PB-2A

At first, the title “A Methodology for the Confusing Unification of Byzantine Fault Tolerance and Sensor Networks” sounds like a paper that you would not want to go near with a ten-foot-pole-- confusing indeed. The title makes it seem like the paper discusses a very complex and over-your-head topic, however, upon further examination, you will find that this paper consists of only one thing: absolute gibberish. Yet, how is this ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ able to fool you into believing it is a legitimate, academic work? The answer lies in the fact that it actually encompasses several of the same conventions and details that a true scholarly piece would contain.

For sake of comparison, let us look at a genuine academic piece titled “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update.” The most obvious similarity between this article and the nonsense SCIgen-generated one is the physical structure. The font used is clear and easy to read. The titles of both papers are centered at the top of the page, followed by the names of the authors, and both are broken up into sections separated by bold headings: Abstract, Introduction, Method, etc. The next similarity is the tone and language used. Both articles have an objective, empirical tone, and they both incorporate formal scientific jargon that is technical and concise. Another way these pieces contrast is the fact that the authors’ voice can be detected and observed in the “Neuroscience” article, whereas the SCIgen paper obviously has no voice because it is all gibberish and it was written by a computer algorithm, not a human being. However, unlike the genuine paper, the SCIgen paper includes multiple charts and graphs to add to its guise of legitimacy. The real paper does not have all the charts and graphs that the SCIgen one has, and this is an important point because it demonstrates that a work does not need to have all the conventions of the genre to be considered a part of that genre. In addition to this, just like the actual paper, the SCIgen one employs ethos by including a list of references at the end in order to further mislead you into believing that it is authentic. Once the audience sees that there are multiple ‘academic’ sources and entities that support this paper, they are more likely to accept its validity.

Out of all these characteristics, there are specific ones that I feel are most significant. The most valuable rhetorical tool in these pieces is the language used. The SCIgen-generated work uses incredibly complex wording and vocabulary, much like an authentic work would. Because of its convoluted nature, the reader becomes confused and overwhelmed and thus does not make an effort to scrupulously analyze it. This contributes to its ability to pass off as a real academic paper. Furthermore, the persuasive language that is seen in both papers is also a key convention. The “Neuroscience” paper includes essential components like experimental findings, evidence, and analysis in order to argue their claim, but the impact of all these things is heightened by the use of persuasive language. The article is trying to prove that internet pornography addiction is comparable to substance addiction by first offering a definition of addiction in the first place. The authors of the paper go on to reason out their argument by aligning the characteristics of internet pornography addiction with the aforementioned definition. This use of logos is effective, as it is substantiating the author’s arguments and therefore further convincing the reader.

           Looking at both of these papers, it was interesting to see how each one could vary individually, but because they did share some of the same conventions, they could be considered to be part of the same genre.