http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/the-common-core-costs-billions-and-hurts-students.html?ref=opinion
In Diane Ravitch's "The Common Core Costs Billions and Hurts Students," the author primarily uses ethos as a method to invoke feelings of opposition toward the program. She establishes her credibility by explaining that,"[She] was an assistant secretary of education in George H. W. Bush's administration and a member of three consecutive think tanks." The warrant here is the belief that these credentials qualify her to be an expert on the subject of Common Core. As the author intended, there is no doubt that the readers will identify with the warrant. The fact that she was a member of the government sector that specializes in education ought to enough to supply adequate credentials. However, she includes the fact that she worked directly underneath a former president. Sure, there may be biases toward president George Bush, but throughout her essay, she actually turn her side to oppose George Bush. Essentially she explains that working along the founders of No Child Left Behind enabled her to see the flaws of the system. Statistically, because a larger portion of the audience, typical American citizens, consider Bush an inadequate president, Diane's ethos works to her favor, as she is seen as the "opposite end of the coin."
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Assignment Week 6
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/opinions/mark-cuban-as-vice-president-pick-dantonio-johnson/index.html
In the article "Mark Cuban for Vice President?", the author makes the argument that Mark Cuban as Hillary's vice president would weaken Trumps many advantages. The author maintains his persuasiveness through use of ethical appeals. He explains that Mark Cuban is a ,"true business superstar whose wealth, unlike Trump's, is readily verified, Cuban is a renowned job creator, a tech pioneer, and a public persona with deep name recognition and real credibility. He has even competed with Trump in the realm of reality TV, as a co-host of the program "Shark Tank." It is unlikely that the reader will not identify with the warrant, i.e., that these actions make Cuban credible and appealing. Using this, the author makes the argument that ,"Cuban's business bona fides and media experience would weaken many of Trump's advantages." The author makes a strategic play here, demonstrating that Trump isn't unique in his specialty, handling money. He is making the claim that if Hillary takes in Cuban as his VP, Hillary is the better vote. As the reader, it makes sense to choose Hillary, assuming they are convinced by the argument. If Cuban does Trump things better than Trump, than there is no reason to vote Trump. This is definitely targeted toward Trump supporters, hoping to "convert" them to Hillary's side. Even Hillary's supporters, as they are already on the side, would end up agreeing with author, creating a win-win situation where the author is able to persuade all. However, once again, this can only happen if the argument is persuasive. As powerful as it seems, Trump supporter likely have a variety of reasons for their ballot, and dealing with money is probably only one of the many reasons they have toward their side. Thus, it is doubtful this article will be enough to persuade.
In the article "Mark Cuban for Vice President?", the author makes the argument that Mark Cuban as Hillary's vice president would weaken Trumps many advantages. The author maintains his persuasiveness through use of ethical appeals. He explains that Mark Cuban is a ,"true business superstar whose wealth, unlike Trump's, is readily verified, Cuban is a renowned job creator, a tech pioneer, and a public persona with deep name recognition and real credibility. He has even competed with Trump in the realm of reality TV, as a co-host of the program "Shark Tank." It is unlikely that the reader will not identify with the warrant, i.e., that these actions make Cuban credible and appealing. Using this, the author makes the argument that ,"Cuban's business bona fides and media experience would weaken many of Trump's advantages." The author makes a strategic play here, demonstrating that Trump isn't unique in his specialty, handling money. He is making the claim that if Hillary takes in Cuban as his VP, Hillary is the better vote. As the reader, it makes sense to choose Hillary, assuming they are convinced by the argument. If Cuban does Trump things better than Trump, than there is no reason to vote Trump. This is definitely targeted toward Trump supporters, hoping to "convert" them to Hillary's side. Even Hillary's supporters, as they are already on the side, would end up agreeing with author, creating a win-win situation where the author is able to persuade all. However, once again, this can only happen if the argument is persuasive. As powerful as it seems, Trump supporter likely have a variety of reasons for their ballot, and dealing with money is probably only one of the many reasons they have toward their side. Thus, it is doubtful this article will be enough to persuade.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
How Can Trump Save The G.O.P?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/campaign-stops/how-trump-can-save-the-gop.html?ref=opinion
In the article "How Can Trump Save The G.O.P?" the author, Sam Tanenhaus, characterizes Trump to identify with the reader. He labels Trump as an "unapologetic nationalist and occasional xenophobe" to give Trump a personality, i.e., to make him more relatable to the reader. Unapologetic in the "nationalism" implies that Trump is ruthless when defending his political independence. In addition, occasional xenophobe identifies with the fact the Trump his human, and therefore has his flaws, and with the addition of the word occasional, the author attempts to minimize it. What the author seems to be doing here with this xenophobe statement is some action to minimize Trump's racist remarks and his strict proposed immigration laws. The author is attempting to create euphemism for the fact that Trump makes racists comments with the idea that Trump has an uncontrollable, irrational fear that leads him to do these things. Ideally, this, along with the nationalism adjective is supposed to justify Trumps actions, in form of an excuse. However, in the eyes of the audience, the plan will most likely fail. The unapologetic nationalism statement carries harsh connotation, but nonetheless, its affects will likely vary. The issue comes from the xenophobe statement. By stating he his "occasionally" xenophobic implies that this phobia isn't a phobia at all, as it is controllable. Thus, readers who realize this are likely to simply consider it a weak excuse, and simply hurts Trump's image more.
In the article "How Can Trump Save The G.O.P?" the author, Sam Tanenhaus, characterizes Trump to identify with the reader. He labels Trump as an "unapologetic nationalist and occasional xenophobe" to give Trump a personality, i.e., to make him more relatable to the reader. Unapologetic in the "nationalism" implies that Trump is ruthless when defending his political independence. In addition, occasional xenophobe identifies with the fact the Trump his human, and therefore has his flaws, and with the addition of the word occasional, the author attempts to minimize it. What the author seems to be doing here with this xenophobe statement is some action to minimize Trump's racist remarks and his strict proposed immigration laws. The author is attempting to create euphemism for the fact that Trump makes racists comments with the idea that Trump has an uncontrollable, irrational fear that leads him to do these things. Ideally, this, along with the nationalism adjective is supposed to justify Trumps actions, in form of an excuse. However, in the eyes of the audience, the plan will most likely fail. The unapologetic nationalism statement carries harsh connotation, but nonetheless, its affects will likely vary. The issue comes from the xenophobe statement. By stating he his "occasionally" xenophobic implies that this phobia isn't a phobia at all, as it is controllable. Thus, readers who realize this are likely to simply consider it a weak excuse, and simply hurts Trump's image more.
Friday, July 1, 2016
Assignment Week 4
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In the New York Times article ,"Lynch to Accept F.B.I Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry," the author, Matt Apuzzo, makes a claim that Lynch is making a just decision of treating Hillary's "investigation like any other case," even though the public is making arguments against it. Lynch, current Attorney General, and "retains all the legal authority as the nation's top law enforcement official." As such, the author tries to persuade the audience of his claim by raising Lynch's ethical appeals. Since Lynch is an a high position in terms of law, the author is advocating that Lynch has the proper authority to make such a bold move. Finally, the author uses a powerful logical argument to complete her article. He states,"Beyond the day-to-day workings of the Justice Department, there is precedent for explicitly relying on career officials to make politically charged decisions. Essentially, the author is arguing that political officials recruit skilled lawyers, and Lynch is making a move to break this "precedent." Therefore, Matt argues that Lynch ought to be supported.
In the New York Times article ,"Lynch to Accept F.B.I Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry," the author, Matt Apuzzo, makes a claim that Lynch is making a just decision of treating Hillary's "investigation like any other case," even though the public is making arguments against it. Lynch, current Attorney General, and "retains all the legal authority as the nation's top law enforcement official." As such, the author tries to persuade the audience of his claim by raising Lynch's ethical appeals. Since Lynch is an a high position in terms of law, the author is advocating that Lynch has the proper authority to make such a bold move. Finally, the author uses a powerful logical argument to complete her article. He states,"Beyond the day-to-day workings of the Justice Department, there is precedent for explicitly relying on career officials to make politically charged decisions. Essentially, the author is arguing that political officials recruit skilled lawyers, and Lynch is making a move to break this "precedent." Therefore, Matt argues that Lynch ought to be supported.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Assignment Week Three
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/verdict-freddie-gray-caesar-goodson-baltimore.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In the New York Times article "Baltimore Officer in Fredie Gray Case is Cleared of All Charges" written by Jess Bidgood and Sheryl Stolberg, the authors try to persuade their readers of the claim that these police officers if guilty, deserve to be acquitted. They do this in a very unnoticeable manner, trying to grow pity in the readers for the policeman without the readers realizing it. The authors do this by trying to offer a more human side to the policeman, Officer Goodman. Since through the text itself, readers imagine this "racist" policeman to be a heartless killer, by demonstrating that this man is a human as well, they start to wonder whether it was a mistake, peer pressure, or other factors. The authors do this by describing that after the trial, "Officer Goodman hugged members of his family and Officers Nero and Miller, both of whom were seated in the front row. By showing this human side, the Officers are given a less biased view than what the media portrays. The readers can than think,"Perhaps the officer regrets his mistake now," or "Maybe he is truly innocent; maybe it was a mistake." Thus the author does a decent job of at least lightening the hatred the public has toward these policemen.
In the New York Times article "Baltimore Officer in Fredie Gray Case is Cleared of All Charges" written by Jess Bidgood and Sheryl Stolberg, the authors try to persuade their readers of the claim that these police officers if guilty, deserve to be acquitted. They do this in a very unnoticeable manner, trying to grow pity in the readers for the policeman without the readers realizing it. The authors do this by trying to offer a more human side to the policeman, Officer Goodman. Since through the text itself, readers imagine this "racist" policeman to be a heartless killer, by demonstrating that this man is a human as well, they start to wonder whether it was a mistake, peer pressure, or other factors. The authors do this by describing that after the trial, "Officer Goodman hugged members of his family and Officers Nero and Miller, both of whom were seated in the front row. By showing this human side, the Officers are given a less biased view than what the media portrays. The readers can than think,"Perhaps the officer regrets his mistake now," or "Maybe he is truly innocent; maybe it was a mistake." Thus the author does a decent job of at least lightening the hatred the public has toward these policemen.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Assignment Week 2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/17/one-state-raised-taxes-the-other-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_wb-taxes-8am-stream%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
In Tankersley and Ehrenfreund's article, "The interesting thing that happened when Kansas cut taxes and California hiked them", the authors try to advocate for increase taxes of the rich by introducing an anecdote regarding California's success upon raising the taxes of the wealthy. He magnifies the success of the California wealth taxes by comparing it to that of complete opposite, and by proving that this opposite was a failure. This opposite is referring to Kansas who, as a government, raised taxes on the poor, and lowered taxes on the rich. From a conservative standpoint, he adds, this is supported. They talk about how California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, while Kansas was a lousy 0.2 percent in 2015. In addition, the authors provide a link to another website demonstrating how California did "just fine" after the tax raises, but provide no such link for Kansas' success or failure. They do this to prevent reader from gaining a different perspective of Kansas than the one they present, one of a failure. They do however, present the article revealing Kansas' tax changes a year ago, which provides more statistics regarding the unfairness the Kansas lower class men are facing. Although the claim that taxes for the wealthy should be raised isn't directly stated, it can be inferred through viewing the article from a rhetorical standpoint. From a rhetorical standpoint, the authors could have simply stated the two cases in two different articles. They had no reason to contrast the two if they had no bias. The only reason the author contrasts the two is to emphasize the fact that plan A was successful, but its opposite wasn't. This emphasis can get readers to be strongly persuaded into thinking that the Conservative approach to taxes would be unsuccessful, hurting the Republican party in the long run. While we cannot tell from article whether the authors are trying to hurt the Republican party or simply trying to highlight an unjust government law, the authors are successful in convincing readers that taxes toward the wealthy are more heavily preferred than taxing the lower class.
In Tankersley and Ehrenfreund's article, "The interesting thing that happened when Kansas cut taxes and California hiked them", the authors try to advocate for increase taxes of the rich by introducing an anecdote regarding California's success upon raising the taxes of the wealthy. He magnifies the success of the California wealth taxes by comparing it to that of complete opposite, and by proving that this opposite was a failure. This opposite is referring to Kansas who, as a government, raised taxes on the poor, and lowered taxes on the rich. From a conservative standpoint, he adds, this is supported. They talk about how California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, while Kansas was a lousy 0.2 percent in 2015. In addition, the authors provide a link to another website demonstrating how California did "just fine" after the tax raises, but provide no such link for Kansas' success or failure. They do this to prevent reader from gaining a different perspective of Kansas than the one they present, one of a failure. They do however, present the article revealing Kansas' tax changes a year ago, which provides more statistics regarding the unfairness the Kansas lower class men are facing. Although the claim that taxes for the wealthy should be raised isn't directly stated, it can be inferred through viewing the article from a rhetorical standpoint. From a rhetorical standpoint, the authors could have simply stated the two cases in two different articles. They had no reason to contrast the two if they had no bias. The only reason the author contrasts the two is to emphasize the fact that plan A was successful, but its opposite wasn't. This emphasis can get readers to be strongly persuaded into thinking that the Conservative approach to taxes would be unsuccessful, hurting the Republican party in the long run. While we cannot tell from article whether the authors are trying to hurt the Republican party or simply trying to highlight an unjust government law, the authors are successful in convincing readers that taxes toward the wealthy are more heavily preferred than taxing the lower class.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Assignment Week One
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/no-bernie-sanders-shouldn_b_10369930.html
No, Bernie Sanders Shouldn’t Concede. He Can Still Win, Despite What Media Says.
In H.A. Goodman's article, Goodman uses strict contrast to pull out the true hidden qualities of Bernie. Instead of simply stating the reasons for his legitimization, Goodman instead points out a multitude of Clinton, Bernie's rival's, flaws, ranging from her inconsistency in the media regarding key issues, such as gay marriage, to the fact that she can theoretically serve jail time. He mentions that the emails contained top secret info, and was on an incredibly easily hack able server, which could have jeopardized national security. By building a negative image of Hillary, readers are forced into a trap that causes that to see Bernie in a much better light, compared to Hillary. Of course, as expected as a professional writer, Goodman realizes that some readers may not fall bait for this "trap". Thus, he mentions that the FBI may have to give the Democratic Nomination to Bernie, essentially eliminating Hillary, based on the laws that were broken by her. Nevertheless, this contrast strategy magnified Bernie's likability. Similar to the Scales of Justice, by lowering Hillary's image, Bernie's is rocketed upward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)