You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2009.
This advertisement uses irony to make a humorous, and shall we say catchy, argument. It incorporates a textual argument as well as supportive and eye-catching visual aids, the most notable of which is the name Walt Whitman in a large size in the font of Whitman’s candy. This title sets up the irony of the argument: “some people think Walt Whitman makes chocolate candy.” This is a satiric statement that, sadly, is believable. It is understandable that a child would be more familiar with Whitman’s candy samplers than the 19th century poet and author. And it is from this idea that the argument comes in. this ad argues that children today do not get enough of the arts in their education; because of the irony this is believable. The textual argument goes on to explain, logically mind you, why they should. It argues appealing to logos that children need the arts for a good structural education, which help children comprehend math and science better.
(you are a mean bear)
not you mr. ehret
In Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin uses an extended metaphor to, blatancy and redundancy aside, make a case against helping the poor. With his essay, he both discredits the metaphor of earth as a spaceship in outer space and supplants it with a new image: earth as lifeboats floating on the sea, with the well-off in the boats and the poor swimming for their lives in the sea. Hardin makes the case that helping the poor is equivalent to overfilling figurative “lifeboats,” thus capsizing them and destroying all hope for any man or woman to sustain life on earth regardless of affluence or origin.
Hardin makes an interesting point when considering birth rates in considering foreign aid of poverty. He establishes early on that impoverished nations tend to have higher birth rates than that of, say, America, and he goes on to acknowledge that, by aiding the poor, we maintain these rates. He ties this into the metaphor by saying that this is increasing the number of people in the sea, outside the lifeboats. He argues, appealing strongly to logical, that this perpetuates the problem and even makes further action more difficult. The real-life occurrence he is describing is the idea of land depletion: the idea that a tract of land can only support so many before life becomes unsustainable (lifeboats only have so much room).
-DSH
Nicholas Carr’s article is inviting and engaging even as a reader examines its title, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Google, the online search engine, is present in the vast majority of our lives, thus many people are drawn to this idea: Is Google making me stupid? Carr’s choice of subject matter and simple, forthcoming title effectively draw in a very broad audience. With his audience suitably attracted, he begins his article with an allusion to the popular movie, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which very efficiently identifies two major themes of his essay: technology and the gradual decline in intellectual capacity. He quotes HAL, “my mind is going, I can feel it…” This sets up his thesis very well, as Carr immediately adds, “I can feel it, too.” He seamlessly goes on to describe how the use of Google, its convenience that is, has affected his ability to concentrate on deep contemplative subjects. He contends that Google is changing the way we think.
Reading for extended periods has become harder for him, he finds himself “fidgety” and unable to hold his attention. He is describing something that many are experiencing, and so a reader becomes very interested and curious. This ability to identify personal traits of ourselves is very appealing. It makes him more credible, as a reader feels as though he understands the nature of our ailments. Furthermore, he builds credibility by mentioning this condition in friends with literary backgrounds and reputable scientific studies, like Proust and the Squid: the Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Maryanne Wolf (a developmental psychologist at Tufts University) as sources.
Carr has a good command of language and tone that make his article very persuasive. He sounds calm and intelligent throughout this piece. He also uses sound logical reasoning to argue a point relevant to our lives and ultimately leave us with a probing caveat that leaves one contemplating on Carr’s thesis and even considering it as true.
David
This article is a compelling call to speak out against the injustices of major recording labels. Tim Quirk, the author of this piece, is a credible primary source as, he has been through the industry as a musician and has seen firsthand the unfair practices of major labels. He effectively establishes his credibility at the opening of his article saying, “When my band signed a recording contract with a major label in 1989, we weren’t particularly naive. We were graduates of Ivy League schools, we’d been writing, recording and touring together for over five years, and we’d already released two albums; one by ourselves, and one on an independent label. We thought we had a pretty good handle on the deal we were making. But we couldn’t…” In this statement, he both lets you know that he is very well educated and he has considerable experience in the music industry.
Quirk uses his credibility and a good command of language to inform you of the “real” story of a modern day recording artist. He effectively uses his story to illustrate the greed and grievances of the recording industry, deriding labels, agents, and the “armies of business affairs people to enforce the terms of their contracts.” He upsets your perspective of the glamorous music industry with mind-blowing figures; for instance, did you know that “Unless [bands] sell millions of records, they will have no chance of earning a living wage, they will not be able to afford health insurance, and they will find that they still owe the label hundreds of thousands of dollars long after the label has turned a profit on their work.”
One thing that is particularly persuasive about Quirks argument is that it does not come off as overly harsh, but instead fair and well reasoned. He acknowledges this very early by saying, “This is not a diatribe.” This builds his credibility because he sounds very calm and logical. He doesn’t sound like he is merely griping.
Overall, Quirk sounds very believable. His argument is well structured, informing, and persuasive. This article calls all bands to write their story of mistreatment, by a major record label of course, on what he calls the “Wall of Shame,’ and Quirk’s clever and entertaining argumentation effectively wins over an answer to this call.
- David
In this article, James Fallows interviews Gao Xiqing, the president of the China Investment Corporation and the man who “oversees many of China’s American holdings.” This article was released two weeks before the 2008 presidential election, an appropriate timing as many Americans took interest in the state of the American economy and lending practices. In this interview, Xiqing discusses his take on American monetary practices. Fellows chose a very credible person for his interview. Xiqing has the experience of presiding over a Chinese company that manages about $200 billion worth of the country’s foreign investments. Fellows could not have chosen a better candidate to interview, however the ethos of Xiqing doesn’t quite make up for the awkward structure of Fellows’ introduction and the lack of direction in his questioning.
Fellows begins his article well by drawing you into a popular question: “The $1.4 Trillion Question” or the state of the economy in relation to our loans to foreign countries, namely: China. But as he goes on, Fellows starts to make comments that detract from the effectiveness of his argument. He says that Xiqing’s words look astringent on the page, then saying in effect, “he didn’t sound like this in person.” He makes failed attempts at rhetorical strategies like sarcasm, e.g. “‘only’ $200 billion.” And when he finally begins the actual interview, he tells the reader that his “point…is to convey what it is like to hear from such a man, rather than to expand upon, challenge, or agree with his stated views.” This comment completely destroys the effect of the interview, and demolishes any idea of an argument from Fellows. In that statement, Fellows says that he had no reason to interview such a credible source… he just wanted to interview him…?
This detracts from every clever point Xiqing makes. While reading the interview, you find Gao astringent and you don’t agree with him, or disagree with him. In his introductory comments, Fellows deflates the ethos of Xiqing, thus making the whole article less than persuasive. Aside from the introduction, Fellows also has no general direction in his interview. There is no flow from question to question, and this only serves to make Xiqing sound more deriding of Americans. If I could describe James Fellows essay in one word it would be lackluster. If I could describe Fellows argument in one word I would say… nonexistent
