What have I learned so far, if anything?
So far, I've learned a good amount about understanding argumentative writing and strategy. This includes analyzing warrants, avoiding flawed logic, choosing fair and precise language, planning and researching an argumentative paper, and how to write an argumentative paper through a certain structure. I've also learned many new terms to better analyze different argumentative papers. The list of these terms goes on and on including ad populum, ad hominem, fallacy, empirical evidence, slippery slope, etc. Understanding different terms along with a basic structure of argumentative papers as expressed in the textbook has helped me become a better writer in terms of arguing.
Which one of my three essays do I want to revise? Why?
Of my three essays, I'd like to revise "The Myth of the Stimulus." I took the word analysis too literally and instead of expressing my own argument strongly, I analyzed another writer's argumentative piece and its entirety. I can easily make my argument stronger for this essay because this is an area in which I am very knownledgable considering my major is economics. I'll be sure to simplify economic terms and expressions to help the reader understand my point without any misunderstanding or the need to research different terms.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Analysis Blog #3
Both presidential addresses involve the aftermath of attacks on our nation. FDR’s speech addresses the attack on Pearl Harbor while George W. Bush’s speech addresses the attack on 9-11-01, five years later. The main differences between the two involve the time frame after each attack and when the addresses were given and the length of each address (according to the textbook).
The textbook seemed to comment on Bush’s address and not on FDR’s address. Many of those comments I completely disagree with. The textbook mentioned multiple uses of slanting in Bush’s address, such as seared, barbarity, and murdered. However, these words are, in fact, not forms of slanting. How is it not barbaric that these terrorists flew planes into buildings to kill people while committing suicide? How using the term “murdered” favor a bias and discredit alternative words? The 9-11 attacks were acts of murder, weren’t they? If this is true, then even the word “attacked” in FDR’s address should be considered slanting.
I also didn’t see many connotations in these addresses. A few examples the book gave in Bush’s address were the words “democracy” and “free elections.” Democracy is not an overtone, it is a form of government. Is chemistry an overtone as well? It’s a form of science, but the book would say it’s an overtone.
Overall, I felt that both presidential addresses were straight forward and to the point. Bush’s address had a lot more content, but that’s because there were 5 years of events to cover, whereas FDR only had a day of events to cover. They were addresses to Americans, so of course they’re going to give the American people the facts about acts of war rather than a bunch of politically correct nonsense.
The textbook seemed to comment on Bush’s address and not on FDR’s address. Many of those comments I completely disagree with. The textbook mentioned multiple uses of slanting in Bush’s address, such as seared, barbarity, and murdered. However, these words are, in fact, not forms of slanting. How is it not barbaric that these terrorists flew planes into buildings to kill people while committing suicide? How using the term “murdered” favor a bias and discredit alternative words? The 9-11 attacks were acts of murder, weren’t they? If this is true, then even the word “attacked” in FDR’s address should be considered slanting.
I also didn’t see many connotations in these addresses. A few examples the book gave in Bush’s address were the words “democracy” and “free elections.” Democracy is not an overtone, it is a form of government. Is chemistry an overtone as well? It’s a form of science, but the book would say it’s an overtone.
Overall, I felt that both presidential addresses were straight forward and to the point. Bush’s address had a lot more content, but that’s because there were 5 years of events to cover, whereas FDR only had a day of events to cover. They were addresses to Americans, so of course they’re going to give the American people the facts about acts of war rather than a bunch of politically correct nonsense.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Pre-Reading Blog #3
True or False: Schools Fail Immigrants
Richard Rothstein an author who wrote The Way We Were: Myths and Realities of America’s Student Achievement, The Charter School Dust-up, and All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different? His credentials include being a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute, a senior correspondent of the American Prospect, and was a national education columnist of the New York Times.
This article appeared in the New York Times on July 4, 2001, so as far as relevance to today’s educational system, it’s credible. Rothstein seems to spend a great deal of emphasis writing about education, so he most likely has a great deal of insight on the topic. Being a research associate, he also probably includes statistics in his writing to help support his claims.
In this article, based on the title, Rothstein will probably investigate immigrants failing in American schooling. Due to the fact that the title includes “true or false,” it should explore both sides of the argument equally. I expect to see a few statistics and historical trends included in this article considering Rothstein’s background. I don’t notice any notable bias from his background, so it should be a non-bias article.
It’s All about Him
David Von Drehle wrote this deductive argumentative article which appeared in Time on April 30, 2007. His current occupation is the senior writer at the Washington Post. He has been a national political writer, magazine staff writer, New York bureau chief, and assistant managing editor.
Considering this article was written about three years ago, it should be relevant still today depending on the topic. The title doesn’t give too much away unfortunately for a better pre-reading prediction. However, the title does hint that it could revolve around the term narcissism, which refers to the personality trait of egotism, hinted by “it’s all about him.” The article refers to “him,” so it’s obviously going to revolve around the narcissism of men. As far as what kind of man, I’m going to have to predict either men in a relationship who make all the calls or men who let their narcissism lead to violence.
Richard Rothstein an author who wrote The Way We Were: Myths and Realities of America’s Student Achievement, The Charter School Dust-up, and All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different? His credentials include being a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute, a senior correspondent of the American Prospect, and was a national education columnist of the New York Times.
This article appeared in the New York Times on July 4, 2001, so as far as relevance to today’s educational system, it’s credible. Rothstein seems to spend a great deal of emphasis writing about education, so he most likely has a great deal of insight on the topic. Being a research associate, he also probably includes statistics in his writing to help support his claims.
In this article, based on the title, Rothstein will probably investigate immigrants failing in American schooling. Due to the fact that the title includes “true or false,” it should explore both sides of the argument equally. I expect to see a few statistics and historical trends included in this article considering Rothstein’s background. I don’t notice any notable bias from his background, so it should be a non-bias article.
It’s All about Him
David Von Drehle wrote this deductive argumentative article which appeared in Time on April 30, 2007. His current occupation is the senior writer at the Washington Post. He has been a national political writer, magazine staff writer, New York bureau chief, and assistant managing editor.
Considering this article was written about three years ago, it should be relevant still today depending on the topic. The title doesn’t give too much away unfortunately for a better pre-reading prediction. However, the title does hint that it could revolve around the term narcissism, which refers to the personality trait of egotism, hinted by “it’s all about him.” The article refers to “him,” so it’s obviously going to revolve around the narcissism of men. As far as what kind of man, I’m going to have to predict either men in a relationship who make all the calls or men who let their narcissism lead to violence.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Analysis Blog #2
Race by the Numbers
Orlando Patterson’s claim in this article is that it is a grossly distorted when saying the white population of America is fast on the way to becoming a minority. He supports his claim with statistics, history, and political analysis. The support eventually warrants that we should stop obsessing on race in interpreting the census results and keep the facts straight along with honest interpretations.
Overall, the different kinds of support that Patterson provides in his article are equally persuasive and help contribute to his stand on the argument. The support that is most susceptible to challenge would be when Patterson uses affirmative action as a basis for support. He mentions that Latino Coalition strategies have been a major factor in the loss of political support for affirmative action, further making it problematic for blacks. Patterson lacks any kind of statistical data for this statement, which was seen quite frequently throughout the article. Could it be possible that the reason there is a loss of political support for affirmative action is because those pushing for that support aren’t going about it correctly or maybe those in political power are against it? There are many refutations to Patterson’s statement, and is somewhat irrelevant to his original claim.
He also fails to mention why blacks are the nation’s major disadvantaged minority. There wasn’t really much of a reason for that statement, it was more of a “just to let you know” statement which came off as a little ignorant. If anything, he should mention how blacks could be considered the nation’s most advantaged minority because they can get away with racism towards other races via mainstream media, are entitled to affirmative action, can play the racist card in an effort to sue another citizen of another race (primarily whites), etc. In the past, yes, blacks were the disadvantaged, however, thanks to the civil rights movement, they gained equality and more. Race has become a major card to play for those who are not white in order to gain wealth, power, or progress in life. That isn’t what the civil rights movement was all about, was it? It was about gaining equality, not being greater than others. That would be considered contradicting.
The affirmative action support and the random comment about blacks being the most disadvantaged minority were the main areas where Patterson’s article could’ve easily been refuted. In fact, I gave a short little refutation myself. He, however, did accomplish what he intended to with his argument. The rest wasn’t needed.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
Eric Zorn claims that family is not a symbol of politics, particularly conservatives. He says we need to take family back from conservative organizations who have monopolized it for too long, turning it into shorthand for a social and political outlook that excludes and hectors those who don’t conform to your notions of morality. Zorn’s claim is supported through emotional appeal mostly and ad populum to fellow liberals. This warrants that no one owns the word “family,” not the right nor the left.
It was a little suspicious for Zorn to criticize only conservative organizations and politics throughout the entire article, yet warrant that neither the right nor left own the term “family.” If that is the true warrant, why weren’t there any criticisms to liberal organizations and politics? In my pre-reading blog earlier this week, I mentioned how just looking at the fact that Zorn is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, and the title of the article, it was an easy assumption to make that this article would take the side of a liberal and attack conservatives and how they view the role of family. After reading the article, this liberal bias was completely reinforced. His warrant at the end of the article tried to play off an “in-the-middle” point of view to give the reader the intention that he was fair in his criticisms, yet liberal organizations and politics were completely ignored in that sense. This is a blatant failed attempt at ad populum.
Orlando Patterson’s claim in this article is that it is a grossly distorted when saying the white population of America is fast on the way to becoming a minority. He supports his claim with statistics, history, and political analysis. The support eventually warrants that we should stop obsessing on race in interpreting the census results and keep the facts straight along with honest interpretations.
Overall, the different kinds of support that Patterson provides in his article are equally persuasive and help contribute to his stand on the argument. The support that is most susceptible to challenge would be when Patterson uses affirmative action as a basis for support. He mentions that Latino Coalition strategies have been a major factor in the loss of political support for affirmative action, further making it problematic for blacks. Patterson lacks any kind of statistical data for this statement, which was seen quite frequently throughout the article. Could it be possible that the reason there is a loss of political support for affirmative action is because those pushing for that support aren’t going about it correctly or maybe those in political power are against it? There are many refutations to Patterson’s statement, and is somewhat irrelevant to his original claim.
He also fails to mention why blacks are the nation’s major disadvantaged minority. There wasn’t really much of a reason for that statement, it was more of a “just to let you know” statement which came off as a little ignorant. If anything, he should mention how blacks could be considered the nation’s most advantaged minority because they can get away with racism towards other races via mainstream media, are entitled to affirmative action, can play the racist card in an effort to sue another citizen of another race (primarily whites), etc. In the past, yes, blacks were the disadvantaged, however, thanks to the civil rights movement, they gained equality and more. Race has become a major card to play for those who are not white in order to gain wealth, power, or progress in life. That isn’t what the civil rights movement was all about, was it? It was about gaining equality, not being greater than others. That would be considered contradicting.
The affirmative action support and the random comment about blacks being the most disadvantaged minority were the main areas where Patterson’s article could’ve easily been refuted. In fact, I gave a short little refutation myself. He, however, did accomplish what he intended to with his argument. The rest wasn’t needed.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
Eric Zorn claims that family is not a symbol of politics, particularly conservatives. He says we need to take family back from conservative organizations who have monopolized it for too long, turning it into shorthand for a social and political outlook that excludes and hectors those who don’t conform to your notions of morality. Zorn’s claim is supported through emotional appeal mostly and ad populum to fellow liberals. This warrants that no one owns the word “family,” not the right nor the left.
It was a little suspicious for Zorn to criticize only conservative organizations and politics throughout the entire article, yet warrant that neither the right nor left own the term “family.” If that is the true warrant, why weren’t there any criticisms to liberal organizations and politics? In my pre-reading blog earlier this week, I mentioned how just looking at the fact that Zorn is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, and the title of the article, it was an easy assumption to make that this article would take the side of a liberal and attack conservatives and how they view the role of family. After reading the article, this liberal bias was completely reinforced. His warrant at the end of the article tried to play off an “in-the-middle” point of view to give the reader the intention that he was fair in his criticisms, yet liberal organizations and politics were completely ignored in that sense. This is a blatant failed attempt at ad populum.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Pre-Reading Blog #2
Race by the Numbers
This article was written by Orlando Patterson, who is a historical and cultural sociologist at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his attention to issues of race in America and the sociology of development. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics in 1965. A few of his many accolades include the National Book Award for non-fiction in 1991and being inducted into the Political Science association in 1983.
Race by Numbers appeared in the New York Times on May 8, 2001. Only being published 9 years ago, it is still relevant to possible issues in race today. Judging by the title, this article could possibly cover the diversity of race in America today and how the proportions of whites to colored people has leveled out. Other than that, the title doesn’t hint anything else.
Judging by Orlando Patterson’s background and his origins in Jamaica, this article most likely shares the values and ideals of blacks and will most likely agree with their arguments regarding racial issues or topics. These values and ideals help make sense of the context by separating the values of different races in America and taking the standpoint of the blacks.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
The author of this article is Eric Zorn, who is a columnist and blogger for the Chicago Tribune. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1980, where he was an arts section editor at the Michigan Daily and a creative writing and English literature major. He served a four-month internship at the Miami Herald and then moved to the Chicago Tribune. His eponymous news commentary column is titled Hometowns. He is also the co-author of Murder of Innocence, a 1990 book which studied the life and tragic rampage of Winnetka schoolhouse killer Laurie Dann.
The title of this article, Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics, seems to hint that politics and family are not related. This very well could be a political rant by another columnist with no real knowledge of the political realm. This is quite common in our country’s newspapers. The fact that this is out of the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, could easily hint that this article is attacking conservatives with faulty emotional appeals.
This article will most likely feature the values and ideals of liberals who strongly appose conservatives. This could mean that the article may point out that conservatives don’t know what the idea of family is really about, but liberals do. The values that liberal families are all about love and life and conservative families are part of a political agenda could very well flourish throughout this article. If this is the case, this article will be highly entertaining and full of false generalizations, ad populum, ad hominem, and emotional appeals.
This article was written by Orlando Patterson, who is a historical and cultural sociologist at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his attention to issues of race in America and the sociology of development. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics in 1965. A few of his many accolades include the National Book Award for non-fiction in 1991and being inducted into the Political Science association in 1983.
Race by Numbers appeared in the New York Times on May 8, 2001. Only being published 9 years ago, it is still relevant to possible issues in race today. Judging by the title, this article could possibly cover the diversity of race in America today and how the proportions of whites to colored people has leveled out. Other than that, the title doesn’t hint anything else.
Judging by Orlando Patterson’s background and his origins in Jamaica, this article most likely shares the values and ideals of blacks and will most likely agree with their arguments regarding racial issues or topics. These values and ideals help make sense of the context by separating the values of different races in America and taking the standpoint of the blacks.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
The author of this article is Eric Zorn, who is a columnist and blogger for the Chicago Tribune. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1980, where he was an arts section editor at the Michigan Daily and a creative writing and English literature major. He served a four-month internship at the Miami Herald and then moved to the Chicago Tribune. His eponymous news commentary column is titled Hometowns. He is also the co-author of Murder of Innocence, a 1990 book which studied the life and tragic rampage of Winnetka schoolhouse killer Laurie Dann.
The title of this article, Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics, seems to hint that politics and family are not related. This very well could be a political rant by another columnist with no real knowledge of the political realm. This is quite common in our country’s newspapers. The fact that this is out of the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, could easily hint that this article is attacking conservatives with faulty emotional appeals.
This article will most likely feature the values and ideals of liberals who strongly appose conservatives. This could mean that the article may point out that conservatives don’t know what the idea of family is really about, but liberals do. The values that liberal families are all about love and life and conservative families are part of a political agenda could very well flourish throughout this article. If this is the case, this article will be highly entertaining and full of false generalizations, ad populum, ad hominem, and emotional appeals.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Analysis of "No Win Situation"
Alfie Kohn’s “No Win Situation” is a piece that claims that recreation is at its best when the goal is not to compete with someone else. The opening statement includes an example of musical chairs and explains how the winner is out to make everyone else fail in order to come out on top. It is also said that competition undermines self esteem, ruins relationships, and holds individuals back from delivering their best. This is a highly emotionally-based argument and does not include very many facts to help defend the claim.
The opposing view is refuted and four disadvantages are listed about competition. Team competition is attacked in the first point but highly lacks any solid evidence and rather uses identification techniques to somehow persuade the reader to think like the author, however, that’s difficult when the lack of evidence is present. A study of some sort would have made this section legitimate. Competition as a sense of accomplishment is then attacked next. The use of an objective standard for accomplishment is used as an example for non competition, however, from there it goes into an emotional struggle from there. Bashing of our culture is of course included. Third, there is a supposed psychological cost of competition that is mentioned, but one thing the author failed to mention was that people don’t only compete to feel good about themselves and make someone else look bad, some do it for the mere recreation behind it. How else can you play tennis? Against a wall? That’s not exactly very fun for those who love the sport. Finally, there is a toxic effect on relationships with those you compete with. The author seems to make every human being out there to be a cold blooded poor sport who name calls and is overly aggressive. Once again, there is a lack of evidence or a study.
Overall, this was a poor argumentative piece. There is nothing wrong with the author’s viewpoint, however, there is something wrong with the way this claim was argued throughout. Emotional appeal isn’t bad, but if that’s all an argument has to offer, it’s empty. Emotion is a nice cherry topper to a well established argument with solid evidence backing up a claim. To only include emotional ranting makes an individual look narrow-minded. This piece was a good example though of what not to do when writing an argumentative piece.
The opposing view is refuted and four disadvantages are listed about competition. Team competition is attacked in the first point but highly lacks any solid evidence and rather uses identification techniques to somehow persuade the reader to think like the author, however, that’s difficult when the lack of evidence is present. A study of some sort would have made this section legitimate. Competition as a sense of accomplishment is then attacked next. The use of an objective standard for accomplishment is used as an example for non competition, however, from there it goes into an emotional struggle from there. Bashing of our culture is of course included. Third, there is a supposed psychological cost of competition that is mentioned, but one thing the author failed to mention was that people don’t only compete to feel good about themselves and make someone else look bad, some do it for the mere recreation behind it. How else can you play tennis? Against a wall? That’s not exactly very fun for those who love the sport. Finally, there is a toxic effect on relationships with those you compete with. The author seems to make every human being out there to be a cold blooded poor sport who name calls and is overly aggressive. Once again, there is a lack of evidence or a study.
Overall, this was a poor argumentative piece. There is nothing wrong with the author’s viewpoint, however, there is something wrong with the way this claim was argued throughout. Emotional appeal isn’t bad, but if that’s all an argument has to offer, it’s empty. Emotion is a nice cherry topper to a well established argument with solid evidence backing up a claim. To only include emotional ranting makes an individual look narrow-minded. This piece was a good example though of what not to do when writing an argumentative piece.
Analysis of "Sex and the Cinema"
Edward Jay Epstein’s “Sex and the Cinema” is an argumentative piece in which he argues that the absence of at least graphic sex is the key to the success of Hollywood’s top moneymaking movies. He mentions a few examples of the top 2004 movies and how neither of them included sexual scenes. This was a good way to introduce his thesis and support his argument right off the bat.
Epstein mentions that there are three factors to consider when it comes to moneymaking in movies. First, he mentions the rating system and its importance in raking in the cash. His main idea in this factor is that an NC-17 movie will lead to a box office failure. This is one way he proves that going over the top with sex could limit profits. Second, Epstein emphasizes a consideration for Wal-Mart’s importance in sales, which accounts for over one quarter for the sales from the six major movie studios. Wal-Mart has a decency policy that forces studios to avoid sexual content, so this causes these movies not to take part in the success in sales through this popular retailer. Finally, the third factor that Epstein explained was that movies on TV must meet standards of public decency. He used Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction from Super Bowl XXXVIII and the penalty CBS received from the government as an example of why broadcast television stations will not take any chances with sex in movies.
The conclusion is a restatement of Epstein’s claim at the beginning of his piece. Throughout his argument, he mainly relied on facts and examples, which is the most guaranteed strategy in making a strong stand on any argument. Emotional appeals are always a nice complement, however, rough facts and evidence are the most important building blocks to proving a point. Epstein was flawless in that sense.
Epstein mentions that there are three factors to consider when it comes to moneymaking in movies. First, he mentions the rating system and its importance in raking in the cash. His main idea in this factor is that an NC-17 movie will lead to a box office failure. This is one way he proves that going over the top with sex could limit profits. Second, Epstein emphasizes a consideration for Wal-Mart’s importance in sales, which accounts for over one quarter for the sales from the six major movie studios. Wal-Mart has a decency policy that forces studios to avoid sexual content, so this causes these movies not to take part in the success in sales through this popular retailer. Finally, the third factor that Epstein explained was that movies on TV must meet standards of public decency. He used Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction from Super Bowl XXXVIII and the penalty CBS received from the government as an example of why broadcast television stations will not take any chances with sex in movies.
The conclusion is a restatement of Epstein’s claim at the beginning of his piece. Throughout his argument, he mainly relied on facts and examples, which is the most guaranteed strategy in making a strong stand on any argument. Emotional appeals are always a nice complement, however, rough facts and evidence are the most important building blocks to proving a point. Epstein was flawless in that sense.
Analysis of "The Declaration of Independence"
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, which documented that the thirteen colonies of America were no longer a part of the British Empire. This declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson and was written in an argumentative format in which a main idea was introduced and a solution along with support for the solution was given. The main idea of the Declaration of Independence is that all men are created equal and are endowed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No government shall limit these rights nor threaten them in any way. Their purpose is to serve the people and ensure that their rights are safe. If a government does the opposite, it is up to the people to abolish such a government. Thomas Jefferson intended this document to urge the rights of the people and the responsibility that they have to protect their rights from any threats, including their own government.
In context to the King of Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson states that the history of the King is one of repeated injuries to the people and their rights. He then includes a long list of facts to support his big claim about the King, including his refusal of passing helpful laws to society, imposing unnecessary taxes, deprivation of citizens, interfering with judicial business, etc. With such a strong list of supportive facts to his claim about the clear flaws the King of Britain possesses, Thomas Jefferson presents a traditional example of success in argumentative writing.
The final section of the Declaration of Independence includes the closing statement in which the separation of the American colonies and Great Britain is declared. All political connection is said to be dissolved between the two and the colonies have the power to make their own decisions. The very last sentence of the declaration explains the support for its credibility by the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor of Americans. This was an example of an emotional appeal. Emotion was used to describe the importance of the Declaration of Independence’s credibility by stating that everything that was important to an American would be put on the line to defend this declaration.
Clearly, this document presents multiple elements of argumentative writing. A strong statement was made backed up by logic from the mind of Thomas Jefferson in which the rights of the people were explained and why government cannot interfere with them. The King of Great Britain was criticized through the use of historical facts. Emotional appeal was used to create credibility to the declaration and its meaning. This was a complete argumentative approach to an important issue in history and it was because of that, the Declaration of Independence became a success that still lives on today.
In context to the King of Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson states that the history of the King is one of repeated injuries to the people and their rights. He then includes a long list of facts to support his big claim about the King, including his refusal of passing helpful laws to society, imposing unnecessary taxes, deprivation of citizens, interfering with judicial business, etc. With such a strong list of supportive facts to his claim about the clear flaws the King of Britain possesses, Thomas Jefferson presents a traditional example of success in argumentative writing.
The final section of the Declaration of Independence includes the closing statement in which the separation of the American colonies and Great Britain is declared. All political connection is said to be dissolved between the two and the colonies have the power to make their own decisions. The very last sentence of the declaration explains the support for its credibility by the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor of Americans. This was an example of an emotional appeal. Emotion was used to describe the importance of the Declaration of Independence’s credibility by stating that everything that was important to an American would be put on the line to defend this declaration.
Clearly, this document presents multiple elements of argumentative writing. A strong statement was made backed up by logic from the mind of Thomas Jefferson in which the rights of the people were explained and why government cannot interfere with them. The King of Great Britain was criticized through the use of historical facts. Emotional appeal was used to create credibility to the declaration and its meaning. This was a complete argumentative approach to an important issue in history and it was because of that, the Declaration of Independence became a success that still lives on today.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Pre-Reading Blog #1
Paulo Freire is an educator and an author known for his theories in education. He was a big contributor to a philosophy of education that branched from approaches of Plato and Marxist thinkers. Freire’s passion for theorizing about education came from his upbringing as a child. He was born into a middle class family in Recife, Brazil and became very familiar with the issues in poverty that occurred from the Great Depression of 1929. This depression caused his family to move to a cheaper home in Jaboatao dos Guararapes. Freire’s father also died shortly after in 1931. All of these problems caused a young Paulo Freire to fall four grades behind in school while he frequently played with the other poor children of the city he lived in, especially in pick up football games. It is clear why Freire decided to pursue a career as a philosopher of educational matters. His concerns for the poor in the context of education are truly reflected in his writing and his theories.
Freire is best known for his piece titled “The Banking Concept of Education,” which is part of his Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The title seems to express that education may be something that inserts information into the brains, or banks, of the students. This would imply that Freire believes that these students are nothing but slaves of a system that forces its beliefs in teachings down these students’ throats, or rather into their brains. This could very well end up being an attack on traditional education by identifying it as a power hungry institution.
As much praise Freire has received for his contribution to critical pedagogy, he has plenty of criticism as well. In fact, individuals such as Rich Gibson has classified Freire’s work as a mix of old-school socialism and liberal reformism. Being considered a Marxist is the most impactful criticism that Freire has had to date. To be associated with the likes of Marxism can be a wounding critique that turns many readers away from Freire’s work. It is clear though that his upbringing is the true cause of his views and he may have a great amount of emotional anger towards the traditional forms of education experienced in places such as the United States because of all the issues his family and community underwent.
Freire is best known for his piece titled “The Banking Concept of Education,” which is part of his Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The title seems to express that education may be something that inserts information into the brains, or banks, of the students. This would imply that Freire believes that these students are nothing but slaves of a system that forces its beliefs in teachings down these students’ throats, or rather into their brains. This could very well end up being an attack on traditional education by identifying it as a power hungry institution.
As much praise Freire has received for his contribution to critical pedagogy, he has plenty of criticism as well. In fact, individuals such as Rich Gibson has classified Freire’s work as a mix of old-school socialism and liberal reformism. Being considered a Marxist is the most impactful criticism that Freire has had to date. To be associated with the likes of Marxism can be a wounding critique that turns many readers away from Freire’s work. It is clear though that his upbringing is the true cause of his views and he may have a great amount of emotional anger towards the traditional forms of education experienced in places such as the United States because of all the issues his family and community underwent.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Introduction Blog
My name is Chris Johnson and this is my blog web page for an online English 1C course through Sierra College. This is my last semester of junior college and I will be transferring to one of nine universities that I’ve applied to. My goals with my college education are to get into one of my top two universities I applied to, which are U.C.L.A. and U.C. Berkley, and to get a major in economics. I then plan on working on a PhD in economics so I can get into a profession in business forecasting or market analysis.
Aside from academics, I love to play and watch football. In fact, I plan on giving a walk on attempt a shot at whichever university I decide to go to next fall. I spend about 10-15 hours a week at the gym and the track together. I currently don’t have a job aside from an independent business I own through Amway Global which I am very off and on with. I’m actually job hunting for the moment for a part time personal training job. I received a personal training certification through the National Academy of Sports Medicine (N.A.S.M.) and hopefully my qualifications and knowledge can get me a credible part time job as a trainer. Work aside, I love to spend time with my family, girlfriend, and friends. I’m a big fan of eating out for any meal of the day. I have a vast knowledge in politics and economics which I spend countless hours following each week.
I am looking forward to writing essays on various topics in which critical thinking and argumentative strategies are exercised. My greatest strength as a writer is my delivery of facts and connecting them to my thesis. I make sure that my ideas are backed up by evidence and facts from credible sources. However, my biggest weakness in writing includes writing about topics that I share absolutely no interest in. This is something that always poses a challenge and causes me not to put nearly as much passion and drive into my writing as I would on a topic I have a greater deal of interest in. Throughout my experiences as a writer in high school and college though, this weakness of mine has become less and less of a problem.
Aside from academics, I love to play and watch football. In fact, I plan on giving a walk on attempt a shot at whichever university I decide to go to next fall. I spend about 10-15 hours a week at the gym and the track together. I currently don’t have a job aside from an independent business I own through Amway Global which I am very off and on with. I’m actually job hunting for the moment for a part time personal training job. I received a personal training certification through the National Academy of Sports Medicine (N.A.S.M.) and hopefully my qualifications and knowledge can get me a credible part time job as a trainer. Work aside, I love to spend time with my family, girlfriend, and friends. I’m a big fan of eating out for any meal of the day. I have a vast knowledge in politics and economics which I spend countless hours following each week.
I am looking forward to writing essays on various topics in which critical thinking and argumentative strategies are exercised. My greatest strength as a writer is my delivery of facts and connecting them to my thesis. I make sure that my ideas are backed up by evidence and facts from credible sources. However, my biggest weakness in writing includes writing about topics that I share absolutely no interest in. This is something that always poses a challenge and causes me not to put nearly as much passion and drive into my writing as I would on a topic I have a greater deal of interest in. Throughout my experiences as a writer in high school and college though, this weakness of mine has become less and less of a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
