Advertisement

I found an advertisement located on the back page of the zipsheet, a coupon/advertisement type newspaper handed out on campus. It is an ad for the Wingzone, a delivery food business that serves wings and other "bar type" foods.

The intended audience is clearly the college student, as it is handed out on a college campus. This audience works well, not only because the average college student (particularly male) loves chicken wings, but also because of the fact that it is handed out for free on a college campus. Two facts make this advertisement especially well aimed. One is that college students are the only demographic that take things that are handed to them on the street, be it fliers or coupons or even the Bibles that were handed out this past week. The other important fact to consider is that college students are stingy. Money is always going to be tight when your out from under your parents financial umbrella (even if only a little bit) for the first time.

The claim is simple, but not stated, and that is that you can get good chicken wings delivered cheaply.

SWA7

Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun wrote “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn” to say that what Alex Williams wrote about is completely wrong. The claim in this paper is that the new generation is completely in love with themselves and hungry for nothing but success. We don’t want to help people, we just want to do things for our own benefit. The claim is backed up by a large scale study that shows a steady increase in narcissism since 1982. The claim is also backed up by quotes from high ranking pundits in the college scene, such as professors, researchers, and authors, whose opinions you must hold in high regard in order to understand the claim.
The opposing viewpoints are laid out very strategically in this essay. The authors acknowledged the fact that there was an opposing viewpoint, and pretended to display someone with that viewpoint when they quoted Marc Flacks as saying that narcissism is too harsh of a word, and that this me first attitude was necessary. Flacks wasn’t disagreeing with their claim. He was just saying that it was necessary.

SWA6

In “Realistic Idealists” by Alex Williams, the author goes through different reasons why the new generation may be doing so much community service. It is Mr. Williams’ claim that the children of baby boomers are doing community service, not necessarily for good college applications, or to meet graduation requirements, but instead because they actually want to help people. Williams provides the example of Greg Becker and Michael Swirnow, who met their high school graduation requirement of 40 hours twelve and a half times, by doing 500 hours of community service.
Mr. Williams’ main warrants are simply that you must understand that no one would spend 500 hours doing community service just to look good. Even if it gets you into the college of your choice, wouldn’t two or three hundred hours have the same effect? The biggest problem I had with this essay is the lack of opposing viewpoints. Williams barely touched on anything other than his own point of view, and when he did it wasn’t refuted with any kind of detail.

Ugly, The American central claim

James Poniewozik's central claim states,
"On ABC's hit comedy-soap Ugly Betty, she's a fashion magaizne assistant who is distinctly unfashionable- chunky sweaters, frizzy hair, bear-trap braces- but succeeds through good old Yankee values like perseverence, optimism, and hard work" Page 154

My central claim reads,
"This paper is written from a definitive argument style, where Mr. Poniewozik breaks down the key terms, such as American and immigrant, and defines them. He then uses these definitions, in combination with examples to prove his point" Page 1

My revised central claim is,
The author uses a claim of definition in this argument, where he defines the words "American" and "Immigrant" and shows how Ugly Betty reflects each of these.

My conclusion says,
"America is a melting pot. It was these beliefs that the United States were founded on, and Poniewozik believes that these are the beliefs that should continue to shine through our culture" Page 3

Ugly, the American

The piece I decided to do my literary analysis on was "Ugly, the American," by James Poniewozik

I. Logos- The deduction method is used here- Author has the idea that people like Betty, and then deduces why "It is easier to hate a straw man- or a straw mexican- than a person"
II. Ethos- The author is a Media and television critic by profession
III. Pathos- This piece was written to show that everyone doesn't hate immigrants themselves, and that a lot of people hate the idea of immigrants more than the immigrants themselves

The piece that I read and decided not to analyze was "Eat This Now!" by Susan Brink and Elizabeth Querna

I decided it was not the most fitting piece mainly because I personally disagree with many of the key points, as well as the fact that multiple authors, without information on either of them would not make the author segments easy to establish.

SWA5

Making a Killing
Mike White’s “Making a Killing,” portrayed all the elements of rhetoric quite nicely. The most prominent element, in my opinion was exigence. This, however, is rather obvious being that every essay in this chapter is spawned from the Virginia Tech shootings.
The text element is a rather simple one. The essay is written for the New York Times, shortly after the incident occurred, in order to give weary defense to the violent film industry. White stated that while most of his childhood sleepovers surrounded the watching of unnecessarily violent films, “nobody ever got shot in the face in my backyard.” After establishing that point however he later moves on to ask the violent film industry to stop and think before cashing those big checks. While White’s paper does come across as wishy-washy, there are clear supporting details to all of his arguments.
The targeted audience is the New York Times readers, obviously. More importantly, White intended to reach those people who were trying to blame the violent film industry for the killings. White was quick in notifying his audience that the industry was aware of its possible role in the 32 deaths at Virginia Tech. He did want to make it known that the film industry was not entirely to blame for this madness. While he admits that the statement “movies don’t kill people, lunatics kill people,” gives a, possibly exaggerated, sense of freedom to the screenwriters, he implicitly states that it is not the movies that cause people how to act the way they do. Not in such an extreme way at least.
The author is a key part of this piece, more so than most. The fact that Mike White is himself a screenwriter gives much more credit to his standing up and saying that these movies, while not killing anyone of their own accord, may be immoral. It is a lot easier to call out someone else or their profession than it is to stand up and say that you are wrong. If White was more definitive with his argument it would lend even more credit than it currently does.
The last sentence of the essay outlines one of the major constraints in this essay. White is reluctant to call out his own profession, for obvious reasons. After all, you would be fairly reluctant to agree with someone who claimed that teaching English to college students was detrimental to society. Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but portrays a similar situation. Another main constraint that White has is his forum. The New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. With political correctness being a huge issue in such a widely read paper, coupled with how fresh the events were in everyone’s mind, White had to be very careful not to step on any toes while writing this essay.
Lastly the exigence: on the surface this was written as a response to the terrible events of Virginia Tech. When you read further, you will see that the true motivation is to gently scold the violent film industry, citing current events as evidence. This argument has been played over and over again, and will continue to be so every time something catastrophic happens such as these shootings. Unfortunately, until someone comes up with a new argument, or a new angle to work, it really has all been said.

SWA2

Reflection on Seeking Balance in an Either or World by Kathleen Parker
Ms. Parker wrote what I believe to be an incredibly profound and incredibly astute essay, which if nothing else, voices my political beliefs perfectly. When I was reading Ms. Parker’s essay, it was was almost a sense of déjà vu. I could feel my rising frustration with people who claim that uhh being moderate is hypocritical or even yellow-bellied. I firmly believe that picking and choosing your beliefs by issues is infinitely more honest and daring than just choosing a political party and following whatever they say you should follow.
The abortion segment of Ms. Parker’s essay was very interesting to me, as it was a notion that I was, to this point, unfamiliar with. I had always seen abortion as a black or white, legal or illegal issue, not a ‘legal but discouraged’ situation. Ms. Parker really opened my eyes to the fact that we could have something legal, and still discourage, or at least educate against it. If we could place more emphasis on safe sex education and absenense, then we can lower the amount of abortions necessary. Legalizing abortion would satisfy those “what if she was raped?” or “what if the condom broke?” questions. This is just one way to take a very moderate approach to a question that is traditionally very black and white.
I also love the reference to John P. Avlon’s thoughts that being “on the fence” is the most patriotic thing we can do. Cutting everything down to the skin and bones, liberals want to change things in the constitution easily and as soon as it is deemed necessary. Conservatives, however, want to keep everything in the constitution just the way it is. Well I must say, since I first learned what the constitution was in second grade, I was taught that the American government was, and still is, so powerful because it was founded on a “living document.” This means that the constitution can be changed to fit the times, while still maintaining its identity entirely. That sounds pretty fifty-fifty to me.
So as I said, reading this essay felt like deja vu. I felt the same before I read it as a do now, I was just seeking that reinforcement to my beliefs. I guess when it comes down to it, Matt Miller was right. Persuasion just may be dead.

SWA4

Ideas and Facebook
David Friedman’s blog “Ideas” is very different from my facebook. The differences mainly come in the area of the text. The purpose of my, or most other facebooks is mainly social, while Mr. Friedman’s blog is a forum to discuss new ideas and strategies, such as the idea of an automated window opening system based on the external and internal temperatures of a house. There are, however, differences and similarities in all five TRACE fields
The text has the most obvious differences. As previously stated, the purpose is completely different. A facebook page has information about the author of the page, as well as a list of “friends,” and the world renowned wall. The blog “Ideas” did have a small section about the author, with a link to more information, but that was not a main component of the page. The bulk of the page was a post by the Mr. Friedman, and the reader responses. Similarities were few and far between, but the main one I saw was the reader comments alongside of the wall. While the former is more structured and purposed, and the latter more random and social, both contain comments by the readers of the blog, and normally without author interference, at least not on the same page.
The audience category holds the main amount of similarity between my facebook and Mr. Friedman’s blog. In this particular post on Mr. Friedman’s blog the audience seems very in tune with the lingo, therefore making it a discourse community. Likewise, the audience for my facebook is made up of people who I either live with currently on campus, or have spent a fair amount of time with previously, and thereby also constitute a discourse community. The differences only come into effect when you look at the nature of the discourse communities. Friedman’s blog is made up of people, who probably do not know each other discussing ideas in order to accomplish a purpose or task. In retrospect, my facebook is made up of people, most of which know each other, and are simply discussing things for the sake of discussing them and to experience socialization with others in the same discourse group.
The author section obviously holds great differences, but there were some similarities. The motivation of Mr. Friedman is to spread his ideas to a broad base of people, while my motive when creating a facebook was to communicate with people that I already know, or am soon going to know. Certain similarities did surface in the credentials of both authors, as stated in the “About me” section of Friedman’s blog, he has not taken a course for credit in either of the fields that he most commonly practices. So officially his credentials while writing the blog are about the same as mine for my facebook. The difference is that no one expects someone to have certain training or knowledge before trusting something on their facebook, while a blog with technical ideas is more likely to be trusted and it would be expected that the author was trustworthy.
There are several similarities when it comes to the constraints of both the blog and my facebook. These similarities come into play in the “wall” or “comments” area. The basic constraint is the author’s lack of response within the page. While the author may respond directly to the comments of readers, it is not usually located directly on the page, and is handled separately, and sometimes privately. The one difference I see in the constraints is that author’s don’t respond for different reasons. On facebook you don’t respond because writing on your own wall is socially unacceptable, and you should instead create a new post on the reader’s own wall. On Mr. Friedman’s blog he does not respond most likely because he wants to allow his readers to debate among themselves without his interference, in order to get a more non-biased opinion of his ideas.
Exigence is an interesting category in this argument, mainly because most facebooks, at least mine, do not address a specific argument. Mr. Friedman’s blog was caused by a search for a cheap way to cool a house. The only thing close to an argument that my facebook displays is the problem of communication, which it solves very well. So while maybe not in perfect definition, exigence is still a factor between the two to an extent.
So while the differences clearly outweigh the similarities in the two types of forums discussed here, there are some distinct similarities. Most importantly both are a means of networking and communicating. While the internet is often associated with the evils of scamming, impulse buying, and hundreds of other things, part of it is still good, and these good things will continue to fuel the advocates of a more social, internet based world that can accommodate both progressive thinking and socialization.

SWA3

Adversarial Argument
My personal argument style is adversarial. I can picture myself as a lawyer arguing a point to the bitter end, no matter how unwilling to believe my audience is. I do, however, have a small amount of consensual traits, mainly in the fact that I will not take up a point that I do not believe in fully. In the case of being uncertain on a case I am happy to take up a dialectic method, and try to figure out what is the most sensible answer to the issue in front of me.
My adversarial qualities vastly outweigh all other types of argument that I exercise. Most issues that I come upon I can find a point in that I believe in firmly, and I will happily argue that point as long as someone is willing to oppose me. I do not like to fight with anyone, but I do like to try to convince people of things, and to make my viewpoints very well known. I will not hesitate to share my viewpoint on a topic with anyone, even if I know that they are opposed to those viewpoints.
The consensual segment of my arguing style comes in to play in a few areas as well though. I am not afraid to admit when I have lost an argument, but I still defend certain areas where I do not believe that I was incorrect. Also, I am not afraid to announce weaknesses in my arguments. For instance: I will argue until I am blue in the face that stricter gun control could only help our country. I will however admit that there is no way to illegalize guns while also getting all currently existing guns off the streets. Gun control is still important to me, and I believe that if we can figure out the one flaw in my argument, than we can successfully control guns. So I am willing to admit weakness, while still being very opinionated on my topic.
I think that my style of argument is the best, because it is necessary to have an opinion that you are willing to argue in order to get anywhere in society. It is, however, important to know where your argument has holes, because if you cannot recognize the holes in your argument you will never be able to fill them with strategy and fact. If you feel strongly about a view that you have, and can defend it in an argument, than you should never give it up. If you find that your argument has too many holes in it to successfully argue to any extent, it could be a sign that your current position is not the one that you should be arguing.

SWA1

Professor Skube wrote the essay “Writing off Reading” to make the point that high school graduates and college students alike do not have the same appreciation for the English language, whether it be reading, writing, or just vocabulary, that they should based on their level of education. Skube claims that he can use words such as “impetus,” “advocate,” or “brevity,” and baffle a group of college students at “our better private universities and flagship state schools.” I simply do not believe that this is the case.
Allow me to clarify: I understand fully that kids simply are not reading. To assign a novel to be read in class is more than most high school seniors are willing to put up with, and several will get the Spark Notes version and still only skim that. That being said I do think that Skube is a bit exaggerated in his claims. The word “lucid” is just not going to stump many students attending highly respected colleges. Even kids that didn’t make it all the way to the college level of education understand the meaning of the word novel, in both senses of the word. I do, however, believe that college students as a whole do most likely stumble over a very select group of words.
Professor Hagstette’s idea of aggressive reading is certainly an interesting one. If a student can get excited and willing enough to learn the subject matter, it would be one of the best possible ways to do that; and once a student begins to read more aggressively it will certainly increase their vocabulary, along with their understanding of the subject matter. If a student cannot get interested enough to commit themselves to reading an item multiple times, that is simply an example of the student’s lack of appreciation for the language. It is an endless cycle that a student can only get out of by commitment. Distractions need to be minimal, and focus high, but if a young scholar is truly committed to success, aggressive reading is, in my opinion, the best way to not just get a grade, but to get a little something more out of the subject matter.