In order to be successful, you must work hard, take a chance, and you will eventually be rewarded. This is an implicit argument that is made in “Ragged Dick”, by Horatio Alger. Dick works as a low-wage worker, but then decides that he really wants to work in a counting-room. He saved up one hundred dollars, and decided to reward himself by taking a boat ride. On that boat ride, he saved a little boy from drowning and was offered a much higher-paying job as a clerk in a counting-room by the little boy’s father.
Dick worked very hard to save up one hundred dollars while working at his previous job at only three dollars per hour. Dick was very motivated, and he never gave up. He had applied to many other counting-rooms, but was never accepted. Dick however, didn’t give up, and it paid off. Having motivation and working hard is the only way to be successful. If you want something then you have to work for it.
Dick would have never gotten the job as an accountant if he hadn’t acted on impulse, jumped in the water, and saved the boy from drowning. Dick was a morally good person with a good heart, and he took a chance and risked his life to save another. He took a chance that possibly could have killed him, but he took it at the chance of possibly saving the life of another. Sometimes, taking chances is the only way to move on in life, because you will never know what could have happened if you don’t take a chance. Dick took a chance, and another successful opportunity opened for him.
Alger conveys this is an implicit argument by creating the story of Dick and showing how he got his opportunity to be successful. Alger writes about how Dick worked very hard to raise one hundred dollars, and how he acted on impulse to save the child, and what his reward was- success. Alger doesn’t directly come out and state that in order to be successful you must work hard and take a chance, but instead conveys this message implicitly by showing the effects of hard work and taking a chance in a story-like argumentative form.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Visual Arguments
A lot of times, visual arguments are more effective. This is because visual arguments enhance logos, pathos, and ethos of an argument by supporting or clarifying the logical core of an argument, having a more imaginative effect on the audience, and enhancing the author’s credibility or authority. Sometimes, arguments presented on a piece of paper have a stronger effect than an auditory argument. Some visual arguments include photographs, drawings, graphics, and page and text design such as a PowerPoint. Things like this can make your argument seem more official and important.
If you present your argument as a photograph, drawing, or graphic, then your argument might be perceived as dealing with the arts, and would be much more effective than an auditory argument when dealing with artists. People would also think that this is a big issue, because someone has taken a long amount of time to create something on that subject. This gives the argument more importance. If you use a page and text design, or graphs, then this will also enhance your argument when presented to the correct audience. If presented to a business audience, this could give your audience a larger sense of the issue by giving them something to physically see. Also, graphs can make arguments seem more official, and enhance authority. People will be more susceptible to something if there is visual evidence of statistics.
Also, when making a commercial or similar advertisement, people will be more inclined to buy something if they associate it with a pleasant image. They will be more likely to buy a laptop that has a commercial with smiling people working on a laptop, then an ad about a laptop with no image whatsoever. The advertisement must be appealing to the audience, and often an image can enhance in argument and make it more appealing.
Of course, you must present your visual argument correctly. There are certain fonts, backgrounds, and text to use, and not to use, but if you use the assets of a visual argument correctly, then it should be more effective than an auditory argument.
If you present your argument as a photograph, drawing, or graphic, then your argument might be perceived as dealing with the arts, and would be much more effective than an auditory argument when dealing with artists. People would also think that this is a big issue, because someone has taken a long amount of time to create something on that subject. This gives the argument more importance. If you use a page and text design, or graphs, then this will also enhance your argument when presented to the correct audience. If presented to a business audience, this could give your audience a larger sense of the issue by giving them something to physically see. Also, graphs can make arguments seem more official, and enhance authority. People will be more susceptible to something if there is visual evidence of statistics.
Also, when making a commercial or similar advertisement, people will be more inclined to buy something if they associate it with a pleasant image. They will be more likely to buy a laptop that has a commercial with smiling people working on a laptop, then an ad about a laptop with no image whatsoever. The advertisement must be appealing to the audience, and often an image can enhance in argument and make it more appealing.
Of course, you must present your visual argument correctly. There are certain fonts, backgrounds, and text to use, and not to use, but if you use the assets of a visual argument correctly, then it should be more effective than an auditory argument.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Media Ethics
Ethos and pathos are very strong rhetorical devices. Writers need to understand their responsibilities and understand the result of their writing before it is published. Most of the time, our media lives up to these standards, but occasionally, they don’t.
Pathos is a rhetorical device that appeals to emotions and imaginative sympathies. Pathos, when used correctly, certainly can have a very strong effect on an audience, however, must be used correctly. You must write according to your age group. If you are writing for small children, you shouldn’t use extreme violence or detail in pain scenes. As a writer, you have a responsibility to persuade and provide information for your audience, but do so in a humane way. Also, you shouldn’t overdo pathos to create such an unbearable argument that the reader will become depressed. You shouldn’t give the reader more information than they can healthily handle. This goes for any age group.
Ethos is extremely effective, but can easily be misused. Ethos deals with the tone and style of the piece, and how you reinforce your argument. This can’t easily be done unethically, but people still manage to. You can’t present your argument in a way that isn’t appropriate for your audience. By writing an argument, you have a responsibility to keep your reader’s emotions intact all through and after the argument. Present your argument is a way where no one takes offense to your style or what you’re saying. It will diminish your credibility, and demean your ethos.
Writers have media ethics that are guaranteed to be followed. The very least of the media ethics include not giving the name of a minor, and not destroying the reputation of anyone in the article. This is summarized as truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability This is most always followed, except for an occasional mishap where a reporter doesn’t focus on the facts, and focuses more on destroying the reputation on someone. The media’s job is to report facts accurately and fairly, and not with the intention of tearing someone down. Every magazine, news station, etc… has there own standards on ethics, (some higher than others), but the general standard of ethics must be, and almost always are, followed. If they are not followed, then the media reporter is arrested. All media, journalism, reporter, etc… majors are required to take an ethics class in college that teaches them the ethics and responsibility they have as a reporter, and is most always followed.
Pathos is a rhetorical device that appeals to emotions and imaginative sympathies. Pathos, when used correctly, certainly can have a very strong effect on an audience, however, must be used correctly. You must write according to your age group. If you are writing for small children, you shouldn’t use extreme violence or detail in pain scenes. As a writer, you have a responsibility to persuade and provide information for your audience, but do so in a humane way. Also, you shouldn’t overdo pathos to create such an unbearable argument that the reader will become depressed. You shouldn’t give the reader more information than they can healthily handle. This goes for any age group.
Ethos is extremely effective, but can easily be misused. Ethos deals with the tone and style of the piece, and how you reinforce your argument. This can’t easily be done unethically, but people still manage to. You can’t present your argument in a way that isn’t appropriate for your audience. By writing an argument, you have a responsibility to keep your reader’s emotions intact all through and after the argument. Present your argument is a way where no one takes offense to your style or what you’re saying. It will diminish your credibility, and demean your ethos.
Writers have media ethics that are guaranteed to be followed. The very least of the media ethics include not giving the name of a minor, and not destroying the reputation of anyone in the article. This is summarized as truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability This is most always followed, except for an occasional mishap where a reporter doesn’t focus on the facts, and focuses more on destroying the reputation on someone. The media’s job is to report facts accurately and fairly, and not with the intention of tearing someone down. Every magazine, news station, etc… has there own standards on ethics, (some higher than others), but the general standard of ethics must be, and almost always are, followed. If they are not followed, then the media reporter is arrested. All media, journalism, reporter, etc… majors are required to take an ethics class in college that teaches them the ethics and responsibility they have as a reporter, and is most always followed.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Lagley v.s. Levin
David Lagley and Mike Levin use similar types of arguments to support their causes. Although Skateboarding (David Lagley) and Torture (Mike Levin) are two very different subjects, they both had similar explanations in theory.
In “A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Lagley says, “But in general skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it.” He also says, “In the bigger picture, infrequent repair of curbs and benches is cheaper then attempts to heal the ozone. In “A Case for Torture”, Mike Levin says that overall, it would be better to kill the terrorist than the innocent people. Their claims both ask you to look at “the big picture” or the “overall outcome.” In their argument, they minimize the small damage, and only think about the positive ending. They demean the damage that happens in the process of their actions, and amplify the optimistic side of the outcome. They’re correct in that the overall outcome is desirable, but the means and damage that come along with the desired outcome, isn’t appealing. Lagley says that although skateboarding at public places hurts the concrete, mildly damages property, and can be disruptive, the environmental advantage clearly outweigh the property damage. Levin says that the benefit of saving innocent lives outweigh the much less beneficial killing of the terrorist.
Both authors are guilty of this, but Levin is a little bit more sneaky and inconspicuous. He makes the demeaning less noticeable, and Lagley’s is more prominent.
In “A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Lagley says, “But in general skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it.” He also says, “In the bigger picture, infrequent repair of curbs and benches is cheaper then attempts to heal the ozone. In “A Case for Torture”, Mike Levin says that overall, it would be better to kill the terrorist than the innocent people. Their claims both ask you to look at “the big picture” or the “overall outcome.” In their argument, they minimize the small damage, and only think about the positive ending. They demean the damage that happens in the process of their actions, and amplify the optimistic side of the outcome. They’re correct in that the overall outcome is desirable, but the means and damage that come along with the desired outcome, isn’t appealing. Lagley says that although skateboarding at public places hurts the concrete, mildly damages property, and can be disruptive, the environmental advantage clearly outweigh the property damage. Levin says that the benefit of saving innocent lives outweigh the much less beneficial killing of the terrorist.
Both authors are guilty of this, but Levin is a little bit more sneaky and inconspicuous. He makes the demeaning less noticeable, and Lagley’s is more prominent.
Pseudo-Argument
When I was in 8th grade, my friend and I had the opportunity to go to Malaga, Spain for two weeks and live with a host family. My whole 8th grade class was going, and she was the only one who couldn’t go. She provided several reasons why she should be able to go, but she was still not allowed to go. After two weeks, she gave up, realizing that it was clearly a pseudo-argument. Her mother wasn’t going to listen to reason, and her mind wasn’t going to be changed.
She doesn’t know how many reasons she provided, but her mother simply wouldn’t listen. Some of her reasons were: it would improve her Spanish, she’s plenty responsible, it would be a good experience, and she would get to call her mom every night. Her mother couldn’t supply any reasons for not letting her go except, “I’m your mother, and I’m not letting you go.” It was a hopeless pseudo-argument.
There are two requirements for an argument- reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable behavior, and potentially sharable assumptions that can serve as a starting place or foundation for the argument. In this particular pseudo argument, her mother wasn’t a reasonable participant who operated within the conventions of reasonable behavior. Her mother went into the argument being determined not to let her mind be changed. Her mother’s overprotective mindset wouldn’t let her be reasoned with explanations as to why my friend should go. When one person goes into an argument thinking like this, it destroys the whole argument. It is no longer an argument.
She doesn’t know how many reasons she provided, but her mother simply wouldn’t listen. Some of her reasons were: it would improve her Spanish, she’s plenty responsible, it would be a good experience, and she would get to call her mom every night. Her mother couldn’t supply any reasons for not letting her go except, “I’m your mother, and I’m not letting you go.” It was a hopeless pseudo-argument.
There are two requirements for an argument- reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable behavior, and potentially sharable assumptions that can serve as a starting place or foundation for the argument. In this particular pseudo argument, her mother wasn’t a reasonable participant who operated within the conventions of reasonable behavior. Her mother went into the argument being determined not to let her mind be changed. Her mother’s overprotective mindset wouldn’t let her be reasoned with explanations as to why my friend should go. When one person goes into an argument thinking like this, it destroys the whole argument. It is no longer an argument.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Pathos as a powerful rhetoric advice
Out of the three categories of arguments that we have learned, pathos is the most powerful rhetorical device to appeal to the audience’s imaginative sympathies. Using pathos can deeper the appreciation of the argument by engaging the audience in emotional and imaginative appeals, and make the reader feel and see what the writer does, and therefore making a pathetic appeal. Pathos is very effective when used correctly, but can be extremely ineffective when used incorrectly, which is why it is such a hard rhetorical device to use. If your argument stimulating the emotions isn’t powerful enough, then the argument won’t have any affect; however, you can’t overdo the emotional appeal and try to drown your audience in too many emotions, or the argument will become too fake.
The main reason pathos is such a powerful rhetorical device is because it appeals to imaginative sympathies. People are highly influenced by appeal to emotions. For example, if a writer is providing an argument dealing with Africa or Darfur and genocide, they might use pathos to appeal to sadder and more somber emotions, therefore making people want to help the situation. If a writer was providing an argument that parks are a good influence on young society, they might use pathos to appeal to happier emotions and making people want to build more parks. You decide which emotions you want to appeal to by asking yourself as a writer things such as: “How can I make the reader open to my message? How can I best appeal to my reader’s values and interests? How can I engage my reader emotionally and imaginatively?”
Using logic or facts are certainly affective at proving a point, but if you want to make your reader take action, pathos would be the best rhetorical device. People are more inclined to believe, or take action, to something that makes them feel something emotionally or sympathize with an argument.
The main reason pathos is such a powerful rhetorical device is because it appeals to imaginative sympathies. People are highly influenced by appeal to emotions. For example, if a writer is providing an argument dealing with Africa or Darfur and genocide, they might use pathos to appeal to sadder and more somber emotions, therefore making people want to help the situation. If a writer was providing an argument that parks are a good influence on young society, they might use pathos to appeal to happier emotions and making people want to build more parks. You decide which emotions you want to appeal to by asking yourself as a writer things such as: “How can I make the reader open to my message? How can I best appeal to my reader’s values and interests? How can I engage my reader emotionally and imaginatively?”
Using logic or facts are certainly affective at proving a point, but if you want to make your reader take action, pathos would be the best rhetorical device. People are more inclined to believe, or take action, to something that makes them feel something emotionally or sympathize with an argument.
Monday, September 8, 2008
responce to "A Case for Torture"
In the article, “A Case of Torture”, Michael Levin, the author, presents an argument that augments the, most commonly opposed, idea of torture. He does this by providing situations in which the method that I formerly thought of as inhumane torture would be the only humane method to use. His prime argument is that: if torturing someone who means to harm an innocent life, or multiple innocent lives, will save the innocent(s) lives, then the torturing of the harmful person is necessary.
Levin provides a situation where a terrorist is going to kill thousands of lives, so what do you do? Levin says that yes, torture is barbaric, but mass murder is far more barbaric. Levin says that although torture is most likely unconstitutional, the life of an innocent outweighs the unconstitutionality of torturing someone who is harming the innocent. Levin is not saying that torture is a good method for government, or that it should be used commonly; but he is saying that in extreme cases, torture is the only moral thing to do.
Yes, torture doesn’t always work. If a terrorist bomber sets a bomb at a theatre and the bomb will kill three hundred people in five minutes unless it is detonated, the terrorist could give false information during the torture, and the torture would be declared useless because it did not save the three hundred lives, but instead, killed three hundred and one lives, but what else could have been done? Torture doesn’t always work, but in some cases it does, so does it hurt to try?
I believe it doesn’t hurt to try, because when there’s no other option, all you can do is try, because if you don’t try, then you’ll never know if those three hundred innocent lives could have been saved.
Although Levin does use some biased and unlikely arguments in this article that deal with a survey of four, babies, and clever terrorists, the main idea in his article makes perfect sense. Torture should not be used unless absolutely necessary, but when necessary, it should be used.
Levin provides a situation where a terrorist is going to kill thousands of lives, so what do you do? Levin says that yes, torture is barbaric, but mass murder is far more barbaric. Levin says that although torture is most likely unconstitutional, the life of an innocent outweighs the unconstitutionality of torturing someone who is harming the innocent. Levin is not saying that torture is a good method for government, or that it should be used commonly; but he is saying that in extreme cases, torture is the only moral thing to do.
Yes, torture doesn’t always work. If a terrorist bomber sets a bomb at a theatre and the bomb will kill three hundred people in five minutes unless it is detonated, the terrorist could give false information during the torture, and the torture would be declared useless because it did not save the three hundred lives, but instead, killed three hundred and one lives, but what else could have been done? Torture doesn’t always work, but in some cases it does, so does it hurt to try?
I believe it doesn’t hurt to try, because when there’s no other option, all you can do is try, because if you don’t try, then you’ll never know if those three hundred innocent lives could have been saved.
Although Levin does use some biased and unlikely arguments in this article that deal with a survey of four, babies, and clever terrorists, the main idea in his article makes perfect sense. Torture should not be used unless absolutely necessary, but when necessary, it should be used.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Biotech foods
There is currently a political debate going on about biotech foods. The debate is largely concerning whether biotech foods should be sold, and whether they should have to identify themselves as “biotech foods.” I strongly believe that biotech foods should be further tested before being sold, and that if they are sold after testing, they should have to have a “biotech” label on them for easy identification.
I realize that biotech foods have become a large group in grocery stores, and very popular in our society today, but I don’t believe everyone buying the biotech foods knows the minimal research that has gone into biotech foods and the possible unsafety, or know that they’re buying biotech foods. I don’t believe that these are fair items to sell at least without forewarning.
Biotech foods haven’t been tested or studied enough to know the long-term effects on human consumption, or on the environment. Although they were approved by the FDA, I don’t believe they should have been because of the lack of knowledge of long term effects. Biotech food could very well cause cancer or other serious diseases or illnesses, but no one knows because it hasn’t been in grocery stores long enough for there to be a mass-outbreak of some terrible plague. Most citizens don’t know that biotech food could possibly be unsafe and harmful; they assume that it has to be fully tested before it is allowed on the market. It isn’t right to sell something in large corporate stores that isn’t scientifically tested to be completely unharmful to the human body, especially without a label!
Since biotech food is sold at grocery stores, there should be a label. Most people don’t know if they’re buying biotech food or not, or even what it is! It isn’t lawful to allow citizens to buy possibly harmful products without their knowing. Biotech food should have a large label for identification to give citizens forewarning about what they’re buying and the possible consequences. I also believe that biotech food companies need to put a large label on the food for libel reasons. If anything happens to the people who eat biotech foods, the biotech companies are no doubt going to get sued. Also, the places that sell biotech food would probably get sued also. It would be a good idea for everyone, if the biotech food companies put labels on their biotech food.
Biotech food shouldn’t be allowed to be sold without further studying and research done, and it isn’t fair to the people buying Biotech food if there isn’t a label labeling it. Further research and study needs to be done before Biotech food is released, for the safety of everyone.
I realize that biotech foods have become a large group in grocery stores, and very popular in our society today, but I don’t believe everyone buying the biotech foods knows the minimal research that has gone into biotech foods and the possible unsafety, or know that they’re buying biotech foods. I don’t believe that these are fair items to sell at least without forewarning.
Biotech foods haven’t been tested or studied enough to know the long-term effects on human consumption, or on the environment. Although they were approved by the FDA, I don’t believe they should have been because of the lack of knowledge of long term effects. Biotech food could very well cause cancer or other serious diseases or illnesses, but no one knows because it hasn’t been in grocery stores long enough for there to be a mass-outbreak of some terrible plague. Most citizens don’t know that biotech food could possibly be unsafe and harmful; they assume that it has to be fully tested before it is allowed on the market. It isn’t right to sell something in large corporate stores that isn’t scientifically tested to be completely unharmful to the human body, especially without a label!
Since biotech food is sold at grocery stores, there should be a label. Most people don’t know if they’re buying biotech food or not, or even what it is! It isn’t lawful to allow citizens to buy possibly harmful products without their knowing. Biotech food should have a large label for identification to give citizens forewarning about what they’re buying and the possible consequences. I also believe that biotech food companies need to put a large label on the food for libel reasons. If anything happens to the people who eat biotech foods, the biotech companies are no doubt going to get sued. Also, the places that sell biotech food would probably get sued also. It would be a good idea for everyone, if the biotech food companies put labels on their biotech food.
Biotech food shouldn’t be allowed to be sold without further studying and research done, and it isn’t fair to the people buying Biotech food if there isn’t a label labeling it. Further research and study needs to be done before Biotech food is released, for the safety of everyone.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
genres
A genre is a “type of argument.” There are many types of genres that can be used for persuasion such as personal correspondence, letters to the editor, newspaper editorials and op-ed columns, public affairs or niche magazine articles, scholarly journals, organizational white papers, proposals, legal briefs and court decisions, public affairs advocacy advertisements, advocacy websites, blogs and informal electronic postings, visual arguments, and speeches. On page 24 of “Writing Arguments”, there is an example of a public affairs advocacy advertisement, and on page 1, there is an example of a visual argument. Both of these arguments are political, but the others have gone about presenting them in a different genre.
On page 24, they are telling us how genetically engineered foods are bad for health, and how they are dangerous for the environment and for society. Like most public affair advocacy advertisements, this advertisement has “an explicit bias”, and it ignores the complexity of the issue, and only focuses on one point of view without explaining how another point of view could be acceptable too. This advertisement is making fun of companies who make processed food. The advertiser is only stating one side of the facts, which makes her argument extremely biased. Although biased, her argument is extremely affective. Even though there is another opposing side to her argument, I’m more interested in this argument because it shows the possible dangers. This genre is very affective, as long as your argument isn’t so biased that it’s unbelievable.
On page 1, they are giving an example of a visual argument. Visual arguments tend to “make strong emotional appeals, often reducing complex issues to one powerful perspective.” This political cartoon does exactly that. I don’t, personally, find the cartoon very appealing or humorous, however I am biased due to my natural beliefs. Like visual arguments typically do, I believe they have reduced this issue a bit too much. This is a very sensitive and complex issue, and I believe they’ve simplified the argument too much to make any sort of point other than to make a little laugh at hippies.
How you present your argument (genres) can make a large impact on how the argument is perceived. What genre you use, depends on the audience, and what sort of point you are trying to get across. For example, I believe that the last visual argument was not an effective genre for that large of a political issue. I believe that argument would have better in a speech genre or in a magazine or newspaper article. Visual arguments and cartoons can be both funny and affective when used properly, but when not used properly, they have the opposite affect. However, the article on page 24 had a very affective persuasion genre that worked very well for the argument. What genre you should use, depends on the depth of your argument and what you want to convey.
On page 24, they are telling us how genetically engineered foods are bad for health, and how they are dangerous for the environment and for society. Like most public affair advocacy advertisements, this advertisement has “an explicit bias”, and it ignores the complexity of the issue, and only focuses on one point of view without explaining how another point of view could be acceptable too. This advertisement is making fun of companies who make processed food. The advertiser is only stating one side of the facts, which makes her argument extremely biased. Although biased, her argument is extremely affective. Even though there is another opposing side to her argument, I’m more interested in this argument because it shows the possible dangers. This genre is very affective, as long as your argument isn’t so biased that it’s unbelievable.
On page 1, they are giving an example of a visual argument. Visual arguments tend to “make strong emotional appeals, often reducing complex issues to one powerful perspective.” This political cartoon does exactly that. I don’t, personally, find the cartoon very appealing or humorous, however I am biased due to my natural beliefs. Like visual arguments typically do, I believe they have reduced this issue a bit too much. This is a very sensitive and complex issue, and I believe they’ve simplified the argument too much to make any sort of point other than to make a little laugh at hippies.
How you present your argument (genres) can make a large impact on how the argument is perceived. What genre you use, depends on the audience, and what sort of point you are trying to get across. For example, I believe that the last visual argument was not an effective genre for that large of a political issue. I believe that argument would have better in a speech genre or in a magazine or newspaper article. Visual arguments and cartoons can be both funny and affective when used properly, but when not used properly, they have the opposite affect. However, the article on page 24 had a very affective persuasion genre that worked very well for the argument. What genre you should use, depends on the depth of your argument and what you want to convey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)