Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Commercial / Advertisement
The article I chose for this assignment was a Ping Golf Advertisement that came from the back of an issue of GolfWeek Magazine. After looking at this advertisement I have found that it is particulary good. I is very successful and convincing in selling the product to the consumer. They are trying to sell a new line of golf clubs. The graphics of both the advertisement and the golf club are very appealing, making the product desireable. The colors are very eye-grabbing. The audience that tihs advertisement is intended for is anyone who plays golf or who is looking to play golf. The claim is cleary stated / implied, that by choosing this club you will improve your golf skills, allowing you to "play your best." The support for this adertisement is that Ping Golf has a good brand reputation in the golf industry. The evidence is that the club will result in longer, straighter shots. The warrant is that straighter shots will allow you to play better golf.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Response to Carolina Reader Essays
The first article that I chose to read and then respond to from the Carolina Reader was “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn,” by Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun. (63) The article is a commentary on today’s society, especially about the young people. The authors are unhappy with the way in which society is changing, because it is an extreme difference from what they are accustomed to. The central claim of this article is that today’s society / generation is different from those in the past. These people are more narcissistic and more self interested then previous generations.
The authors give many reasons and evidence as to why this change is occurring in today’s society. They talk about different Internet websites that are causing this idea of narcissism to grow. The warrant is that these websites are allowing “self-regard blossom even more.” (63) They also talk about the increase of self-interest and how the programs that many “elementary schools adopted 20 years ago” (64) are causing these narcissistic attitudes. They are saying that it is the fault of the elementary school programs because of what they taught; everything is about me. The warrant is that teaching everything about me will lead to a narcissistic attitude. Going with the idea that the current generation is much different from previous generations, the authors talk about how “current freshman are much more interested in financial success and less in a ‘meaningful philosophy of life.’” (65) They are saying that it is bad to only be interested in financial success.
There is some mention of the opposing views and how it is necessary, in some cases, for people to “stress confidence and esteem,” (65) for certain circumstances and certain jobs. The authors did not, however, really refute any opposing views. This was more of a one sided article that talked about the issue of narcissism in today’s society.
The second article that I chose to read and then respond to from the Carolina Reader was “My Plan to Save Network Television,” by Charlie Hauck. Charlie Hauck, who is a television writer and producer who wrote the article for the New York Times write the article. The article is about the author’s view on television audiences. He feels that the demographic that should be allowed to watch television is from age 18 to age 49. He claims that older people, over the age of 49, should not be allowed to watch television.
Charlie Hauck gives some fairly good reasons as to why he believes that people over the age of 49 should not be allowed to watch television. He first states that, “Advertisers want to lock in viewers’ buying habits early in life, not struggle with them to change brands in their last few decades.” (332) By locking in their buying habits early in life, they will be more familiarized with the product. He feels that these over-49 people “do not buy interesting products [and]…They detract from the hip environment advertisers seek.” (332) Since they are not going to be buying the products the advertisers do not feel they should be advertising to them. He goes on to state that younger people actually “dispose of it,” (332) referring to their disposable income. Since they are not spending as much on the advertised products, it is not necessary (in the advertisers mind) for them to watch the television.
The author does, however, show opposing views, and refute them. He talks about how people might be mad when he says that older people should not be allowed to watch television. However, he talks about how young people do not complain, “elderly people live in age-restricted retirement communities.” (332) I can somewhat agree with what the author is saying, however it could be stated in a more civilized way.
The authors give many reasons and evidence as to why this change is occurring in today’s society. They talk about different Internet websites that are causing this idea of narcissism to grow. The warrant is that these websites are allowing “self-regard blossom even more.” (63) They also talk about the increase of self-interest and how the programs that many “elementary schools adopted 20 years ago” (64) are causing these narcissistic attitudes. They are saying that it is the fault of the elementary school programs because of what they taught; everything is about me. The warrant is that teaching everything about me will lead to a narcissistic attitude. Going with the idea that the current generation is much different from previous generations, the authors talk about how “current freshman are much more interested in financial success and less in a ‘meaningful philosophy of life.’” (65) They are saying that it is bad to only be interested in financial success.
There is some mention of the opposing views and how it is necessary, in some cases, for people to “stress confidence and esteem,” (65) for certain circumstances and certain jobs. The authors did not, however, really refute any opposing views. This was more of a one sided article that talked about the issue of narcissism in today’s society.
The second article that I chose to read and then respond to from the Carolina Reader was “My Plan to Save Network Television,” by Charlie Hauck. Charlie Hauck, who is a television writer and producer who wrote the article for the New York Times write the article. The article is about the author’s view on television audiences. He feels that the demographic that should be allowed to watch television is from age 18 to age 49. He claims that older people, over the age of 49, should not be allowed to watch television.
Charlie Hauck gives some fairly good reasons as to why he believes that people over the age of 49 should not be allowed to watch television. He first states that, “Advertisers want to lock in viewers’ buying habits early in life, not struggle with them to change brands in their last few decades.” (332) By locking in their buying habits early in life, they will be more familiarized with the product. He feels that these over-49 people “do not buy interesting products [and]…They detract from the hip environment advertisers seek.” (332) Since they are not going to be buying the products the advertisers do not feel they should be advertising to them. He goes on to state that younger people actually “dispose of it,” (332) referring to their disposable income. Since they are not spending as much on the advertised products, it is not necessary (in the advertisers mind) for them to watch the television.
The author does, however, show opposing views, and refute them. He talks about how people might be mad when he says that older people should not be allowed to watch television. However, he talks about how young people do not complain, “elderly people live in age-restricted retirement communities.” (332) I can somewhat agree with what the author is saying, however it could be stated in a more civilized way.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis
The article that I analyzed was "LOOK@ME: Generation Next Is Living Out Loud and Online" by Melissa Ludwig
Cenrtal Claim :
"Bad or good, Generation Next is living out loud and doing it online, before a global audience, in a medium where digital archives may linger for a long, long time." (66)
My Central Claim :
"The increasing availability of, and accessibility to, information on the Internet is beginning to cause more harm than good." (1)
My Revised Claim :
"The author of this article uses a claim of cause in this argument where she talks about the current issue of narcissism in today's young people and that it was developed because of the new technology in today's society, especially the Internet."
My Conclusion :
"There are too many different ways for people to access information that they do not need and maybe should not have." (Topic Sentence)
Cenrtal Claim :
"Bad or good, Generation Next is living out loud and doing it online, before a global audience, in a medium where digital archives may linger for a long, long time." (66)
My Central Claim :
"The increasing availability of, and accessibility to, information on the Internet is beginning to cause more harm than good." (1)
My Revised Claim :
"The author of this article uses a claim of cause in this argument where she talks about the current issue of narcissism in today's young people and that it was developed because of the new technology in today's society, especially the Internet."
My Conclusion :
"There are too many different ways for people to access information that they do not need and maybe should not have." (Topic Sentence)
Monday, September 17, 2007
Prep for Rhetorical Analysis
I chose three different articles to look at before picking one for my rhetorical analysis
"A Desired Epidemic: Obesity and the Food Industry" by Deborah Cohen is an article discussing the problems with obesity in todays society however the article seems to be more of a rant complaining about the marketers almost as if it was whining. It did not seem as if there is enough to make a claim about the text.
"Ugly, The American" by James Poniewozik is an article that discusses the effects of TV on immigration issues. It also lacks enough substance to write any type of rhetorical analysis because it would be too difficult to find a claim and argue it.
"LOOK@ME: Generation Next is Living Out Loud and Online" by Melissa Ludwig talks about the changes that have occurred with the internet and the problems that might arise. The internet has grown larger than could be imagined at the time it was created and it is not necessarily a good thing.
Outline:
Intro - talk about different aspects of TRACE
talk about history of and use trace to identify the different aspects
what the internet is doing in todays societies, who does it hurt and who does it "help"
negative effects
source for people to get attention
source for stalkers and bad things to happen
govt / authority / employers gaining info they arent privalged to
"A Desired Epidemic: Obesity and the Food Industry" by Deborah Cohen is an article discussing the problems with obesity in todays society however the article seems to be more of a rant complaining about the marketers almost as if it was whining. It did not seem as if there is enough to make a claim about the text.
"Ugly, The American" by James Poniewozik is an article that discusses the effects of TV on immigration issues. It also lacks enough substance to write any type of rhetorical analysis because it would be too difficult to find a claim and argue it.
"LOOK@ME: Generation Next is Living Out Loud and Online" by Melissa Ludwig talks about the changes that have occurred with the internet and the problems that might arise. The internet has grown larger than could be imagined at the time it was created and it is not necessarily a good thing.
Outline:
Intro - talk about different aspects of TRACE
talk about history of and use trace to identify the different aspects
what the internet is doing in todays societies, who does it hurt and who does it "help"
negative effects
source for people to get attention
source for stalkers and bad things to happen
govt / authority / employers gaining info they arent privalged to
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
SWA 5
Adam Gopnik’s article “Shootings” is very well written and he shows passion in his writing. He gives his opinion of what happened the day of the Virginia Tech shootings, and then he begins to discuss a personal view that he holds.
Adam Gopnik wrote this article after the Virginia Tech shootings because he was concerned with the accessibility of guns in America and the lack of help for mentally ill people. Gopnik wrote this article in response to the shootings, with the purpose of trying to have new legislation passed making gun laws stricter and also to allow Universities to intervene with mentally ill students. He wants the people to know about these two issues so that they will support new legislation, which would prevent this, if it were to be proposed. He also wants legislators to know that there need to be changes in the government to prevent anyone from owning any kind of gun for whatever reason that they choose. This article can also be viewed as Gopnik trying to tell the parents of the victims that it is not their fault that the shootings occurred but rather it is the fault of our legislature.
After reading this article, I learned that Gopnik is a fairly opinionated person who is not afraid to challenge the government. Gopnik seems very liberal because of his belief in making gun control stricter. The main constraint that influenced Gopnik is that he might have known someone who was directly affected by the shootings. He might have been directly affected by the shootings, or he might have been a victim of a shooting that occurred because gun control laws are too lenient. Since this or any shooting has not directly affected me, I do not really feel a very strong connection to this issue although it is important. I am a fairly conservative person, and gun control is not a very big issue of my concern, I do not feel that I know enough about the subject to have common ground with the author. However, I can understand where Gopnik is coming from because this was a terrible event that should never have happened. After reading his article, I could be easily convinced to support stricter gun control laws. He supports his thoughts with good evidence about gun violence and it is very convincing.
Adam Gopnik wrote this article after the Virginia Tech shootings because he was concerned with the accessibility of guns in America and the lack of help for mentally ill people. Gopnik wrote this article in response to the shootings, with the purpose of trying to have new legislation passed making gun laws stricter and also to allow Universities to intervene with mentally ill students. He wants the people to know about these two issues so that they will support new legislation, which would prevent this, if it were to be proposed. He also wants legislators to know that there need to be changes in the government to prevent anyone from owning any kind of gun for whatever reason that they choose. This article can also be viewed as Gopnik trying to tell the parents of the victims that it is not their fault that the shootings occurred but rather it is the fault of our legislature.
After reading this article, I learned that Gopnik is a fairly opinionated person who is not afraid to challenge the government. Gopnik seems very liberal because of his belief in making gun control stricter. The main constraint that influenced Gopnik is that he might have known someone who was directly affected by the shootings. He might have been directly affected by the shootings, or he might have been a victim of a shooting that occurred because gun control laws are too lenient. Since this or any shooting has not directly affected me, I do not really feel a very strong connection to this issue although it is important. I am a fairly conservative person, and gun control is not a very big issue of my concern, I do not feel that I know enough about the subject to have common ground with the author. However, I can understand where Gopnik is coming from because this was a terrible event that should never have happened. After reading his article, I could be easily convinced to support stricter gun control laws. He supports his thoughts with good evidence about gun violence and it is very convincing.
Monday, September 10, 2007
SWA 4
In today’s electronic society, there are many different ways that people can communicate with each other on a daily basis. Two of these ways are blogging and social networking.
David Friedman’s blog “Ideas” is an Internet blog where he posts his ideas and thoughts about certain issues. In his blog, he makes some kind of comment and then he allows people to respond to what he has said. This allows everyone to see all comments posted by all people and they can also respond to each other. The targeted audience for his general blog is anyone who happens to read it, people whom he knows, and people looking for discussion on a certain idea that he has posted. Since anyone can see what is posted, the audience is not very limited. The author of this blog is David Friedman, an academic economist who teaches at a law school in San Jose, California. His posts are not too controversial, and his most recent about air conditioning is something that he is most likely qualified to discuss. He is most likely writing about an economical issue with air conditioning because he is an academic economist who is concerned about the economy. The main constraints with this specific post about air conditioning is that unless you have air conditioning and are directly affected by its costs then you will not care too much about this topic. Friedman most likely created this post because he had thought about the costs of his air conditioning and decided that there must be some less expensive way to receive an equal amount of cooling.
In contrast to blogging, Facebook is a different kind of online community. With Facebook, there are many different privacy settings that can be adjusted to control who sees what part of your information. You can comment to people on any topic you want and they can comment back to you. There are other features such as “groups” which are somewhat like mini – blogs about specific topics where anyone who is a member of the group can make comments. Groups can be private or by invitation only. The targeted audience is anyone who is your “friend” on Facebook, someone who is allowed to view your profile. You are the author of your profile and therefore you know everything you need to know about yourself. Posts on Facebook are designed for people who do not regularly talk to each other to stay in contact. The only real constraints with Facebook are that you must be “friends” with someone in order to see information about them, therefore, depending on the specific issue of a post, they may agree and they may disagree. Since all of your friends will not always agree with you, there constraints that they might have. Any argument on Facebook is caused because a “friend” disagrees with someone on any specific issue.
When analyzing Blogging and Facebook, there are similarities and differences. They are similar because they allow people to talk to one another over the Internet, to discuss any issue of importance they might want to talk about. They are also open to anyone, depending on privacy settings. They are also very different. Blogging is very limited to posting and then responding to that post. There is not as much of a community sense that there is with Facebook because you control who says what on Facebook. Blogging is more of place to post your personal opinions and thoughts while Facebook is a network to connect friends.
David Friedman’s blog “Ideas” is an Internet blog where he posts his ideas and thoughts about certain issues. In his blog, he makes some kind of comment and then he allows people to respond to what he has said. This allows everyone to see all comments posted by all people and they can also respond to each other. The targeted audience for his general blog is anyone who happens to read it, people whom he knows, and people looking for discussion on a certain idea that he has posted. Since anyone can see what is posted, the audience is not very limited. The author of this blog is David Friedman, an academic economist who teaches at a law school in San Jose, California. His posts are not too controversial, and his most recent about air conditioning is something that he is most likely qualified to discuss. He is most likely writing about an economical issue with air conditioning because he is an academic economist who is concerned about the economy. The main constraints with this specific post about air conditioning is that unless you have air conditioning and are directly affected by its costs then you will not care too much about this topic. Friedman most likely created this post because he had thought about the costs of his air conditioning and decided that there must be some less expensive way to receive an equal amount of cooling.
In contrast to blogging, Facebook is a different kind of online community. With Facebook, there are many different privacy settings that can be adjusted to control who sees what part of your information. You can comment to people on any topic you want and they can comment back to you. There are other features such as “groups” which are somewhat like mini – blogs about specific topics where anyone who is a member of the group can make comments. Groups can be private or by invitation only. The targeted audience is anyone who is your “friend” on Facebook, someone who is allowed to view your profile. You are the author of your profile and therefore you know everything you need to know about yourself. Posts on Facebook are designed for people who do not regularly talk to each other to stay in contact. The only real constraints with Facebook are that you must be “friends” with someone in order to see information about them, therefore, depending on the specific issue of a post, they may agree and they may disagree. Since all of your friends will not always agree with you, there constraints that they might have. Any argument on Facebook is caused because a “friend” disagrees with someone on any specific issue.
When analyzing Blogging and Facebook, there are similarities and differences. They are similar because they allow people to talk to one another over the Internet, to discuss any issue of importance they might want to talk about. They are also open to anyone, depending on privacy settings. They are also very different. Blogging is very limited to posting and then responding to that post. There is not as much of a community sense that there is with Facebook because you control who says what on Facebook. Blogging is more of place to post your personal opinions and thoughts while Facebook is a network to connect friends.
SWA 3
The section of Nancy V. Wood’s “Essentials of Argument” that I have read so far has been very informative on the basics of argument. It shows the different styles of argument as well as different examples that illustrate which styles work best based on the situation. After reading about adversarial and consensual argument styles I thought about what my style was, and I was able to find out more about myself then I had thought.
With my thought complete about what my personal argument style is, I decided that I am a consensual arguer. I don’t really see myself as someone who is closed-minded, confrontational, or aggressive when it comes to argument. When I partake in an argument I am fairly open-minded because I think that finding a compromise is almost always the main goal of any sort of argument or controversial discussion. It is easier for me to imagine myself as either a negotiator writing about plans to resolve a conflict or as someone conducting a discussion and then helping to find a consensus. It seems to be harder to see things as two-sided, having a right and wrong or pro and con because there should not be one set rule that applies to all situations. Every situation is different, which causes there to be grey-area, which allows for many different views on one single area.
After completing the list of style descriptions on page 21 in “Essentials of Argument” the consensual style does indeed describe me best. The majority of my responses where from the consensual style with some adversarial style mixed in. If I were to have my preference, I would argue as a consensual because it seems to be more productive and efficient, and it also seems to be much more civilized. With more thought, I recalled an argument that I had with a friend right before I left for school in August. We both had opposing viewpoints on a certain subject; however after talking about the details we took pieces from both sides and decided that although we at first had different ideas, we were looking for the same goal in the end. After thinking back to this experience I confirmed my thoughts that I am a consensual arguer.
With my thought complete about what my personal argument style is, I decided that I am a consensual arguer. I don’t really see myself as someone who is closed-minded, confrontational, or aggressive when it comes to argument. When I partake in an argument I am fairly open-minded because I think that finding a compromise is almost always the main goal of any sort of argument or controversial discussion. It is easier for me to imagine myself as either a negotiator writing about plans to resolve a conflict or as someone conducting a discussion and then helping to find a consensus. It seems to be harder to see things as two-sided, having a right and wrong or pro and con because there should not be one set rule that applies to all situations. Every situation is different, which causes there to be grey-area, which allows for many different views on one single area.
After completing the list of style descriptions on page 21 in “Essentials of Argument” the consensual style does indeed describe me best. The majority of my responses where from the consensual style with some adversarial style mixed in. If I were to have my preference, I would argue as a consensual because it seems to be more productive and efficient, and it also seems to be much more civilized. With more thought, I recalled an argument that I had with a friend right before I left for school in August. We both had opposing viewpoints on a certain subject; however after talking about the details we took pieces from both sides and decided that although we at first had different ideas, we were looking for the same goal in the end. After thinking back to this experience I confirmed my thoughts that I am a consensual arguer.
SWA 2
Kathleen Parker’s article, “Seeking Balance in an Either-Or World” examines what it is like living in today’s political society. With her opening, she talks about how she never seemed to fit in on the political spectrum. She was either too liberal for one party or too conservative for the other party, which ended up leaving her in the middle as a moderate. She uses the issue of abortion to talk about her personal feelings on a popular political topic. She gives both reasons for and against abortion, citing that she “can not justify government-enforced maternity” however she also comments that there needs to be “tougher education standards.” With these two extremes, it is hard for one to choose what exactly to do, which is why the Independents are the “fastest-growing group of voters across the country,” because it is so tough for most people to pick a side of tough political issues like abortion.
Parker’s thoughts show clearly that she is not opinionated either way on the issue of abortion. I agree with her to an extent. Living and growing up with a mother who is an OB-GYN, I have been exposed information about pregnancy. I strongly believe that the option of abortion should be on a case-by-case basis. That is, I think that a woman should have the opportunity to have an abortion if a child was conceived without consent, such as in a rape case. I think that Parker needs to go into more detail about different options women may have instead of an abortion such as adoption. I do not think that there is either a right or wrong answer for this, and that this is one reason why the Independents are the fastest-growing group of voters. Since there are so many political issues that depend on the situation for a decision, such as abortion, or gun control, I think that people would rather not side with one political party because they might agree with one political viewpoint of a conservative and another political viewpoint of a liberal.
I feel that Parker is correct in her belief that it is tough to be in today’s society and political world without having a definite side, but I think that not having just one side allows for more choices. From one friends experience having an abortion was the right choice, but it doesn’t mean that it is right for everyone. It also is acceptable to have different viewpoints from someone and still be able to get along with them.
Parker’s thoughts show clearly that she is not opinionated either way on the issue of abortion. I agree with her to an extent. Living and growing up with a mother who is an OB-GYN, I have been exposed information about pregnancy. I strongly believe that the option of abortion should be on a case-by-case basis. That is, I think that a woman should have the opportunity to have an abortion if a child was conceived without consent, such as in a rape case. I think that Parker needs to go into more detail about different options women may have instead of an abortion such as adoption. I do not think that there is either a right or wrong answer for this, and that this is one reason why the Independents are the fastest-growing group of voters. Since there are so many political issues that depend on the situation for a decision, such as abortion, or gun control, I think that people would rather not side with one political party because they might agree with one political viewpoint of a conservative and another political viewpoint of a liberal.
I feel that Parker is correct in her belief that it is tough to be in today’s society and political world without having a definite side, but I think that not having just one side allows for more choices. From one friends experience having an abortion was the right choice, but it doesn’t mean that it is right for everyone. It also is acceptable to have different viewpoints from someone and still be able to get along with them.
SWA 1
I feel that there are multiple things about today’s college students that concern journalism professor Michael Skube. I believe that one concern he has with college students is that he feels that they do not read enough for choice and the only reading that they do is required. I think Michael Skube is not satisfied with the education that high school students are receiving. I think Michael Skube feels that because of the lack of choice reading in high school students that they have a less developed vocabulary. With a less developed vocabulary I think he feels that students are at a disadvantage, and at times have trouble understanding important things. I think Michael Skube also feels that current high school students GPAs are not a valid indicator of intelligence. He believes that students are not taking challenging enough classes and therefore they are getting better grades in easier classes. Also because students are able to select which classes they take that they will not take a challenging English class if they do not have to. From my experience in the classroom I feel that his claims are somewhat accurate. I will admit that I do not read as many choice books as I should. Reading more choice books would be a benefit to me, although it is tough to find time in a student’s life right now to sit and read a choice book for fun. I also agree that current students GPAs are not as accurate as they should be because students are not all taking the same classes and because they are all not taking challenging classes. This will cause students, at times, to appear more intelligent then they actually are. Students who take more challenging classes might not have as high of a GPA, which might cause them to appear less intelligent on paper.
Todd Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” might help some of the students described by Michael Skube. If students were to read more actively instead of passively, as he describes, then they would learn more from reading and they would most likely enjoy reading more. This would probably help students because they would read more actively, expand their vocabulary, and give them more confidence to take a challenging class. With more aggressive reading, comprehension of the material would increase, and students would be more involved in discussions about the text. I feel that Todd Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” would inspired students by making them more confident with themselves.
Todd Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” might help some of the students described by Michael Skube. If students were to read more actively instead of passively, as he describes, then they would learn more from reading and they would most likely enjoy reading more. This would probably help students because they would read more actively, expand their vocabulary, and give them more confidence to take a challenging class. With more aggressive reading, comprehension of the material would increase, and students would be more involved in discussions about the text. I feel that Todd Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” would inspired students by making them more confident with themselves.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Response to Jerry Adler's "The War of The Worlds"
Overall, I thought this article was very well written. I liked how Adler showed both sides of the argument and how he talked about what the Republicans referred to the issue as, and how the Democrats referred to the issue. The article is effective in showing both sides because of this difference in terminology. I am somewhat conservative so I usually hear about this issue negatively because I hear about it from democrats who refer to it as a "Climate Crisis." However it was nice to hear about it with a more optimistic connotation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)