As both Harlon Dalton and Stephen Cruz recognize, Alger ignores the complication of race when achieving the American Dream. Alger assumes that “each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits, and we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits (279).” However, as discussed by Cruz, minorities and people of race are often subjected to stereotypes and discrimination when working in any kind of job. Cruz, a man of Mexican descent, struggled to gain the respect of his peers while working in engineering firms. While unsteadily mounting the ladder of corporate America, Cruz felt as if his coworkers were thinking, “[Mexicans are] good to have as part of the management team, as long as [they aren’t] allowed to make decisions (355).” For a while, “I was convinced if you worked hard, you could make it. I never considered myself different. That was the trouble. We had been discriminated against a lot, but I never associated it with society. I considered it an individual matter. Bad people, my used to say (354).”Cruz now understands that he was hired because of his Mexican heritage. When he attempted to find a job before the passing of the Civil Rights Acts in 1964, he received few offers. After the passing of the Acts, he was given a multitude of job offers. He thinks this is because he is Mexican; it’s more acceptable to hire a Mexican than a Black, explains Cruz.
Over his time in these firms, Cruz came to realize that discrimination was “deep [and] ingrained (355).” Cruz noticed during his stint at one post that no blacks worked at the office. He was able to hire a black secretary, only to find this secretary inexcusably fired after he returned from a vacation. Cruz, after dabbling in such firms for years, quit his high-paying management post. He had been told throughout his career and life, “if you worked hard, you could make it (354),” and if you “just learn more, you’ll make it (355).” He found this all to be untrue. When interviewed about his experience later, Cruz exclaimed, “The American Dream, I see now, is governed not by education, opportunity, and hard work, but by power and fear. The higher up in the organization you go, the more you have to lose. The dream is not losing. This is the notion pervading America today: don’t lose (356).” Not to succeed, per se, but to not lose. To succeed in some way, to hold some gain over others.
In Alger’s stories, men easily rise above life’s challenges and succeed. Cruz and Dalton dismiss these stories as myths because discrimination, whether against race or any other such factor, has held back men for centuries. Although Alger and Cruz seem quite different, happenstance unites them. In “Ragged Dick,” Dick is given his lucky break because of a chance encounter with a wealthy man. In Cruz’s story, the passing of the Civil Rights Acts allows him to break into the realm of corporation. This tie is loose though; Alger and Cruz hold very different outlooks on the American Dream.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Toil... Triumph
“Ragged Dick” is a story of happenstance. Dick, our young, tenacious hero, toils as a shoe shiner but longs to hold a respectable job, like a clerk in a shop. Rewarding himself after earning a hundred dollars, Dick shelves his black wax for a day and decides to take a boat ride. On this day, coincidentally, the child of a rich man would fall overboard, and Dick, being an excellent swimmer, would save him. Dick saved this boy without knowledge of his father’s wealth and without knowledge of any kind of reward. And, indeed, the father does reward Dick. He grants Dick a job at his business, with a salary of ten dollars a week. Explaining that he is eternally in debt to Dick, this man also buys Dick a new suit. The author explains to us that this is extremely remarkable, especially considering that just a year ago, Dick could neither read nor write.
Horatio Alger is subtly telling the reader to work hard and to not expect rewards for this hard work. Rewards will come unexpectedly and in the most bizarre of circumstances, but their unsuspected arrival will therefore be all the more sweeter. Dick aspired to rise above the feet of others, and so he studied his English and began to edit the slang that usually peppered his sentences. He was able to earn a large sum of money, and it was only after this accomplishment that he decided to reward himself. Saving the child was difficult and dangerous, and still Dick expected no reward to come of it. Dick’s moil and his honesty in completing each task was certainly rewarded, and Alger hopes we recognize Dick’s accomplishment.
Horatio Alger is subtly telling the reader to work hard and to not expect rewards for this hard work. Rewards will come unexpectedly and in the most bizarre of circumstances, but their unsuspected arrival will therefore be all the more sweeter. Dick aspired to rise above the feet of others, and so he studied his English and began to edit the slang that usually peppered his sentences. He was able to earn a large sum of money, and it was only after this accomplishment that he decided to reward himself. Saving the child was difficult and dangerous, and still Dick expected no reward to come of it. Dick’s moil and his honesty in completing each task was certainly rewarded, and Alger hopes we recognize Dick’s accomplishment.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Benefits of a Visual Argument- An Exploration in Words and Pictures
A visual argument is more persuasive than, say, an essay. Although I do consider myself an avid reader, I tend to be more affected by pictures than words. After all, humans are visual creatures. We might be alarmed by someone yelling at us, but we’re not truly afraid until we see the spittle spewing from the corners of their mouth and their eyes ablaze. And so, visual arguments naturally affect their viewer more than written arguments.
Pictures swiftly deliver a message. A picture can take your breath away in a glance; words must be read, processed, and then interpreted to solicit a gasp. Yes, words contain more depth and information, but if what you seek is shock value and a quick response from your audience, a visual argument is more effective than a written one. Visuals also nicely supplement written arguments. As young children, we would read books accompanied with pictures. These pictures, often displayed on the page opposite the text, would further our understanding of the text, heightening our interest in the story and helping us form mental images in our minds of the characters. Now, of course, most of us can read a book sans doodles and still enjoy the story. In fact, without pictures to guide us, we can paint our own images of the characters, limited only to the descriptions provided in the text. However, as I’m sure some of us have witnessed or experienced, young children, accustomed to their illustrated books, will express disgust when shown a book that lacks pictures. “No pictures?” they will ask. “How boring.” This, again, is because we are visual creatures. Images help us to connect with those literary characters. It can be written that a character is afraid of a witch, and we, the reader, can’t truly relate to this poor character, and so we feel no fear. That is, until we see the picture on the next page of the witch. And, man, is this witch ugly. No wonder the character is afraid! We’ve related to this character via images.
However, there is a downside to a visual argument. Visual arguments are usually implicit arguments, and implicit arguments are open to interpretation. You could interpret a picture as hinting at one message, when the creator of the picture was trying to convey an entirely different message. Ultimately, a visual argument is a persuasive argument because it quickly and concisely presents its message, although this image can be understood in ways unintended by the creator.
Pictures swiftly deliver a message. A picture can take your breath away in a glance; words must be read, processed, and then interpreted to solicit a gasp. Yes, words contain more depth and information, but if what you seek is shock value and a quick response from your audience, a visual argument is more effective than a written one. Visuals also nicely supplement written arguments. As young children, we would read books accompanied with pictures. These pictures, often displayed on the page opposite the text, would further our understanding of the text, heightening our interest in the story and helping us form mental images in our minds of the characters. Now, of course, most of us can read a book sans doodles and still enjoy the story. In fact, without pictures to guide us, we can paint our own images of the characters, limited only to the descriptions provided in the text. However, as I’m sure some of us have witnessed or experienced, young children, accustomed to their illustrated books, will express disgust when shown a book that lacks pictures. “No pictures?” they will ask. “How boring.” This, again, is because we are visual creatures. Images help us to connect with those literary characters. It can be written that a character is afraid of a witch, and we, the reader, can’t truly relate to this poor character, and so we feel no fear. That is, until we see the picture on the next page of the witch. And, man, is this witch ugly. No wonder the character is afraid! We’ve related to this character via images.
However, there is a downside to a visual argument. Visual arguments are usually implicit arguments, and implicit arguments are open to interpretation. You could interpret a picture as hinting at one message, when the creator of the picture was trying to convey an entirely different message. Ultimately, a visual argument is a persuasive argument because it quickly and concisely presents its message, although this image can be understood in ways unintended by the creator.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Credibility and Sniper Fire
When an author or speaker decides to use an appeal to ethos and pathos, he must remember to be truthful and honest in his argument. Telling the truth consistently will fortify his credibility and his reputation for being honest. If he would decide to embellish a story or to give a murky explanation of one of his views, his opinions would begin to be questioned and his appeal to the audience would diminish. It is so important to be honest so that your words are never doubted. People should be able to look at you and not recall the boy who called wolf.
Remember when Hillary Clinton claimed she had dodged sniper bullets in Bosnia during a 1996 trip there? Footage from that day in Bosnia would later be uncovered, and the clip showed a smiling Hillary accepting letters and hugs from Bosnian children. Hillary Clinton had been running on a platform of experience and had cited this sniping incident as a testimony to her vast experience in international affairs. When this incident was proven to be false, though, voters began to wonder if the stories of experience she had been claiming were true. Her audience, voters of American, eventually lost their faith in her. Hillary Clinton had lost her credibility among voters. When telling a story to strengthen an argument, one must remember to not modify this story. If the modification were to be exposed, the repercussions would diminish the credibility and reputation of the speaker or writer.
When engaging in a debate, it is important to remain composed and fair. John McCain has gained a bit of a reputation for being a hothead. For many voters, they fear that, when participating in a negotiation with a foreign country or at the United Nations, John McCain will lose his cool and speak with anger when his views are queried. When one reacts violently or loudly to the statements of others, a loss of credibility ensues. At a debate early into the presidential race, John McCain kept on interrupting Barack Obama with his opinions. Viewers considered this rude of McCain, and thus McCain further lost his credibility with Americans. When faced with an opposing view, it is vital to keep calm and patient to remain credible in the eyes of the audience. If someone kept on annoying you, and you yelled at this person, people who didn’t know you would assume you are mean. If you calmly told this person that they were interrupting the completion of your homework, you would come off as fair.
Remember when Hillary Clinton claimed she had dodged sniper bullets in Bosnia during a 1996 trip there? Footage from that day in Bosnia would later be uncovered, and the clip showed a smiling Hillary accepting letters and hugs from Bosnian children. Hillary Clinton had been running on a platform of experience and had cited this sniping incident as a testimony to her vast experience in international affairs. When this incident was proven to be false, though, voters began to wonder if the stories of experience she had been claiming were true. Her audience, voters of American, eventually lost their faith in her. Hillary Clinton had lost her credibility among voters. When telling a story to strengthen an argument, one must remember to not modify this story. If the modification were to be exposed, the repercussions would diminish the credibility and reputation of the speaker or writer.
When engaging in a debate, it is important to remain composed and fair. John McCain has gained a bit of a reputation for being a hothead. For many voters, they fear that, when participating in a negotiation with a foreign country or at the United Nations, John McCain will lose his cool and speak with anger when his views are queried. When one reacts violently or loudly to the statements of others, a loss of credibility ensues. At a debate early into the presidential race, John McCain kept on interrupting Barack Obama with his opinions. Viewers considered this rude of McCain, and thus McCain further lost his credibility with Americans. When faced with an opposing view, it is vital to keep calm and patient to remain credible in the eyes of the audience. If someone kept on annoying you, and you yelled at this person, people who didn’t know you would assume you are mean. If you calmly told this person that they were interrupting the completion of your homework, you would come off as fair.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Skateboarding and Such
David Langley relies heavily on evidence in his skateboarding piece. He tells several personal stories about his run-ins with unfair laws and police officers. Langley also poses questions to make the reader think more critically about his piece. Further on into his piece, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and disproves these theories by putting forth facts and his opinions. Langley uses several of the tactics Michael Levin administers in his “A Case for Torture” article.
Langley’s essay begins with a personal story. He tells of a time he was frisked and his friend was fined because they were caught skateboarding. Before they were caught, Langley and his friends thought they were skateboarding legally because a nearby sign allowed skateboarding on holidays. When the police officer stopped them, though, she told them the sign only meant “rolling” was legal; tricks were not allowed. This introduces the argument that Langley later writes about, stating that skateboarding signs should be clearer. Langley goes on to tell of a time that he asked a police officer if he would arrest a skateboarder who was performing tricks, even with no endangered people around. To this, “the officer admitted that he might arrest the lone skater anyway and not be questioned by his superiors” (127).
At one point in his piece, Langley poses a question: “Where are skateboarders supposed to go?” He explores this question by writing of skate parks and parking garages, telling why both are inadequate. By posing this question, Langley is asking the reader to think of solutions, subtly forcing the reader to become engaged in the writing.
In an appeal to ethos, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and skaters. He admits that skating does damage property to some extent, but, as he writes, “skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it” (127). He explains that skateboarding is “green,” meaning it produces no toxins to be released into the ozone. He also says that skate parks are unsafe and crowded. He discusses how some skate parks are designed poorly and so endanger skaters. By revoking common opinions some have of skaters, he makes a clear argument about why cities should be more accommodating towards their skaters.
Langley, like Michael Levin, briefly acknowledges other views people hold on the issues at hand. Levin is very forceful in his writing, though. He thoroughly discredits other views and makes it seem almost sinful to not believe in torture. Langley, however, is not forceful, and he doesn’t disprove other opinions. Instead, he confesses that there is some truth in what others think about skateboarders, but he then gives reasons why people should rethink skateboarders. Furthermore, Levin cites a lot of hypothetical situations in his article to illustrate his point. Langley employs stories of his own experience to fortify his argument.
Langley’s essay begins with a personal story. He tells of a time he was frisked and his friend was fined because they were caught skateboarding. Before they were caught, Langley and his friends thought they were skateboarding legally because a nearby sign allowed skateboarding on holidays. When the police officer stopped them, though, she told them the sign only meant “rolling” was legal; tricks were not allowed. This introduces the argument that Langley later writes about, stating that skateboarding signs should be clearer. Langley goes on to tell of a time that he asked a police officer if he would arrest a skateboarder who was performing tricks, even with no endangered people around. To this, “the officer admitted that he might arrest the lone skater anyway and not be questioned by his superiors” (127).
At one point in his piece, Langley poses a question: “Where are skateboarders supposed to go?” He explores this question by writing of skate parks and parking garages, telling why both are inadequate. By posing this question, Langley is asking the reader to think of solutions, subtly forcing the reader to become engaged in the writing.
In an appeal to ethos, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and skaters. He admits that skating does damage property to some extent, but, as he writes, “skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it” (127). He explains that skateboarding is “green,” meaning it produces no toxins to be released into the ozone. He also says that skate parks are unsafe and crowded. He discusses how some skate parks are designed poorly and so endanger skaters. By revoking common opinions some have of skaters, he makes a clear argument about why cities should be more accommodating towards their skaters.
Langley, like Michael Levin, briefly acknowledges other views people hold on the issues at hand. Levin is very forceful in his writing, though. He thoroughly discredits other views and makes it seem almost sinful to not believe in torture. Langley, however, is not forceful, and he doesn’t disprove other opinions. Instead, he confesses that there is some truth in what others think about skateboarders, but he then gives reasons why people should rethink skateboarders. Furthermore, Levin cites a lot of hypothetical situations in his article to illustrate his point. Langley employs stories of his own experience to fortify his argument.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A Pseudo-Argument
Pseudo-arguments are arguments that are never solved; the issue is just kicked around until someone decides to allow the other arguer to win. Pseudo-arguments are usually created when a stubborn person refuses to even acknowledge the other arguer’s side. Both sides end up spewing opinions, and nothing is resolved and no one walks away enlightened.
I’ve engaged in a pseudo-argument. One of my friends is extremely conservative-minded. This is not a bad thing, per se; it’s just that she absolutely refuses to even contemplate my side of an issue. She shoots down my opinions before they are even fully explained. One time, in eighth grade, we were discussing a paper we had to write for English. In the paper, we had to take a stance for or against a controversial topic. I, being the mild feminist I am, was writing a passionate paper about abortion. My friend was also writing about abortion, except she was arguing against abortion. We had exchanged our rough drafts and were correcting them. On her paper, I simply corrected grammatical errors and wrote in commas where she had forgotten to place them. I handed her paper back to her, and she gave my paper back to me. On mine, there was a large “NO” and marks everywhere. Instead of merely correctly grammatical errors, she had decided to correct what she thought were moral errors. “So you’d kill babies?” she commented after one paragraph. This, I thought, was shocking and unprofessional, and I told her so. Thus ensued a long, tiring pseudo-argument. She was arguing why abortion should be made illegal, and I was advocating the opposite. Actually, it was more like she would yell, and I would try to reason with her religious zeal. Nothing came of this argument except bad moods and anger. If she had been more willing to listen to me and had not been so concerned with what she saw as the only choice, a more productive argument would have resulted.
I’ve engaged in a pseudo-argument. One of my friends is extremely conservative-minded. This is not a bad thing, per se; it’s just that she absolutely refuses to even contemplate my side of an issue. She shoots down my opinions before they are even fully explained. One time, in eighth grade, we were discussing a paper we had to write for English. In the paper, we had to take a stance for or against a controversial topic. I, being the mild feminist I am, was writing a passionate paper about abortion. My friend was also writing about abortion, except she was arguing against abortion. We had exchanged our rough drafts and were correcting them. On her paper, I simply corrected grammatical errors and wrote in commas where she had forgotten to place them. I handed her paper back to her, and she gave my paper back to me. On mine, there was a large “NO” and marks everywhere. Instead of merely correctly grammatical errors, she had decided to correct what she thought were moral errors. “So you’d kill babies?” she commented after one paragraph. This, I thought, was shocking and unprofessional, and I told her so. Thus ensued a long, tiring pseudo-argument. She was arguing why abortion should be made illegal, and I was advocating the opposite. Actually, it was more like she would yell, and I would try to reason with her religious zeal. Nothing came of this argument except bad moods and anger. If she had been more willing to listen to me and had not been so concerned with what she saw as the only choice, a more productive argument would have resulted.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Pathos
Appealing to the pathos of a reader or listener is a powerful rhetoric device because, although mildly cheesy, emotions do connect us all. Emotions are relatable and stirring- Remember when Hillary Clinton’s voice cracked when she was explaining why she wanted to become president, and her poll numbers jumped up a couple of points? She had appealed to voters’ pathos. Voters saw a more relatable Hillary in that moment, a more complex, interesting Hillary. Pathos reach out to a person and ignite to their emotions. Whether we like it or not, we are creatures driven by our emotions; underneath whatever persona we take on, we truly do want to be safe and happy. During the first stages of John McCain’s campaign, he warned Americans of future terrorist attacks. He said that another terrorist attack was imminent, and only he, as president, would be able to prevent this attack. He was purposefully installing fear in Americans, aggravating their emotions and desire for security to convince them to vote for him. This, like Hillary Clinton’s teary speech, was an appeal to pathos.
Generally, articles, speeches, and stories that appeal to the pathos are more interesting and more personal than factual statements. Emotions create a connection between the creator of the work and the viewer or listener. Emotions connect and bond us, and so when you appeal to the pathos of another, you forge a bond with this other. Emotions drive us and form our opinions, and because emotions rule us so, an appeal to pathos is a powerful rhetoric device.
Generally, articles, speeches, and stories that appeal to the pathos are more interesting and more personal than factual statements. Emotions create a connection between the creator of the work and the viewer or listener. Emotions connect and bond us, and so when you appeal to the pathos of another, you forge a bond with this other. Emotions drive us and form our opinions, and because emotions rule us so, an appeal to pathos is a powerful rhetoric device.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Torture
I am undecided about torture. I am attune to both its benefits and its negatives. If a group of terrorists in custody should be suspected of a plot to kill thousands of innocents, by all means, go after their nails and teeth. Before calling in Jack Bauer, though, there should be extreme amounts of evidence that incriminate these terrorists. Also, it should be known that many terrorists, especially terrorists heavily into their cause, will not divulge their secrets truthfully and willfully. People will say anything to get the pain to stop, and terrorists have been known to consciously give false information to mislead investigators. Moreover, some terrorists do not even respond to torture. A terrorist will sit there, electrodes pumping into his brain, and shake his head when asked a question. Furthermore, if the United States were to begin torturing prisoners of war, that would give the Middle Eastern countries permission to torture their POWs, American soldiers.
As Michael Levin writes, “How can we tell 300, 100, or just 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, ‘I’m sorry you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to…’ … I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” I agree with him in this regard. It would be wrong to have innocents die because the government had refused to extract necessary information from prisoners who had known the information that would have prevented these deaths. Torture should only be used in extreme cases, like preventative actions against terrorist plots.
As Michael Levin writes, “How can we tell 300, 100, or just 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, ‘I’m sorry you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to…’ … I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” I agree with him in this regard. It would be wrong to have innocents die because the government had refused to extract necessary information from prisoners who had known the information that would have prevented these deaths. Torture should only be used in extreme cases, like preventative actions against terrorist plots.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
GE Foods- I win!
I see no problem with genetically modified food. There’s a plethora of reasons for GE foods, and the arguments against GE foods are flimsy. Packages containing GE foods should be marked, though, for those who do not want to consume such foods.
GE foods will allow more food to be grown in shorter amounts of time, and this food will be better food, more immune to heat fluctuations and cold frosts. The world’s population is quickly growing, and with the rise in people, the food demand will rise as well. GE foods will insure that food shortages do not appear. Even so, world hunger has been, and will continue to be, a problem. Over time, GE foods able to withstand days with too much water, or too little water, will allow world hunger due to droughts and floods to be eliminated. GE foods will help feed the world.
Furthermore, many people in the world do not get enough nutrients in their diet. In regions of Africa, for example, children suffice on rice and beans. This dish, eaten almost every day, does not provide enough nutrition. Beans and rice do not contain vitamin C, vitamin A, calcium, and other such essential nutrients. Children can die from vitamin deficiency. GE foods can be infused with vitamins and minerals. A cob of corn can become calcium-fortified. When GE foods are made available throughout the world, they will be able to enhance and round out the diet of people not able to access or afford healthy foods.
Critics of GE foods argue that the long-term effects of eating GE foods have not been studied. Yes, this is true, but this point should be treated with skepticism. Scientists have spent years developing GE foods and will continue to do so. GE foods have been on the market for years. Nothing significant has happened during the development or selling of GE foods, and nothing hints that trouble is coming. Those who claim certain deaths were caused by GE foods are only speculating. Deaths blamed on GE foods are rare, and, when one investigates into these deaths, the link between the death and the consumption of a genetically engineered food is strained.
Even though I am not against GE foods, I do think that GE foods should be labeled as so. People who are concerned about consuming such foods should be able to discern between GE corn and natural corn.
GE foods will allow more food to be grown in shorter amounts of time, and this food will be better food, more immune to heat fluctuations and cold frosts. The world’s population is quickly growing, and with the rise in people, the food demand will rise as well. GE foods will insure that food shortages do not appear. Even so, world hunger has been, and will continue to be, a problem. Over time, GE foods able to withstand days with too much water, or too little water, will allow world hunger due to droughts and floods to be eliminated. GE foods will help feed the world.
Furthermore, many people in the world do not get enough nutrients in their diet. In regions of Africa, for example, children suffice on rice and beans. This dish, eaten almost every day, does not provide enough nutrition. Beans and rice do not contain vitamin C, vitamin A, calcium, and other such essential nutrients. Children can die from vitamin deficiency. GE foods can be infused with vitamins and minerals. A cob of corn can become calcium-fortified. When GE foods are made available throughout the world, they will be able to enhance and round out the diet of people not able to access or afford healthy foods.
Critics of GE foods argue that the long-term effects of eating GE foods have not been studied. Yes, this is true, but this point should be treated with skepticism. Scientists have spent years developing GE foods and will continue to do so. GE foods have been on the market for years. Nothing significant has happened during the development or selling of GE foods, and nothing hints that trouble is coming. Those who claim certain deaths were caused by GE foods are only speculating. Deaths blamed on GE foods are rare, and, when one investigates into these deaths, the link between the death and the consumption of a genetically engineered food is strained.
Even though I am not against GE foods, I do think that GE foods should be labeled as so. People who are concerned about consuming such foods should be able to discern between GE corn and natural corn.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Arguments and Genre
The cartoon, while not quite pro-GE foods, is arguing that GE foods prevent starvation due to drought. Because of this, GE foods should be tolerated. It claims that people against the idea of genetically modified foods are “reason resistant.” (1) The cartoon is not promoting GE foods because it merely presents why GE foods are tolerable. It’s not advocating the prolific use of genetic engineering on food products.
The advertisement presents several reasons on why GE foods should either be made under strict guidelines or made illegal. The advertisement discusses how “no one can predict the long-term effects of these foods on our health,” (line 11-13) and promotes “mandatory labeling and safety testing” (line 19-20) for GE foods. The advertisement is obviously trying to raise awareness about the subject of GE foods and trying to recruit members for the “Keep Nature Natural” campaign.
The cartoon does not fully represent the cartoonist’s opinion of genetically engineered foods. Steve Breen, the cartoonist, shows some support, if not indifference, towards the science of GE foods. Because of the cartoon’s size and text limitations, Breen could not present a well-rounded argument or idea. The viewer does not see Breen’s entire idea on the matter. Therefore, the genre of cartoon made Breen present the controversy of GE foods without elaboration. Perhaps this is best. The image of the starving man being refused food by an overweight hippie is disconcerting. People glancing through the morning paper would notice this cartoon and take away that perhaps GE foods would be able to help someone in a time of drought. The cartoon is effective because it quickly informs people about another’s perspective on GE foods.
The advertisement has space to present several sentences about GE foods and therefore can better inform the reader than a comic can. Truly, though, the advertisement is more about influencing the reader than informing them. The ad discusses why you should say “No!” to GE foods. The ad, although longer than the comic, is still brief. Its sentences are not wrought with knowledge. The genre of advertisement allows for more words than a comic, but the words are still too few to present a full argument. The cartoon is more effective because it presents its point swiftly to the busy American.
The advertisement presents several reasons on why GE foods should either be made under strict guidelines or made illegal. The advertisement discusses how “no one can predict the long-term effects of these foods on our health,” (line 11-13) and promotes “mandatory labeling and safety testing” (line 19-20) for GE foods. The advertisement is obviously trying to raise awareness about the subject of GE foods and trying to recruit members for the “Keep Nature Natural” campaign.
The cartoon does not fully represent the cartoonist’s opinion of genetically engineered foods. Steve Breen, the cartoonist, shows some support, if not indifference, towards the science of GE foods. Because of the cartoon’s size and text limitations, Breen could not present a well-rounded argument or idea. The viewer does not see Breen’s entire idea on the matter. Therefore, the genre of cartoon made Breen present the controversy of GE foods without elaboration. Perhaps this is best. The image of the starving man being refused food by an overweight hippie is disconcerting. People glancing through the morning paper would notice this cartoon and take away that perhaps GE foods would be able to help someone in a time of drought. The cartoon is effective because it quickly informs people about another’s perspective on GE foods.
The advertisement has space to present several sentences about GE foods and therefore can better inform the reader than a comic can. Truly, though, the advertisement is more about influencing the reader than informing them. The ad discusses why you should say “No!” to GE foods. The ad, although longer than the comic, is still brief. Its sentences are not wrought with knowledge. The genre of advertisement allows for more words than a comic, but the words are still too few to present a full argument. The cartoon is more effective because it presents its point swiftly to the busy American.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Explicit vs. Implicit Arguments
When engaged in an argument, you are usually trying to persuade others to see your point of view. Underneath this argument, though, is a quest for truth. This truth manifests itself as arguers enlightening each other in the topic at hand. Arguments inform the arguers of other facts, other bits of information that contradict their beliefs. Points brought up during an argument broaden the views of the arguers, allowing them to see truth in the opinions of others.
An argument can be presented as either an explicit argument or an implicit argument. An explicit argument frankly puts forth a claim, sometimes a controversial one, and then proceeds to support this claim with reason and factual information. An implicit argument displays itself as a poem, a picture, a story, even a cartoon, that silently persuades the reader or viewer towards a certain opinion.
Explicit arguments, whether presented on paper or in person, contain a thesis and evidence. The thesis explains a viewpoint, and the evidence justifies this viewpoint. Throughout an explicit argument, the arguer must clarify certain statements and address counterpoints that would be given from a person with an opposite viewpoint. Explicit arguments often take the form of scholarly papers, papers that present a well-researched thesis to lead the reader to agree with the writer on a certain topic.
Implicit arguments do not appear as overt arguments. Instead, these kinds of arguments only hint at what the arguer is trying to convey. Implicit arguments do not contain a thesis or evidence. “Dulce et Decorum Est,” by Wilfred Owen, is an implicit argument. This poem goes against the statement that it is “sweet and fitting” (6) to die defending one’s country. Owen presents his argument not by putting forth reason but by describing of the disturbing image of a soldier drowning in the gas of a mustard bomb. This image appeals to the reader’s emotions, leading one to the opinion that war is “devoid of heroism or a higher purpose.” (6) In implicit arguments, the use of images and detail guide the reader or viewer to assume one opinion or another. Other times, implicit arguments are simply used to get the opposer to see another’s viewpoint.
The purpose of an argument is not to win but to find truth. When one argues a point, they are informing an opposer of their view, the view that conflicts with the opposer’s view. This broadens the opposer’s viewpoint, and, in turn, the opposer will further enlighten the arguer by providing counterpoints. Not all arguments are heated debates; some arguments are merely discussions between people of opposing views. Explicit arguments directly present a claim and then defend it. Implicit arguments do not come with a thesis or facts. Implicit arguments are images and words that subtly hint at an opinion and bring a reader or viewer to see, and sometimes believe, that opinion.
An argument can be presented as either an explicit argument or an implicit argument. An explicit argument frankly puts forth a claim, sometimes a controversial one, and then proceeds to support this claim with reason and factual information. An implicit argument displays itself as a poem, a picture, a story, even a cartoon, that silently persuades the reader or viewer towards a certain opinion.
Explicit arguments, whether presented on paper or in person, contain a thesis and evidence. The thesis explains a viewpoint, and the evidence justifies this viewpoint. Throughout an explicit argument, the arguer must clarify certain statements and address counterpoints that would be given from a person with an opposite viewpoint. Explicit arguments often take the form of scholarly papers, papers that present a well-researched thesis to lead the reader to agree with the writer on a certain topic.
Implicit arguments do not appear as overt arguments. Instead, these kinds of arguments only hint at what the arguer is trying to convey. Implicit arguments do not contain a thesis or evidence. “Dulce et Decorum Est,” by Wilfred Owen, is an implicit argument. This poem goes against the statement that it is “sweet and fitting” (6) to die defending one’s country. Owen presents his argument not by putting forth reason but by describing of the disturbing image of a soldier drowning in the gas of a mustard bomb. This image appeals to the reader’s emotions, leading one to the opinion that war is “devoid of heroism or a higher purpose.” (6) In implicit arguments, the use of images and detail guide the reader or viewer to assume one opinion or another. Other times, implicit arguments are simply used to get the opposer to see another’s viewpoint.
The purpose of an argument is not to win but to find truth. When one argues a point, they are informing an opposer of their view, the view that conflicts with the opposer’s view. This broadens the opposer’s viewpoint, and, in turn, the opposer will further enlighten the arguer by providing counterpoints. Not all arguments are heated debates; some arguments are merely discussions between people of opposing views. Explicit arguments directly present a claim and then defend it. Implicit arguments do not come with a thesis or facts. Implicit arguments are images and words that subtly hint at an opinion and bring a reader or viewer to see, and sometimes believe, that opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)