The reality of the documentary shows how hard life is in poor communities. In Flint, there are layoffs and shutdowns of businesses. This makes people move, lose their homes, and go into debt. This turns Flint into a ghost town. Financial security and job pressure causes suicide, alcoholism, abuse, and violence rates to increase.
In addition, the people of Flint job situations are not fair and are inequity. The big businesses (in this case General Motors) sales and profits are increasing, yet the employees are getting laid off. Instead of using the money for their employees, they use it to buy other companies. The big businesses are transferring their operations to countries where labor is cheaper. The companies do not feel compelled to give opportunities to their American employees. If it costs less to use Mexican labor, for example, then they will outsource jobs there. The laid off employees are told that fast food places are their “dream jobs”. They are also given menial jobs to work in jails. Some of the other poor people have to resort to selling or killing rabbits for money. They have no opportunity to succeed and big business feels no obligation to help them.
For the most part, Ragged Dick’s situation is different. Just like the people in Flint, he has trouble getting a job and wants to be successful. Unlike the people in Flint, he gets the opportunity to be successful. He saves a business man’s son from drowning and is offered a high paying job. He is given the opportunity to succeed and be promoted within the company. He believes everyone in America has the opportunity to succeed and that hard work makes it possible.
I think the Flint situation is more realistic. In today’s world, if a boy would save a man’s son from drowning, the man would probably thank him but would not offer him a permanent high paying job. The man would probably just give the boy a reward or have him over for dinner. In contrast, Flint shows the bleak reality for the poor. They are working hard, but they cannot succeed as the companies do not truly care about their employees. The companies are making it difficult to succeed because they either pay them little or they lay off their employers to cut costs. The employees are not able to make it out of poverty. Big business is not fair as the only concern is to increase sales and profit at the expense of its workers. Thus “Roger and Me” is the opposite to Horatio Alger’s myth of the “American Dream”. America is not the land of equal opportunity where hard work allows success.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Stephen Cruz
The “American Dream” is perceived to be that anyone in America has an equal opportunity to succeed and be successful. Most Americans believe that through hard work, learning, and dedication they can achieve the dream that, in turn, will make them happy.
Cruz is saying that no matter how hard you try, how smart you are, or how far you’ve come, you may not be satisfied with your success. Money is not everything. Cruz did not come from money, but he made a life for himself. In other’s eyes, he looks like he succeeded. However, he is not satisfied because realizes that much of what he got early in his career was because he was a minority; he was Mexican. Although Cruz received many promotions they were for just more money. Cruz wanted to have responsibility and to use his leadership skills. He was stereotyped as a happy Mexican who could not make decisions. His experiences made him realize other flaws in the American dream. For example, businessmen do not care about society by wanting to help minorities be managers, and even “minorities are as bad to other minorities as whites are to the minorities” (350). Cruz also argues that the American Dream is not “governed by education, opportunity, and hard work, but by power and fear” (351). The higher job one achieves, the more one has to worry about losing the money. This fear makes people not want to lose.
I disagree with what Cruz is saying about how you will never be satisfied. I think he reached the technical “American Dream”, but he did not reach his personal dream. He made a successful life for himself and made fifty thousand dollars in the 1970s. Cruz is not satisfied because he did not gain the respect of his cohorts and employers.
However, I do agree on his point that the higher the job you have, the more you need to worry about losing that job. When you are poor, you do not have to worry as much about losing the money because you have so little. It is like you are trying to succeed with nothing to lose. Once you get the good paying job, however, you have to worry about losing it. You become used to having more. Also, as you move up the ranks in a company, you are dependent on the managers of a company. They are the ones who decide whether you are qualified for the job or not. They are the ones who chose in either yes or no whether you can achieve the “American Dream” or whether you will still be hoping for the dream. Cruz has added a valid twist on the American Dream. It is hard for the average person to make a difference in big business.
Cruz is saying that no matter how hard you try, how smart you are, or how far you’ve come, you may not be satisfied with your success. Money is not everything. Cruz did not come from money, but he made a life for himself. In other’s eyes, he looks like he succeeded. However, he is not satisfied because realizes that much of what he got early in his career was because he was a minority; he was Mexican. Although Cruz received many promotions they were for just more money. Cruz wanted to have responsibility and to use his leadership skills. He was stereotyped as a happy Mexican who could not make decisions. His experiences made him realize other flaws in the American dream. For example, businessmen do not care about society by wanting to help minorities be managers, and even “minorities are as bad to other minorities as whites are to the minorities” (350). Cruz also argues that the American Dream is not “governed by education, opportunity, and hard work, but by power and fear” (351). The higher job one achieves, the more one has to worry about losing the money. This fear makes people not want to lose.
I disagree with what Cruz is saying about how you will never be satisfied. I think he reached the technical “American Dream”, but he did not reach his personal dream. He made a successful life for himself and made fifty thousand dollars in the 1970s. Cruz is not satisfied because he did not gain the respect of his cohorts and employers.
However, I do agree on his point that the higher the job you have, the more you need to worry about losing that job. When you are poor, you do not have to worry as much about losing the money because you have so little. It is like you are trying to succeed with nothing to lose. Once you get the good paying job, however, you have to worry about losing it. You become used to having more. Also, as you move up the ranks in a company, you are dependent on the managers of a company. They are the ones who decide whether you are qualified for the job or not. They are the ones who chose in either yes or no whether you can achieve the “American Dream” or whether you will still be hoping for the dream. Cruz has added a valid twist on the American Dream. It is hard for the average person to make a difference in big business.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
"Engaging the Text" #2 on p.322
I think that the main point of the essay is not that the wealthy are exploiting the poor, but rather there are class differences, which most Americans wish to ignore. Based on one’s class one has different opportunities and chances of success. Underlying the whole argument is that income determines class. Mantsios argues that there are huge economic differences between the classes, the middle class is not only shrinking, but only accounts for a small portion of America’s wealth, and the higher one’s class (income) the better chances of success and health.
I appreciate Mantsios’s perspective and he saw some valid points but, I think he is somewhat misleading in his definition of lower, middle, and upper-class. He seems to define “middle class” as those “household earning between $25,000 and $75,000” (RA, 335). I am not sure how this is really representative. Why isn’t middle class those whose income is between $50,000 to $100,000? Who decided what income level determines middle class? This income level might make Mantsios’s arguments more persuasive.
It seems that Mantsios might be manipulating the numbers. He throws out many different facts which seem to support the point he is making at the time, but it does not seem the numbers or percentages add up. For example, in one sentence he says the poor and upper class each account for one third of Americans. This means the middle class population accounts for one-third. Then he states the “wealthiest 20% of the population versus the poorest 20% is approximately 11 to 1” (334). It appears he is swamping the reader with statistics to make a point. However, if one steps back one can see these figures are not linked. He is changing the basis and the group he is comparing. It is deceiving for Mantsios to say that this ratio (11 to 1) is so high and that in Japan and Germany it is 4 to 1. Perhaps Japan and Germany do not have as many “poor” as their population is only a fraction of ours. Mantsios uses so many numbers that it is confusing to the reader and bombarding the audience into believing the author’s stance.
Nonetheless, I believe like Mantsios, that America is not a classless society. Class makes a difference in one’s opportunity and chance for success. If one has money to spend on better schools, if one’s family owns a business and has advantageous contacts, and one has higher expectations because one does not have to worry about making enough money to feed the family, then one has a better chance at succeeding. In this light, assuming money dictates one’s social status, the higher the social status, the better the chance to succeed. This seems like more a fact of life, than en exploitation of the poor and middle class by the wealthy.
note: I have an older version of this book, so the referenece pages might be off.
I appreciate Mantsios’s perspective and he saw some valid points but, I think he is somewhat misleading in his definition of lower, middle, and upper-class. He seems to define “middle class” as those “household earning between $25,000 and $75,000” (RA, 335). I am not sure how this is really representative. Why isn’t middle class those whose income is between $50,000 to $100,000? Who decided what income level determines middle class? This income level might make Mantsios’s arguments more persuasive.
It seems that Mantsios might be manipulating the numbers. He throws out many different facts which seem to support the point he is making at the time, but it does not seem the numbers or percentages add up. For example, in one sentence he says the poor and upper class each account for one third of Americans. This means the middle class population accounts for one-third. Then he states the “wealthiest 20% of the population versus the poorest 20% is approximately 11 to 1” (334). It appears he is swamping the reader with statistics to make a point. However, if one steps back one can see these figures are not linked. He is changing the basis and the group he is comparing. It is deceiving for Mantsios to say that this ratio (11 to 1) is so high and that in Japan and Germany it is 4 to 1. Perhaps Japan and Germany do not have as many “poor” as their population is only a fraction of ours. Mantsios uses so many numbers that it is confusing to the reader and bombarding the audience into believing the author’s stance.
Nonetheless, I believe like Mantsios, that America is not a classless society. Class makes a difference in one’s opportunity and chance for success. If one has money to spend on better schools, if one’s family owns a business and has advantageous contacts, and one has higher expectations because one does not have to worry about making enough money to feed the family, then one has a better chance at succeeding. In this light, assuming money dictates one’s social status, the higher the social status, the better the chance to succeed. This seems like more a fact of life, than en exploitation of the poor and middle class by the wealthy.
note: I have an older version of this book, so the referenece pages might be off.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Evaluating "First Place: A Healing School for Homeless Children"
The sample essay I am evaluating is from “First Place: A Healing School for Homeless Children” by Marybeth Hamilton. It is an argument that is saying that First Place should continue getting public tax dollars to support their alternative school program because it helps the homeless children become more self-sufficient. It is an essay using the refutation strategy.
In Hamilton’s argument, she does a good job summarizing what the other’s point of view is. She talks about how people think that the school is too expensive, how they criticize the use funds on social services for the students instead of on education, how they don’t believe the short stay at the institute has positive long-term effects , and how they question removing the kids from mainstream classrooms. Hamilton takes each point logically and refutes them will her opinions. For example, she says that First Place will save money in the long run; it will help the family help the child; it will improve the self-esteem of the child even if they only stay for a little bit, and that it will help the child feel less alienated and more accepted when they return to the mainstream schools.
Her approach is to show the readers there is another side to the story. She is trying to convince them of the importance of the long-term benefits of this program and how it will improve the children’s lives beyond the classroom. I thought her arguments were valid and her logical approach made it easy to follow.
Hamilton was aware of the opposing views and offered credible benefits to the program to convince me it was theoretically worth the money. However, I do not think that Hamilton gave enough actual facts. She did not give statistics to show how First Place helps the homeless children succeed and how specifically they improved. She only gave one example, saying according to a teacher that “some students actually made a three-grade level improvement in one year”. This is a bit vague. Also, she did not give any numbers for how much the program costs for the child. It would be nice to know about the specific programs, number of teachers, and the candidates so we can make our own judgment.
In Hamilton’s argument, she does a good job summarizing what the other’s point of view is. She talks about how people think that the school is too expensive, how they criticize the use funds on social services for the students instead of on education, how they don’t believe the short stay at the institute has positive long-term effects , and how they question removing the kids from mainstream classrooms. Hamilton takes each point logically and refutes them will her opinions. For example, she says that First Place will save money in the long run; it will help the family help the child; it will improve the self-esteem of the child even if they only stay for a little bit, and that it will help the child feel less alienated and more accepted when they return to the mainstream schools.
Her approach is to show the readers there is another side to the story. She is trying to convince them of the importance of the long-term benefits of this program and how it will improve the children’s lives beyond the classroom. I thought her arguments were valid and her logical approach made it easy to follow.
Hamilton was aware of the opposing views and offered credible benefits to the program to convince me it was theoretically worth the money. However, I do not think that Hamilton gave enough actual facts. She did not give statistics to show how First Place helps the homeless children succeed and how specifically they improved. She only gave one example, saying according to a teacher that “some students actually made a three-grade level improvement in one year”. This is a bit vague. Also, she did not give any numbers for how much the program costs for the child. It would be nice to know about the specific programs, number of teachers, and the candidates so we can make our own judgment.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Visual Argument
Visual arguments are more persuasive than verbal arguments as the audience is in tune with or aware of what the writer is trying to convey. Visual arguments are brief and to the point. As a result, the author must take great care to understand his audience and know how the visual arguments will be perceived. He must make sure the verbal and visual elements of the argument work together to achieve the desired result.
Carefully planned, visual arguments can be more effective than long, wordy documents. This is true because our society has become visually oriented. We have been conditioned to get many of our facts and values from physically watching television, or from reading a poster, flier, or brochure, or from looking at a cartoon or advertisement. Most people would rather spend a minute or two understanding a clever or poignant visual argument, than spending fifteen minutes or more trying to decipher the logic behind a verbal argument. Thus, a succinct argument that conveys the message has strong appeal and saves time.
Besides saving time, visual arguments can be more persuasive because of the techniques they use to create visual appeal. For example, choosing a vivid picture to portray suffering or poverty has more of an emotional impact than trying to verbally explain how a person has been maimed or abused. In this same fashion, presenting data by using a pie chart or bar graph can give more weight to the story behind the numbers. Graphs allow for a quick comparison between groups over time. This could easily show whether unemployment is going up or down, or how the marital status of females by age-group is broken down. In addition, visual techniques such as the size and type of fonts, the use of color versus black and white, the blending of pictures and words, and the use of layout and orientation are effective ways to create a vivid point of view. These help draw the reader emotionally to the argument. In conclusion, visual arguments are more persuasive not only because they are short and to the point, but also because they create images that have strong emotional appeal.
Carefully planned, visual arguments can be more effective than long, wordy documents. This is true because our society has become visually oriented. We have been conditioned to get many of our facts and values from physically watching television, or from reading a poster, flier, or brochure, or from looking at a cartoon or advertisement. Most people would rather spend a minute or two understanding a clever or poignant visual argument, than spending fifteen minutes or more trying to decipher the logic behind a verbal argument. Thus, a succinct argument that conveys the message has strong appeal and saves time.
Besides saving time, visual arguments can be more persuasive because of the techniques they use to create visual appeal. For example, choosing a vivid picture to portray suffering or poverty has more of an emotional impact than trying to verbally explain how a person has been maimed or abused. In this same fashion, presenting data by using a pie chart or bar graph can give more weight to the story behind the numbers. Graphs allow for a quick comparison between groups over time. This could easily show whether unemployment is going up or down, or how the marital status of females by age-group is broken down. In addition, visual techniques such as the size and type of fonts, the use of color versus black and white, the blending of pictures and words, and the use of layout and orientation are effective ways to create a vivid point of view. These help draw the reader emotionally to the argument. In conclusion, visual arguments are more persuasive not only because they are short and to the point, but also because they create images that have strong emotional appeal.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
'Ethos' and 'Pathos'
Ethos is the credibility. It shows how true or accurate an argument is. If the author writes from their own true experience or if they use facts and statistics, then one can be more confident that what the argument is stating is accurate. If the author also demonstrates their knowledge on a subject, then it will increase the credibility. The writer must also mention the alternative point of views and be fair and understanding towards them (empathy). The author should share his values and assumptions to show you that he is trustworthy. These things will strengthen one’s ethos in the argument.
Pathos can create positive emotions by getting the audience to identify with the writer. They must have legitimate appeal or else they will confuse the issue instead of clarifying it. It is good if these devices “intensify and deepen our response to an issue” as opposed to diverting our attention from it. If concrete language is used, then it will increase pathos. Photos or images are also useful tools that help engage the audience emotionally.
I think both our media and government use ethos and pathos to influence the public. When it comes to the War on Terrorists, and especially in Iraq, the media shows us clippings that cause us to become emotionally upset. These pictures graphically show soldiers dying, people rioting, or innocent civilians being killed. It makes U.S. citizens wonder why we are still in the war and why we are not bringing our soldiers home. These clippings have a strong emotional appeal. They make Americans wonder if the war in Iraq is really worth the deaths and uproar. It also points to the fact that we are not winning the war in Iraq and causes us to question the need to send more troops there.
The media and government also do not live up to the expectation for ethos. I believe that they do not always tell all sides to the stories. In Iraq, they only give us the negative parts. They are not showing how we are helping out the government or the people. It seems the media is always blaming someone and giving their points and saying they are right. However, you never hear other sides to the arguments, unless you either go to the right T.V. channel (where it gives both sides) or if you search for it on internet (blogs). Personally, I do not trust the media or government much as they each have their own agendas, and are well-versed at using ethos and pathos to influence their audiences.
Pathos can create positive emotions by getting the audience to identify with the writer. They must have legitimate appeal or else they will confuse the issue instead of clarifying it. It is good if these devices “intensify and deepen our response to an issue” as opposed to diverting our attention from it. If concrete language is used, then it will increase pathos. Photos or images are also useful tools that help engage the audience emotionally.
I think both our media and government use ethos and pathos to influence the public. When it comes to the War on Terrorists, and especially in Iraq, the media shows us clippings that cause us to become emotionally upset. These pictures graphically show soldiers dying, people rioting, or innocent civilians being killed. It makes U.S. citizens wonder why we are still in the war and why we are not bringing our soldiers home. These clippings have a strong emotional appeal. They make Americans wonder if the war in Iraq is really worth the deaths and uproar. It also points to the fact that we are not winning the war in Iraq and causes us to question the need to send more troops there.
The media and government also do not live up to the expectation for ethos. I believe that they do not always tell all sides to the stories. In Iraq, they only give us the negative parts. They are not showing how we are helping out the government or the people. It seems the media is always blaming someone and giving their points and saying they are right. However, you never hear other sides to the arguments, unless you either go to the right T.V. channel (where it gives both sides) or if you search for it on internet (blogs). Personally, I do not trust the media or government much as they each have their own agendas, and are well-versed at using ethos and pathos to influence their audiences.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Real World Pseudo-Argument
A pseudo-argument that I have encountered in the real world is an argument over whether NBA or college basketball is better. I have had this argument with many people, of whom I do not remember. My stance in this argument is that college basketball is better.
Whenever I have this argument with someone, I tell them that I think that college basketball is so much better than NBA in every perspective. For example, the college players are playing for their college team and hope to win the NCAA Championships. IT is for pride not for money. They play together, run plays, use teamwork, and are not selfish. Most of the NBA players seem to play for the money and the fame. They have no heart for the game anymore. They care only about personal statistics. If once watches a professional basketball game, one sees basically no teamwork or defense. It is all about showing off and scoring as many points as possible. College ball is more engaging to watch because of the team effort and the crowd appreciates this.
After I state my opinion that college basketball is more engaging than professional basketball, my opposition declares that NBA is much more exciting to watch because there are more tricks and dunks. The athletes are more gifted performers. Their tricks consist of beating a defender, doing behind the back passes, or completing some insane dunk. Another point they would make is that some of these athletes are role models for younger kids because the kids want to play basketball. It gives them hope of being a great basketball player someday.
This pseudo-argument is debating about whether NBA or college basketball is better. It is based upon opinions. There are no reasonable participants in this argument. No matter what arguments one presents, it will not change the other’s mind. It shows that the participants in the argument believe in what they do just because they say so. There is no sharing of ideas nor any chance of opening up one’s mind to a different opinion. It is not possible to have a genuine argument.
Whenever I have this argument with someone, I tell them that I think that college basketball is so much better than NBA in every perspective. For example, the college players are playing for their college team and hope to win the NCAA Championships. IT is for pride not for money. They play together, run plays, use teamwork, and are not selfish. Most of the NBA players seem to play for the money and the fame. They have no heart for the game anymore. They care only about personal statistics. If once watches a professional basketball game, one sees basically no teamwork or defense. It is all about showing off and scoring as many points as possible. College ball is more engaging to watch because of the team effort and the crowd appreciates this.
After I state my opinion that college basketball is more engaging than professional basketball, my opposition declares that NBA is much more exciting to watch because there are more tricks and dunks. The athletes are more gifted performers. Their tricks consist of beating a defender, doing behind the back passes, or completing some insane dunk. Another point they would make is that some of these athletes are role models for younger kids because the kids want to play basketball. It gives them hope of being a great basketball player someday.
This pseudo-argument is debating about whether NBA or college basketball is better. It is based upon opinions. There are no reasonable participants in this argument. No matter what arguments one presents, it will not change the other’s mind. It shows that the participants in the argument believe in what they do just because they say so. There is no sharing of ideas nor any chance of opening up one’s mind to a different opinion. It is not possible to have a genuine argument.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Pathos
Pathos is a strong rhetorical device because it appeals to the audience’s feelings and emotions as opposed to their intellect. By using the persuasive appeal of pathos, a writer engages the reader’s “imaginative sympathies”. This is a way to get the audience emotionally involved or to walk in the writer’s shoes by appealing to their senses. It helps the readers to see and feel what the author does. If one uses this emotional appeal technique, it will help win an argument since it intensifies and deepens the response to an issue. It makes the issue come alive. The use of pathos could convincingly persuade the reader to take the writer’s stance if it successfully appeals to the reader’s values and interests. Pathos helps create an emotional impact as the reader realizes the issue has personal meaning and significance. Appealing to someone’s emotions can cause the person to become disregard the truth and facts. They do not use logic or evidence to in formulating their stance. A prime example of this is the piece, “A Case for Torture”. Levin used the technique of pathos to make his case that in some instances it is necessary to use torture. Specifically, by appealing to parents’ emotions he argued that if a terrorist kidnapped their child, then torture was necessary. This shows the power of pathos as a rhetorical device.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Response to the AP Exam
After reading the AP English Course Description and doing the multiple choice section, I am nervous about the exam. The course description said that the exam is three hours long and has multiple choice problems and essays. I do not think I will have enough time to do everything on the exam because it takes me awhile to process my thoughts. Just doing the practice multiple choice section took me two hours to do, where as the course description says that they allow sixty minutes on that section. In addition, it was hard to concentrate as I got tired and frustrated.
I am not comfortable with either parts of the exam. Even though in the multiple choice section there are answers given, it is still hard and I missed 14 questions, which is a 74.5%. It seems that they put 3 obviously wrong answers, but they leave two answers that could possibly be correct. It is hard to figure out nuances. Also, the questions and answers of the problem sometimes contained vocabulary words that I did not know the meaning of. Therefore, this made the process of choosing the correct response hard. I was not sure when to guess as there is a 0.25 point reduction for each wrong answer. I need to have a better grasp of rhetorical strategies, author’s style and tone, and literary devices. Perhaps by doing more practice tests, I will be better able to figure out the correct answers. It would be nice to understand the logic behind choosing one answer over another, when they are similar.
In the essay section, I will probably figure out something to write, but it’s the time that is the problem. I have to read the sections, think about them, outline points to write about, and then compose my response. Two hours does not seem to be enough, so I will have to write my responses quickly, which means they might not be as good. In conclusion, I think that every part of the test is going to be a challenge. I hope that through the course I will gain knowledge and the confidence I need to be successful on the AP English Exam.
I am not comfortable with either parts of the exam. Even though in the multiple choice section there are answers given, it is still hard and I missed 14 questions, which is a 74.5%. It seems that they put 3 obviously wrong answers, but they leave two answers that could possibly be correct. It is hard to figure out nuances. Also, the questions and answers of the problem sometimes contained vocabulary words that I did not know the meaning of. Therefore, this made the process of choosing the correct response hard. I was not sure when to guess as there is a 0.25 point reduction for each wrong answer. I need to have a better grasp of rhetorical strategies, author’s style and tone, and literary devices. Perhaps by doing more practice tests, I will be better able to figure out the correct answers. It would be nice to understand the logic behind choosing one answer over another, when they are similar.
In the essay section, I will probably figure out something to write, but it’s the time that is the problem. I have to read the sections, think about them, outline points to write about, and then compose my response. Two hours does not seem to be enough, so I will have to write my responses quickly, which means they might not be as good. In conclusion, I think that every part of the test is going to be a challenge. I hope that through the course I will gain knowledge and the confidence I need to be successful on the AP English Exam.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
"A Case for Torture"
I agree with the point Michael Levin makes in his piece “A Case for Torture” about how there are certain circumstances when it is okay to torture someone. I think it is appropriate to torture a terrorist in order to save many of lives. The mass killing of innocent people is far worse than torturing someone who has chosen to be a terrorist. A terrorist hurts people on purpose as he has “volunteered for the risk of his deed”. A terrorist does not care about individual rights so why should our society worry about his individual rights? His act is cowardly as he strikes his victims secretly and without warning. The threat of torture is a great deterrent as it keeps the “innocents from being dispatched”. Lives are too important to let one person endanger them. If one has the ability but does nothing to stop a terrorist situation, then many people could die. One should have the courage to torture the terrorist. Torturing the terrorist is not killing and if it proves to be successful, then no one has to die in the end. It is a win win situation. Torture is the only way to save innocent people in situations like terrorist attacks and it is a way to prevent “future evils”.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Comparing Ad to Cartoon
The cartoon and the ad present different perspectives about genetically engineered food. The cartoon uses visual picture to elicit a response from the audience. It suggests an implicit idea that the overweight hippie, who wants to help the world, is blind (has sunglasses on that could be symbol of being blind) to the fact that issues related to genetically engineered food does not matter to the starving person. The famished male only wants calories and food. The obese do-gooder wants love and world peace. This cartoon makes the implied argument that it does not really matter if the food is genetically altered. What is important is to feed the starving population. It does not matter what type of food is feeding their mouths. This cartoon allows for
On the other hand, the ad tries to appeal to the reader’s logic and reason, especially those people who like natural, organic foods. It states facts so that one can agree with the author’s point of view. It explicitly asks the question “What if everything was labeled like genetically engineered foods?” to which it blatantly says “None of Your business”. The author is advocating that genetically engineered foods should have to labeled so that consumers know that they have been altered. The author suggests that genetically engineered products may be potentially dangerous and should be subjected to more testing. It is implied that that GE foods may be harmful to one’s health, to the environment, and to the “future of farming”. On the surface this appears to be a logical argument, however, there are no facts stated in the ad that would prove that GE foods are harmful.
Both forms of arguments have merit. The cartoon has more room for interpretation and has visual appeal. The ad is more to the point and appears to present facts to persuade one to agree with the author. However, under close examination it does not provide enough facts to substantiate the claims it makes. Both types are effective in that it makes the reader question the point of view.
On the other hand, the ad tries to appeal to the reader’s logic and reason, especially those people who like natural, organic foods. It states facts so that one can agree with the author’s point of view. It explicitly asks the question “What if everything was labeled like genetically engineered foods?” to which it blatantly says “None of Your business”. The author is advocating that genetically engineered foods should have to labeled so that consumers know that they have been altered. The author suggests that genetically engineered products may be potentially dangerous and should be subjected to more testing. It is implied that that GE foods may be harmful to one’s health, to the environment, and to the “future of farming”. On the surface this appears to be a logical argument, however, there are no facts stated in the ad that would prove that GE foods are harmful.
Both forms of arguments have merit. The cartoon has more room for interpretation and has visual appeal. The ad is more to the point and appears to present facts to persuade one to agree with the author. However, under close examination it does not provide enough facts to substantiate the claims it makes. Both types are effective in that it makes the reader question the point of view.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Explicit Vs. Implicit
Arguments must justify the claim they are making by seeking the truth and using the art of persuasion. Arguments can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit arguments state their claim or stance directly. They use evidence and reason to support their position to persuade others to agree. Implicit arguments do not look like arguments as they are implied. They can take the forms of poems, short stories, photographs, cartoons, personal essays, and autobiographical narratives. However, they are similar to explicit arguments in that they try to persuade others to take a certain point of view.
Two examples of implicit arguments are the Veterans Day Photograph and the “Dulce et Decorum Est” poem. They portray two different opinions about war. The photograph is trying to make an argument about how it is good to honor one’s country by serving in the armed forces. Even though the one soldier has an artificial hand, he appears strong and proud of what he has done. The older veteran’s embrace suggests that he is proud of the younger soldier and at the same time understands and sympathizes with him as he knows the pain and scars wars leave.
The poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” makes the implicit argument that war is horrible and pointless. It does this by describing in great detail how a soldier drowns in mustard gas because he did not get his mask on in time. The author, Wilfred Owen, says this experience is not something one would tell children to make them feel dying for one’s country is honorable or glorious. Instead, he views “Dulce et Decorum Est propartria mori” is a lie.
Both these works make persuasive implicit arguments. They are not explicit arguments as there is no position or thesis stated, followed by reasons and evidence to support this position.
Two examples of implicit arguments are the Veterans Day Photograph and the “Dulce et Decorum Est” poem. They portray two different opinions about war. The photograph is trying to make an argument about how it is good to honor one’s country by serving in the armed forces. Even though the one soldier has an artificial hand, he appears strong and proud of what he has done. The older veteran’s embrace suggests that he is proud of the younger soldier and at the same time understands and sympathizes with him as he knows the pain and scars wars leave.
The poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” makes the implicit argument that war is horrible and pointless. It does this by describing in great detail how a soldier drowns in mustard gas because he did not get his mask on in time. The author, Wilfred Owen, says this experience is not something one would tell children to make them feel dying for one’s country is honorable or glorious. Instead, he views “Dulce et Decorum Est propartria mori” is a lie.
Both these works make persuasive implicit arguments. They are not explicit arguments as there is no position or thesis stated, followed by reasons and evidence to support this position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)