in the table are confirmed as harmful by a credible organization.
3. In Document Three, the author provides a commentary over a research finding and gives a
statement from another source. The article reports. “A three-acre waste lagoon from a
typical CAFO can leak up to a million gallons a year, according to the North Carolina-based
Hog Watch, a project of Environmental Defense” (Fryer, 2001). The author is reporting on a
detrimental effect of waste lagoons on the environment. The article reports, “lagoon waste
is also sprayed on fields, where rain can wash it into adjoining water supplies. Because dust
and gasses from hog farms can travel up to two miles, neighbors often complain of
respiratory problems” (Fryer, 2001). The author uses the sources to back up the claim that
the detriments of CAFO farms outweigh the benefits. The author shows how CAFO farms
can be harmful to the environment and also human health.
Writing documentation for a product?
1. Document One is not writing a documentation for a product.
2. Document Two is not writing a documentation for a product.
3. Document Three is not writing a documentation for a product.

Organizational Patterns
What is the organizational pattern?
Subheadings?
1. In Document One, the organization pattern on the document is set up as a science report.
There are eleven subheadings within the document and are as follows: Highlights,
Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion,
Acknowledgment, Appendix, and References. There are also subheadings within the
subheadings to organize the “Materials and method” and “Results” subheading even
further. The use of subheadings divides the information. The subheadings also are set up in
a way that reflects the scientific method. Each subheadings provides information about the
research topic of the implications of spatial variation in natural mortality to the audience.
2. In Document Two, the texts are separated into eight subheadings. The subheadings are
listed as follows: Abstract, 1. Air Pollution and Health: A Recent Issue, 2. Air Pollution: An
under-Perceived Threat for Public Health and Society, 3. The Need for Medical Reading of
Environmental Monitoring Data, Author Contributions, Funding, Conflicts of Interest, and
References. Each of the subheadings provide information related to its subheading. For
example, under the second subheading, “1. Air Pollution and Health: A Recent Issue,” the
document gives a statement of why the need for medical examinations are needed for the
analyzation of air pollutants. All of the subheadings show the reader what the topic of the
following text will be about.
3. In Document Three, the document does not use any headings to organize the information.
The text is all in one section and is organized in paragraphs.
How are these related to purpose and audience?
1. In Document One, the “Discussion” subheading gives the audience a thorough summary of
the experiment introduction, set up, and results. Additionally, the “Results” subheading
conveys the purpose of the document because it shows the results of the experiment,
which is the main purpose or intention of a scientific report.
2. In Document Two, the subheadings relate to the purpose and audience because the
subheadings “Air Pollution and Health: A Recent Issue” and “Air Pollution: An under-
Perceived Threat for Public Health and Society” explain why medical evaluations are
needed from the environmental monitoring data. This directly shows the purpose of the
document.
3. In Document Three, the organization of the document is all in one section and is organized
through paragraphs. This organization conveys its purpose by making the text short
enough to get the purpose across quickly.
Sources
What kinds of sources, if any, does the author use?
1. Document One has 56 sources that is referenced throughout the document. The sources are
cited many times throughout the document to explain where they get their information
from. All of the sources are provided in the “References” subheading at the end of the
document.
2. In Document Two, the document references 32 different sources. The sources are cited
many times throughout the document to explain where their information is sourced from.
All of the references are listed at the end of the document under the subheading titled,
“References.”
3. Document Three does not include any sources related to research in the document.
However, the author does mention quotes from people and a statement from an
organization called the “California-based Hog Watch, a project of Environmental Defense.”
Relate these points to the purpose and audience?
1. In Document One, the sources relate to the purpose because they relate to the document
and are used to explain and support other phenomenon that were not found within the
experiment. The sources show the audience where the information is sourced from.
2. In Document Two, the sources relate to the purpose because that is where the author
obtains other facts and information that were not credited to the authors of the document.
The sources relate to the audience because it shows that the information collected in the
document is from credible sources.
3. The Document Three, the quote from the organization relate to the purpose because the
quote supports the fact that waste lagoons can harm the environment and human health.
The quote shows the audience that the document is using a credible source for the
information given.

Visual
What kinds, if any, visual materials accompany the documents? If so, describe them.
1. Document One uses charts, tables, maps, and figures that provide various visual information
about densities and spatial variation of natural mortality of fish.
2. In Document Two, there is only one table under the “Air Pollution: An under-Perceived
Threat for Public Health and Society” subheading. The figure shows a table listing 42
different countries in Europe and gives their population size and the number of “premature
deaths and years of life lost (YYL)” due to various air pollutants (Iriti et al, 2020).
3. Document Three uses one figure at the end of the document. The figure shows a black-and-
white photo of a dirty pig confined in a rusty, dirty cage.
What is their purpose? How does this relate to the purpose and audience?
1. In Document One, a figure is shown under the “Materials and methods” subheading. This
figure gives a conceptual model of the density of fish in an early life stage drifting in a
current over time and location. This visual supports the text and relates to the purpose
because it shows how the density of early-life fish spread throughout time, which is related
 to how the impacts oil spills are altered. This visual relates to the audience by showing a
visual representation of the movement of fish densities. The visual gives the audience an
image rather than text which may be difficult to understand through words in a paragraph.
A table is used to help display the results under the “Results” subheading. The table relates
to the document because it shows a clear visual of the results of the impact summary. The
purpose of the table is to show the impact quantile of different oil spill sizes in the three
scenarios that were given. The table relates to the audience because it tells the audience
how an increase in oil spill size increases the impact quantile.
2. In Document Two, a table under the “Air Pollution: An under-Perceived Threat for Public
Health and Society” subheading is shown to support the document’s purpose. The Table
shows 42 different countries in Europe and the number of premature deaths and years of
life lost due to three different air pollutants including PM 2.5, NO2, and O3. The table relates to
the purpose of the document because it shows a significant number of lives lost to air
pollution. The table supports the purpose of the document that there is a need for medical
readings in environmental monitoring data. The table relates to audience because it shows
to audience how the lives of many people have been affected by air pollution.
3. In Document Three, the purpose of the image is to invoke an emotional response. The
author is enticing concern and discontent. The visual gives the audience a view of the
unsanitary conditions of animals in CAFO farms.

CONCLUSION
The three documents analyzed in this analysis shows three ranges of different writing styles
in the field on environmental health and monitoring. All of these documents had some kind of
research from other sources included in their work and were geared more toward the educational
aspect of environmental science. Additionally, the documents also included issues in environmental
science and evaluated the issue and gave an indirect solution. However, there were different
aspects of writing in each of the analyzed documents. Writing educational and professional
documents were more specifically targeted to professionals in the field of environmental health and
monitoring. While on the other hand, writing for a general audience document not only includes
professionals but includes the general public as well.

ATTACHMENTS
Document One:
Langangen, Ø., Olsen, E., Stige, L. C., Ohlberger, J., Yaragina, N. A., Vikebø, F. B., Bogstad, B.,
Stenseth, N. C., & Hjermann, D. Ø. (2017). The effects of oil spills on marine fish:
Implications of spatial variation in natural mortality. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 119(1), 102-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.037
Document Two:
Iriti, M., Piscitelli, P., Missoni. E., & Miani, A. (2020). Air pollution and health: The need for a
medical reading of environmental monitoring data. International Journal of
 Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072174
Document Three:
Fryer, M. (2001). This little piggy creates waste. E : The Environmental Magazine, 12(1), 20.
https://manowar.tamucc.edu/login?
url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/this-little-piggy-creates-
waste/docview/229020215/se-2?accountid=7084