I found this article to be disturbing on so many levels. Where do humans get the idea that they can "play God" and replicate feelings, personality, or a body without natural conception? We have gone to the extent of creating beings that have no forebrain therefore they are not considered cognitive humans but rather organ farms. I completely agree with the author Charles Krauthammer when he says that producing headless humans is "personally distasteful" (Krauthammer).
Although Krauthammer does not have a specifically outlined thesis, he poses two contrasting rhetorical questions that pose the argument. At the beginning of the third paragraph he asks "why then create them?" to give an adverse thought to the creation of these organ farms. He seemingly justifies it by playing it off as something that has no consciousness and therefore won't be bothered by the fact they are born just for their pieces. So again he asks the audience, "why should you be panicked?" He allows the reader to formulate an opinion before giving supporting evidence about why this research is morally wrong.
Krauthammer brings a lot of emotion and passion to the argument, its obvious that he feels very strongly against the manufacturing of humans as a source for organs. His finally sentence sums up everything and really drives his feelings on the whole essay- "There is no grosser corruption of biotechnology than creating a human mutant and disemboweling it at our pleasure for spare parts" (Krauthammer). We as humans do not have the right to reproduce such a precious thing as a human life only to throw it away after it has been taken apart.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Argument Analysis 9- "Movie Ratings"
First of all who is the MPAA anyway? Who is this mysterious group of poeple that we have deemed capable of giving accurate and unbiased movie ratings to the country? Ever since I was a kid my parents always did research before taking my brother, sister, and me to the movies simply because ratings cannot be trusted. Since different people have different ethics and morals is it really conceiveable that we can have an across-the-board standard rating system?
As much as I agree with this article I completely dissagree with how it is written. By throwing in all these rediculous words with way too many syllables, it confuses the reader and interrupts the flow of the argument. There are ways of explaining things at a higher literary level without letting the reader get frustrated. Obviously they are catering to a certain audience but I can't help to think that if the vocabulary was slightly altered it might appeal to a greater number of people.
Despite the vocabulary, I like the template they use to formulate the argument. It is clearly defined with the thesis in the beginning with following supporting evidence. Although the argument is clearly stated the whole article lacks any emotion. There is no passion or voice that is apparent other than the style of higher level literary writers. This may be due to the fact that the debate was a collaboration of several people so individual feelings where blended with those of their fellow writers.
Although I agree with the article and for the point they are trying to prove, it was poorly executed. The format was of a typical argumentative style but the reason for wanting to change the movie rating system was lost in a jungle of overboard vocabulary.
As much as I agree with this article I completely dissagree with how it is written. By throwing in all these rediculous words with way too many syllables, it confuses the reader and interrupts the flow of the argument. There are ways of explaining things at a higher literary level without letting the reader get frustrated. Obviously they are catering to a certain audience but I can't help to think that if the vocabulary was slightly altered it might appeal to a greater number of people.
Despite the vocabulary, I like the template they use to formulate the argument. It is clearly defined with the thesis in the beginning with following supporting evidence. Although the argument is clearly stated the whole article lacks any emotion. There is no passion or voice that is apparent other than the style of higher level literary writers. This may be due to the fact that the debate was a collaboration of several people so individual feelings where blended with those of their fellow writers.
Although I agree with the article and for the point they are trying to prove, it was poorly executed. The format was of a typical argumentative style but the reason for wanting to change the movie rating system was lost in a jungle of overboard vocabulary.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Argument Analysis 8- "Nuclear Waste"
As pertinent as the topic of nuclear waste is, I don't feel as if the average person really has any impact. It seems as if the world of science that deals with nuclear waste should be left to the physicists, not everyday people. The cause is just but it is way too far over my head to even begin to comprehend the minute details of advanced chemistry involving radioactive materials.
It is obvious that Richard Muller wrote this argument for a crowd of fellow physicists. It is full of confusing statistics and science jargon that gets lost in a jumble to the common human being. After all who really understands the concept of radioactive materials and their half-life? It is not until the portion of the argument titled My Confession that Muller begins to make any real sense. He begins by explaining the consequences of storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain which is a valid controversy. However he ruins it by throwing around large numbers and percentages that make the rest of the argument impossible to read.
Clearly this is not meant to be a literary argument but he is more or less writing a research paper and proving scientifically why nuclear waste is a threat to the environment. Muller uses no voice, no style but instead uses his knowledge of the world of physics and chemistry to present a dull and repetitive debate. He has gone overboard on logos and has not incorporated any pathos whatsoever. The last three paragraphs seem to the be the most important since they explain that if the threat was not real, then why are scientists working so hard to fix it? Finally, at the end Muller incorporates something the reader can actually connect with.
Overall, this paper is meant for a different crowd of people. If the threat is really that important to our future, I would think that Muller would write it for a wider audience- not just those that understand upper level chemistry.
It is obvious that Richard Muller wrote this argument for a crowd of fellow physicists. It is full of confusing statistics and science jargon that gets lost in a jumble to the common human being. After all who really understands the concept of radioactive materials and their half-life? It is not until the portion of the argument titled My Confession that Muller begins to make any real sense. He begins by explaining the consequences of storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain which is a valid controversy. However he ruins it by throwing around large numbers and percentages that make the rest of the argument impossible to read.
Clearly this is not meant to be a literary argument but he is more or less writing a research paper and proving scientifically why nuclear waste is a threat to the environment. Muller uses no voice, no style but instead uses his knowledge of the world of physics and chemistry to present a dull and repetitive debate. He has gone overboard on logos and has not incorporated any pathos whatsoever. The last three paragraphs seem to the be the most important since they explain that if the threat was not real, then why are scientists working so hard to fix it? Finally, at the end Muller incorporates something the reader can actually connect with.
Overall, this paper is meant for a different crowd of people. If the threat is really that important to our future, I would think that Muller would write it for a wider audience- not just those that understand upper level chemistry.
Argument Analysis 7- "Why We Crave Horror Movies"
Although I completely disagree with Stephen King I do admire his style of writing in this argument. He uses a great amount of humor and narcissistic sarcasm that really appeal to a reader and make it easy to understand his point of view. Through his use of grimy, creepy, yet vivid visuals that are so typically Stephen King, the reader has the opportunity to connect to him through the use of imagination.
Stephen King immediately draws us in with his attention-grabbing first line of "I think we're all mentally ill" (King). He uses distinct character descriptions of people we all know that allow us to correlate with his claim. I never though that I would have anything in common with master horror writer Stephen King but he even grabs my attention in the first paragraph. I believe his thesis is his first line- the reason we crave horror movies is that we are all mentally ill. He states what is wrong with society and then proceeds to explain why this is the reason for our horror movie craze. King is excellent at not following a typical argumentative template but rather, states the problem, poses the question why, and then answers with visuals and everyday applications.
King uses supporting evidence by explaining the degrees of our insanity and that we are not all Jack the Ripper. We are simply humans with fears and we try and prove that we can face these fears by sitting in a dark room and watching a movie. This is where King's use of voice and style come into play. By convincing the audience that we have varying degrees of insanity and a want to "re-establish our feelings of essential normality," he justifies the reason for society's want to see horror movies. He plays it off as simply wanting to go have fun even if it is a distorted and sick type of fun. Horror movies are a peaceful way to release this emotion that would otherwise make us end up in a prison cell.
King uses the metaphor of an alligator pit as the excuse for watching these movies- if we feed the alligators it keeps them at bay and they don't want to escape. Same with these violent inclinations that we apparently house in our brain- if we feed the violence on occasion those violent tendencies aren't released.
Stephen King immediately draws us in with his attention-grabbing first line of "I think we're all mentally ill" (King). He uses distinct character descriptions of people we all know that allow us to correlate with his claim. I never though that I would have anything in common with master horror writer Stephen King but he even grabs my attention in the first paragraph. I believe his thesis is his first line- the reason we crave horror movies is that we are all mentally ill. He states what is wrong with society and then proceeds to explain why this is the reason for our horror movie craze. King is excellent at not following a typical argumentative template but rather, states the problem, poses the question why, and then answers with visuals and everyday applications.
King uses supporting evidence by explaining the degrees of our insanity and that we are not all Jack the Ripper. We are simply humans with fears and we try and prove that we can face these fears by sitting in a dark room and watching a movie. This is where King's use of voice and style come into play. By convincing the audience that we have varying degrees of insanity and a want to "re-establish our feelings of essential normality," he justifies the reason for society's want to see horror movies. He plays it off as simply wanting to go have fun even if it is a distorted and sick type of fun. Horror movies are a peaceful way to release this emotion that would otherwise make us end up in a prison cell.
King uses the metaphor of an alligator pit as the excuse for watching these movies- if we feed the alligators it keeps them at bay and they don't want to escape. Same with these violent inclinations that we apparently house in our brain- if we feed the violence on occasion those violent tendencies aren't released.
Argument Analysis 6- "Life Is Precious, or It's Not"
Barbara Kingsolver has chosen to tackle a growing problem in our society and has done a wonderful job at convincing the reader through the masterful use of emotion. By starting with a direct allusion to a major tragedy that we as a country experienced together, she grabs our attention with the Columbine Shooting to prove that extreme violence is never "senseless." Through powerful emotion, Kingsolver allows us to see the horrors of our society and challenges us to change with way we deal with problems not just in our own homes but as a country as well.
In her gripping first line, "Columbine used to be one of my favorite flowers" (Kingsolver), she immediately hooks the reader. By using the story of a national tradegy she begins to unite us and connect with us on an extremely emotional level. Through her use of pathos the reader is driven towards her explanation of why? How is it possible that people are fueled to commit such terrible acts of terror? Her use of rhetorical questions gives the reader a chance to change their way of thinking and perhaps answer for themselves why our society is major factor in extreme violence. "...why are we so quick to assume that guns and bombs are the answer?" (Kingsolver)
Kingsolver gives excellent supporting arguments such as we feel as a society that killing is manly and therefore it appeals to young men. In our short history as a country we have always solved major problems with wars, dropping bombs, and killing innocent people simply to prove a point. Kingsolver makes us see the connection between seemingly "senseless" acts such as school shootings and the decisions we make everyday- violence is never "without cause." Not only do we solve problems with war but we fill our homes with violent TV shows, games, and music. To drive her argument, Kingsolver challenges the American public to change starting within our own homes. "Those of us who agree to this contract can start my removing from our households and lives every television program, video game, film, book, toy, and CD that presents the killing of humans (however symbolic) as an entertainment option, rather than the appalling loss it really is" (Kingsolver).
Through her use of voice it's as if she is almost reprimanding us as a country for indirectly supporting this violence. Though she does not clearly define a thesis, her whole argument is the main point that we should pay attention to. Kingsolver challenges us to change for the sake of our future- "Let's be honest. Death is extreme, and the children are paying attention" (Kingsolver).
In her gripping first line, "Columbine used to be one of my favorite flowers" (Kingsolver), she immediately hooks the reader. By using the story of a national tradegy she begins to unite us and connect with us on an extremely emotional level. Through her use of pathos the reader is driven towards her explanation of why? How is it possible that people are fueled to commit such terrible acts of terror? Her use of rhetorical questions gives the reader a chance to change their way of thinking and perhaps answer for themselves why our society is major factor in extreme violence. "...why are we so quick to assume that guns and bombs are the answer?" (Kingsolver)
Kingsolver gives excellent supporting arguments such as we feel as a society that killing is manly and therefore it appeals to young men. In our short history as a country we have always solved major problems with wars, dropping bombs, and killing innocent people simply to prove a point. Kingsolver makes us see the connection between seemingly "senseless" acts such as school shootings and the decisions we make everyday- violence is never "without cause." Not only do we solve problems with war but we fill our homes with violent TV shows, games, and music. To drive her argument, Kingsolver challenges the American public to change starting within our own homes. "Those of us who agree to this contract can start my removing from our households and lives every television program, video game, film, book, toy, and CD that presents the killing of humans (however symbolic) as an entertainment option, rather than the appalling loss it really is" (Kingsolver).
Through her use of voice it's as if she is almost reprimanding us as a country for indirectly supporting this violence. Though she does not clearly define a thesis, her whole argument is the main point that we should pay attention to. Kingsolver challenges us to change for the sake of our future- "Let's be honest. Death is extreme, and the children are paying attention" (Kingsolver).
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Argument Analysis 5- "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?"
Beverly Tatum provokes the controversial subject of racism in today's society. Even after many attempts over hundreds of years, racial grouping is still prevalent in our world. As a psychologist, Tatum can give us as readers another dimension of how humans think and behave and that becomes evident as she explains this issue.
Tatum immediately begins by stating the direction of the article. As we have seen in other arguments she applies the affective technique of using rhetorical questions. This allows a reader to acknowledge the point Tatum is making and then have time to decide how they would answer. She incorporates pathos and logos together by reiterating what happens to children as they begin to mature and interact with each other not only in schools but in the neighborhood as well. She is not only addressing the issue at hand but also giving us insight into psychological reasons why racial grouping may occur.
Tatum tends to follow a template for the essay. She states a point, gives a few examples, follows it with a personal experience by using her son in the essay, then lists the reasons that prove her point. However the template is effective; after the explanation of what happens to children as they mature she breaks up the facts with a real example by using her son. Unfortunately, the conclusion never finishes up the argument. It stops so abruptly the reader almost has to re-read the final paragraph just to find the summation of the article.
While Tatum starts off strong by backing her argument with psychological evidence, her conclusion fails to bring everything together and prevents it from being a strong, convincing argument.
Tatum immediately begins by stating the direction of the article. As we have seen in other arguments she applies the affective technique of using rhetorical questions. This allows a reader to acknowledge the point Tatum is making and then have time to decide how they would answer. She incorporates pathos and logos together by reiterating what happens to children as they begin to mature and interact with each other not only in schools but in the neighborhood as well. She is not only addressing the issue at hand but also giving us insight into psychological reasons why racial grouping may occur.
Tatum tends to follow a template for the essay. She states a point, gives a few examples, follows it with a personal experience by using her son in the essay, then lists the reasons that prove her point. However the template is effective; after the explanation of what happens to children as they mature she breaks up the facts with a real example by using her son. Unfortunately, the conclusion never finishes up the argument. It stops so abruptly the reader almost has to re-read the final paragraph just to find the summation of the article.
While Tatum starts off strong by backing her argument with psychological evidence, her conclusion fails to bring everything together and prevents it from being a strong, convincing argument.
Argument Analysis 4- "Crack and the Box"
Of all the valid arguments, finally someone is posing the question why? Pete Hamill intellectually illustrates the relationship between the television and why Americans do drugs. We know drugs are harmful, we know that people still do them but has anyone stopped to figure out why? Hamill begins with yet another story about a broken family that has been destroyed by drug addiction. He mentions that this story has been told over and over and yet it still has the same outcome. The drug addiction is a vicious cycle that not only affects the addicted but those around the addicted.
Hamill immediately begins tugging at the heartstrings of the readers. Within the first paragraph he has already sucked you in so completely by gripping opening lines such as- "One sad rainy morning last winter, I talked to a woman who was addicted to crack cocaine" (Hamill). In the first sentence Hamill as already launched a full force of pathos to lock the reader into finding out more. After a short description of the sad lonely addicts that he encounters, the direction of the argument is stated bluntly in the third paragraph- "Why?"
Hamill uses a rhetorical question to further involve the reader. This allows the reader to begin to think of their own response as Hamill's response begins to unfold while they divulge deeper into the essay. He has opened up the ability for imagination while maintaining his view of the issue. After posing the question "why" he gives a series of short explanations that lead up to his thesis which is that television is the reason we have so many drug addicts.
The use of style and voice are essential in this essay as it helps Hamill's emotion leap off the page. He makes it an everyday conversation by not using ridiculous vocabulary- he is simply talking. This could easily have taken place between two people and therefore it makes it readable and easy to understand. He alludes to personal past experiences about the history of TV and how it affected his life. Also we get a sense of anger by his disgust for the government and how they have handled drug addictions now and in the past. He uses sarcasm and curtly states his opinion with the occasional slur or common names for objects that readers can connect with.
Overall he effectively argues why TV has corrupted our society and promotes addictions to hard drugs. Hamill uses extreme emotion to grip the reader with a necessary amount of statistics, history, and data to further better his already blunt argument.
Hamill immediately begins tugging at the heartstrings of the readers. Within the first paragraph he has already sucked you in so completely by gripping opening lines such as- "One sad rainy morning last winter, I talked to a woman who was addicted to crack cocaine" (Hamill). In the first sentence Hamill as already launched a full force of pathos to lock the reader into finding out more. After a short description of the sad lonely addicts that he encounters, the direction of the argument is stated bluntly in the third paragraph- "Why?"
Hamill uses a rhetorical question to further involve the reader. This allows the reader to begin to think of their own response as Hamill's response begins to unfold while they divulge deeper into the essay. He has opened up the ability for imagination while maintaining his view of the issue. After posing the question "why" he gives a series of short explanations that lead up to his thesis which is that television is the reason we have so many drug addicts.
The use of style and voice are essential in this essay as it helps Hamill's emotion leap off the page. He makes it an everyday conversation by not using ridiculous vocabulary- he is simply talking. This could easily have taken place between two people and therefore it makes it readable and easy to understand. He alludes to personal past experiences about the history of TV and how it affected his life. Also we get a sense of anger by his disgust for the government and how they have handled drug addictions now and in the past. He uses sarcasm and curtly states his opinion with the occasional slur or common names for objects that readers can connect with.
Overall he effectively argues why TV has corrupted our society and promotes addictions to hard drugs. Hamill uses extreme emotion to grip the reader with a necessary amount of statistics, history, and data to further better his already blunt argument.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)