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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)