http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
This paper is heavily informative and research based, so it doesn't include much of the writer's personal views except as research rather than opinion. That makes it so that the paper can be used be meant for a large audience, whether it's people who are decidedly against it or people who are just curious about the topic.
It starts out of course with an appeal to ethos by the bio detailing the writer's extensive schooling and work on the subject. Even the picture could be seen as an appeal to ethos, because it gives you a face behind the words, and he clearly looks intelligent, like a Professor.
Then there's the introduction which gives a bit of background to the debate. The body labels several myths and then follows them with facts. This provides an easy way for people to read the paper. While it can be said that the facts are just facts and not one-sided, the paper itself is clearly one-sided because there are no myths from the other side that are addressed. The list only includes misconceptions saying generally that violence in video games isn't that bad, but doesn't give any examples of myths on the side of why violence IS so bad. I think that is probably the paper's biggest weakness, that it does not sufficiently address counter arguments.
Of course, after the myth-fact section there is a part labeled "unanswered questions" which shows in a way humility on the writers part by him pointing out that he doesn't know everything. This helps to address counterarguments but is still insufficient. I think those reading the paper who have conflicting views with his would see the lack of a rounded argument. However, readers coming to the paper merely out of curiosity would probably walk away very much on his side.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Speech RA
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106611/quotes
This is a link to a quotes page for the movie "Cool Runnings". The part that I wanted to discuss is a scene that is quoted on this page where John Candy's charachter goes to talk to the board of directors for bobsledding at the Olympic games. The reason for it is that his team has just been disqualified based on embarrassment to the sport. The speech is pretty short, but I think it carries a lot of substance.
The scene begins with the character, Irwin, charging into the office very upset. The quoted part on this page starts a little after the scene actually begins. He asks a little bit for their reasonings and gets even more upset when their main reason is the problem of embarrassment, despite the fact that his team qualified based on time. He turns the argument around on them and shows them how childish their complaint is by saying "I'm sorry, I didn't realize four black men in a bobsled could make you blush!" Then he focuses in on the head of the board, who happens to be his old coach and relates what he feels is probably the main reason behind his team's expulsion: His old coach wanted payback for Irwin cheating back when they went to the Olympics and having their gold medal taken away. He lays it all out, so that everyone is on the same page and understands the issue. This to me is a form of logos, because by clearly stating the issues the problem can be seen from a more logical perspective.
He then makes what I see as another appeal to logos by saying that if they should just disqualify him, the coach, and not his whole team, which based on points already made, is a logical argument. Then he turns to pathos, by bringing up that his guys have done everything that was asked of them with everyone laughing in their faces. You can't help but feel sorry for those guys and definitely guilt if you're the one who was laughing at them. The next appeal to logos is to the feeling of pride that comes with the Olympic games, especially for people who head and organize the program. He reminds them of what the games are all about, and says that by doing what they're doing they are forgetting that. It's a powerful message to me as someone who loves the Olympics.
In the movie, the speech ends up having the desired affect when his team is reinstated, but even if that weren't the case the argument is sent home very well, and it is well adapted for his audience. These men are in charge of how the Olympics run and he shows them that they are missing the point of it all. Even if they were to not reinstate him, they could not completely fail to respect the message that he sent them.
This is a link to a quotes page for the movie "Cool Runnings". The part that I wanted to discuss is a scene that is quoted on this page where John Candy's charachter goes to talk to the board of directors for bobsledding at the Olympic games. The reason for it is that his team has just been disqualified based on embarrassment to the sport. The speech is pretty short, but I think it carries a lot of substance.
The scene begins with the character, Irwin, charging into the office very upset. The quoted part on this page starts a little after the scene actually begins. He asks a little bit for their reasonings and gets even more upset when their main reason is the problem of embarrassment, despite the fact that his team qualified based on time. He turns the argument around on them and shows them how childish their complaint is by saying "I'm sorry, I didn't realize four black men in a bobsled could make you blush!" Then he focuses in on the head of the board, who happens to be his old coach and relates what he feels is probably the main reason behind his team's expulsion: His old coach wanted payback for Irwin cheating back when they went to the Olympics and having their gold medal taken away. He lays it all out, so that everyone is on the same page and understands the issue. This to me is a form of logos, because by clearly stating the issues the problem can be seen from a more logical perspective.
He then makes what I see as another appeal to logos by saying that if they should just disqualify him, the coach, and not his whole team, which based on points already made, is a logical argument. Then he turns to pathos, by bringing up that his guys have done everything that was asked of them with everyone laughing in their faces. You can't help but feel sorry for those guys and definitely guilt if you're the one who was laughing at them. The next appeal to logos is to the feeling of pride that comes with the Olympic games, especially for people who head and organize the program. He reminds them of what the games are all about, and says that by doing what they're doing they are forgetting that. It's a powerful message to me as someone who loves the Olympics.
In the movie, the speech ends up having the desired affect when his team is reinstated, but even if that weren't the case the argument is sent home very well, and it is well adapted for his audience. These men are in charge of how the Olympics run and he shows them that they are missing the point of it all. Even if they were to not reinstate him, they could not completely fail to respect the message that he sent them.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5olLPmjVV24
I've got to say, I had a pretty hard time finding a good video for this. Maybe it's just because I don't watch too many music videos, but I had a hard time getting what the groups were trying to carry across with their videos. A lot of them I think are just trying to be creative or funny, or even just weird.
But alright, I'll get to it. I finally settled on a music video by Jimmy Eat World. I admit that part of the reason I chose it was because its message was pretty clear. But I also really like the music.
The song is called "work". I had to go through it a couple times to actually get what the message was, even though I already thought I understood it going in. To be honest, going into it I didn't realize that the main theme was largely about sex.
The video starts with some interviews of school kids, all around the age of 17, which is typical of kids who are graduating High School. They're all asked about their plans for the future and college is one of the main topics they bring up. One of the most important comments that I think is made is by the girl who says that parents shouldn't be so controlling because kids need to learn by experience because that's the same way the parents learned when they were young. Then we get to the music. As far as I can tell the lyrics are about a guy persuading his girlfriend to just go with the flow that night and not worry about what might happen. His argument is similar to that of the girl in the interview, that you can't predict the consequences so you should just let things happen and live with it.
To me, the main message throughout the first half of the video and song is that you shouldn't let your worries about what's going to happen stop you from living life. Towards the end it kind of shifts to a more serious message, with the lines that "work and play they're never OK, to mix the way we do". I think that this part is meant to carry across the message that if you have big dreams like going to a good college and getting the job you want then you have to work for it and not let yourself get distracted. The interviews at the end seem to follow this, with kids saying how excited they are to be the best they can.
I've got to say, I had a pretty hard time finding a good video for this. Maybe it's just because I don't watch too many music videos, but I had a hard time getting what the groups were trying to carry across with their videos. A lot of them I think are just trying to be creative or funny, or even just weird.
But alright, I'll get to it. I finally settled on a music video by Jimmy Eat World. I admit that part of the reason I chose it was because its message was pretty clear. But I also really like the music.
The song is called "work". I had to go through it a couple times to actually get what the message was, even though I already thought I understood it going in. To be honest, going into it I didn't realize that the main theme was largely about sex.
The video starts with some interviews of school kids, all around the age of 17, which is typical of kids who are graduating High School. They're all asked about their plans for the future and college is one of the main topics they bring up. One of the most important comments that I think is made is by the girl who says that parents shouldn't be so controlling because kids need to learn by experience because that's the same way the parents learned when they were young. Then we get to the music. As far as I can tell the lyrics are about a guy persuading his girlfriend to just go with the flow that night and not worry about what might happen. His argument is similar to that of the girl in the interview, that you can't predict the consequences so you should just let things happen and live with it.
To me, the main message throughout the first half of the video and song is that you shouldn't let your worries about what's going to happen stop you from living life. Towards the end it kind of shifts to a more serious message, with the lines that "work and play they're never OK, to mix the way we do". I think that this part is meant to carry across the message that if you have big dreams like going to a good college and getting the job you want then you have to work for it and not let yourself get distracted. The interviews at the end seem to follow this, with kids saying how excited they are to be the best they can.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Song: Johnny Cash "Cocaine Blues"
I think this song at first glance comes across as a glamorization of drugs, and that was partly why I chose it, because he definitely is trying to persuade people of somthing, just definitely not that! He makes it clear in the last line of the song what his purpose is, but people may not listen to the whole thing to hear that, especially because it's not included in his performance in the movie "Walk the Line".
A big part of the rhetoric he uses is definitely ethos. The song isn't a story about some other guy, it's sung from the first person, as if it was him who the story's about. Obviously it isn't really, because Johnny Cash never killed his wife and was never in jail, though he probably did do cocaine. So I think he tells the story in first person to make his audience believe that he knows what he's talking about. He also tell the story in such detail that it seems very credible. The story seems like it could very easily be true.
Logos could be said to be used in the way the story follows a very believable chain of events. The listener needs to be convinced that doing Cocaine can lead to all the craziness that he got himself into, and hence the detail involved in the story.
I'd say pathos is used in the way he makes the song entertaining and lively and fun, so that it doesn't feel like he's preaching to the audience. I'd especially refer to the line "I thought I was her daddy but she had five more". This line kind of makes you laugh, and it also kind of makes you feel bad for the singer because, which is a feeling that I think you're kind of supposed to have throughout the song. Another part that I think utilizes pathos is the last line, where he says "come on you've gotta listen up to me", because it makes you feel like he's talking to you, and, I don't know, in a way makes you not want to let him down or something.
As far as research goes, obviously with a song there's usually not too many works cited, and that's how it is with this song. Although I think with this song the lack of a valid source could be a weakness, because the audience will probably know that Johnny Cash isn't really talking about himself, and they may wonder "What does he know about going to jail?" and such. If the story is actually a true story then it may have been more credible to tell it as the story of whoever experienced it.
I think based on his audience, which was at times people in prison, but also I think his main audience outside of the prisons were people who were of the "rebel" type, because that's the kind of attitude that Johnny Cash displayed, the argument is very effective. They would probably then have accepted him as a leader and would have probably been OK with him giving them advice.
I think this song at first glance comes across as a glamorization of drugs, and that was partly why I chose it, because he definitely is trying to persuade people of somthing, just definitely not that! He makes it clear in the last line of the song what his purpose is, but people may not listen to the whole thing to hear that, especially because it's not included in his performance in the movie "Walk the Line".
A big part of the rhetoric he uses is definitely ethos. The song isn't a story about some other guy, it's sung from the first person, as if it was him who the story's about. Obviously it isn't really, because Johnny Cash never killed his wife and was never in jail, though he probably did do cocaine. So I think he tells the story in first person to make his audience believe that he knows what he's talking about. He also tell the story in such detail that it seems very credible. The story seems like it could very easily be true.
Logos could be said to be used in the way the story follows a very believable chain of events. The listener needs to be convinced that doing Cocaine can lead to all the craziness that he got himself into, and hence the detail involved in the story.
I'd say pathos is used in the way he makes the song entertaining and lively and fun, so that it doesn't feel like he's preaching to the audience. I'd especially refer to the line "I thought I was her daddy but she had five more". This line kind of makes you laugh, and it also kind of makes you feel bad for the singer because, which is a feeling that I think you're kind of supposed to have throughout the song. Another part that I think utilizes pathos is the last line, where he says "come on you've gotta listen up to me", because it makes you feel like he's talking to you, and, I don't know, in a way makes you not want to let him down or something.
As far as research goes, obviously with a song there's usually not too many works cited, and that's how it is with this song. Although I think with this song the lack of a valid source could be a weakness, because the audience will probably know that Johnny Cash isn't really talking about himself, and they may wonder "What does he know about going to jail?" and such. If the story is actually a true story then it may have been more credible to tell it as the story of whoever experienced it.
I think based on his audience, which was at times people in prison, but also I think his main audience outside of the prisons were people who were of the "rebel" type, because that's the kind of attitude that Johnny Cash displayed, the argument is very effective. They would probably then have accepted him as a leader and would have probably been OK with him giving them advice.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Response to: Paper A
I'd say my paper was focused mainly on pathos and logos, with little help from the ethos side of things, as my rather lame sources showed. I used a lot of my own opinions, but I never really gave any reasons for why people should respect my views, so I didn't really count as an authoritative figure or an expert. Even the sources I used were not so much used for their authoritative role, but for the logic they demonstrate.
In the first paragraph and elsewhere in the paper where I described the feelings of being in love I was making an appeal to pathos. My goal was to get people thinking about times when they've said "I love you" or heard it from someone else, because my paper was aimed towards people who had been in love before. I thought that if people could agree with how I was describing the feelings of saying "I love you" then they would be more willing to believe what I said throughout the rest of the paper.
The rest of the paper relies heavily on logos. The course of logical argument used is: The topic of love is confusing, and people have different ideas of what it means to say "I love you". Because guys and girls are so different, it's no surprise that they have different views. Also, there is the danger that people say it without meaning it. These problems pull away from the fact that the focus should be on the work required to make a relationship work.
The research I used is, I admit, not very sufficient to properly make the claims that I make. I don't use too many sources, and many of the ones I do use are not respectable sources by any means. The points made are, I believe, typical of what many believe, and they are accurately represented.
For some people this paper may have been effective. I'd say definitely for the people who often read opinion articles from relationship magazines and things like that. For those in my audience who are more accustomed to extensive research and more solidly built rhetoric it probably would not be too effective.
In the first paragraph and elsewhere in the paper where I described the feelings of being in love I was making an appeal to pathos. My goal was to get people thinking about times when they've said "I love you" or heard it from someone else, because my paper was aimed towards people who had been in love before. I thought that if people could agree with how I was describing the feelings of saying "I love you" then they would be more willing to believe what I said throughout the rest of the paper.
The rest of the paper relies heavily on logos. The course of logical argument used is: The topic of love is confusing, and people have different ideas of what it means to say "I love you". Because guys and girls are so different, it's no surprise that they have different views. Also, there is the danger that people say it without meaning it. These problems pull away from the fact that the focus should be on the work required to make a relationship work.
The research I used is, I admit, not very sufficient to properly make the claims that I make. I don't use too many sources, and many of the ones I do use are not respectable sources by any means. The points made are, I believe, typical of what many believe, and they are accurately represented.
For some people this paper may have been effective. I'd say definitely for the people who often read opinion articles from relationship magazines and things like that. For those in my audience who are more accustomed to extensive research and more solidly built rhetoric it probably would not be too effective.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Source for Paper B
http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed.htm
"Rights to Reg. Ed."
This article doesn't have a lot of opinionated writing, so I wasn't sure if I should use it, but I think it uses the form it does for a purpose, which I would say is to really push the ethos side of it. What this site says is not supposed to seem like someone's opinion, but just as the way things are, no questions asked. The court cases are an obvious appeal to ethos. You can't get a much more conclusive opinion than that of the courts. But then what's interesting to me is how they list the other rights besides legal, the moral, civil, etc. They're just listed right in line, in short statements, not really making much effort to persuade anybody, which is why I say that they want to make it look like the statements are the final verdict. This is of course not true because not everyone would agree that all children benefit from having the same experiences.
I see an appeal to pathos in the site's use of the Declaration of Independence and at the end the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance. These could also fall under the category of ethos, but I think it has an emotional feel to it because I think in our country the feeling of National pride is strong enough that anytime you refer to our legacy it brings out that sense of pride and loyalty.
The article definitely uses a lot of research to back up its legal rights section, because it uses about 20 court cases. But it seems like they use a lot of them to make up for the fact that none of them really make the direct point they want. They're searching to get a sufficient amount of research, but none of the cases come right out and say "kids should never be kept out of regular classrooms", so they just use a ton of them to try to make it sufficient by quantity rather than quality.
I think a point on the accuracy of the research has to be made that they only give you a tiny part of the ruling on each court case. Obviously it would be superfluous to put much more in, but when they only include so little, you have to wonder what the rest of the ruling on that case was, and whether that case really supports their argument when you look at it more in-depth.
I think the article is fairly effective, though I'd say if it included more explanation with the court cases, explaining what each of them has to do with inclusion, that it would've been more effective.
"Rights to Reg. Ed."
This article doesn't have a lot of opinionated writing, so I wasn't sure if I should use it, but I think it uses the form it does for a purpose, which I would say is to really push the ethos side of it. What this site says is not supposed to seem like someone's opinion, but just as the way things are, no questions asked. The court cases are an obvious appeal to ethos. You can't get a much more conclusive opinion than that of the courts. But then what's interesting to me is how they list the other rights besides legal, the moral, civil, etc. They're just listed right in line, in short statements, not really making much effort to persuade anybody, which is why I say that they want to make it look like the statements are the final verdict. This is of course not true because not everyone would agree that all children benefit from having the same experiences.
I see an appeal to pathos in the site's use of the Declaration of Independence and at the end the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance. These could also fall under the category of ethos, but I think it has an emotional feel to it because I think in our country the feeling of National pride is strong enough that anytime you refer to our legacy it brings out that sense of pride and loyalty.
The article definitely uses a lot of research to back up its legal rights section, because it uses about 20 court cases. But it seems like they use a lot of them to make up for the fact that none of them really make the direct point they want. They're searching to get a sufficient amount of research, but none of the cases come right out and say "kids should never be kept out of regular classrooms", so they just use a ton of them to try to make it sufficient by quantity rather than quality.
I think a point on the accuracy of the research has to be made that they only give you a tiny part of the ruling on each court case. Obviously it would be superfluous to put much more in, but when they only include so little, you have to wonder what the rest of the ruling on that case was, and whether that case really supports their argument when you look at it more in-depth.
I think the article is fairly effective, though I'd say if it included more explanation with the court cases, explaining what each of them has to do with inclusion, that it would've been more effective.
Friday, October 24, 2008
RA 7, movie trailer
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2313552153/
My movie trailer is from "The Dark Knight".
The trailer starts out with quick flashes of picture, accompanied by a loud noise. It seems to me that there are a couple purposes to this, besides the obvious of showing Batman jumping off a building, which is of course pretty cool. The others are first, that it gets your attention. Nothing like a loud noise to make people turn around. The other reason is that it lets the viewer know that this is an action movie. Action movies are characterized by quick, changing scenes. It keeps you on the edge of your seat because you don't know what's going to happen next. To me the opening of the trailer accomplishes that.
The next portion of the trailer I would characterize mainly as an appeal to pathos, but also ethos. It introduces what movie it is by showing the logo and the main characters. Showing the "DC" logo and the bat symbol appeal especially to ethos, because viewers think, "Oh, this isn't just some other movie, it's a series I'm familiar with". Showing the characters appeals to pathos, at least for those who saw the first movie and have gained a connection so to speak to these characters.
Here I should point out that this was the third trailer for this film, so at least the fans of the movie were already familiar with the plot line. That's important because in a way the trailer assumes the viewer knows who the Joker is. He doesn't get an introduction, he's just kind of there. That kind of makes me think the target audience was not people completely unfamiliar with the movie, but those who were already at least a little interested. Maybe then the hope was to prove to those people who had seen and like "Batman Begins" that this sequel was going to be equally good and not a disappointment.
That being said, I also think that the trailer was meant to reach a broad audience. It didn't just reach out to the Batman crowd, it also showed scenes about the relationship drama between Bruce and Rachel, which shows that the movie isn't just explosions and Batman taking out villians.
Finally, the last clip of the trailer is another appeal to pathos, by ending the trailer with a humorous dialogue between Alfred and Bruce. It ends it on a high note, leaving the viewer thinking "that would be a good one to see".
I think the trailer was effective in accomplishing its goal, at least as for me as a big fan of "Batman Begins" the trailer satisfied my hope that this movie would be as good as the first.
My movie trailer is from "The Dark Knight".
The trailer starts out with quick flashes of picture, accompanied by a loud noise. It seems to me that there are a couple purposes to this, besides the obvious of showing Batman jumping off a building, which is of course pretty cool. The others are first, that it gets your attention. Nothing like a loud noise to make people turn around. The other reason is that it lets the viewer know that this is an action movie. Action movies are characterized by quick, changing scenes. It keeps you on the edge of your seat because you don't know what's going to happen next. To me the opening of the trailer accomplishes that.
The next portion of the trailer I would characterize mainly as an appeal to pathos, but also ethos. It introduces what movie it is by showing the logo and the main characters. Showing the "DC" logo and the bat symbol appeal especially to ethos, because viewers think, "Oh, this isn't just some other movie, it's a series I'm familiar with". Showing the characters appeals to pathos, at least for those who saw the first movie and have gained a connection so to speak to these characters.
Here I should point out that this was the third trailer for this film, so at least the fans of the movie were already familiar with the plot line. That's important because in a way the trailer assumes the viewer knows who the Joker is. He doesn't get an introduction, he's just kind of there. That kind of makes me think the target audience was not people completely unfamiliar with the movie, but those who were already at least a little interested. Maybe then the hope was to prove to those people who had seen and like "Batman Begins" that this sequel was going to be equally good and not a disappointment.
That being said, I also think that the trailer was meant to reach a broad audience. It didn't just reach out to the Batman crowd, it also showed scenes about the relationship drama between Bruce and Rachel, which shows that the movie isn't just explosions and Batman taking out villians.
Finally, the last clip of the trailer is another appeal to pathos, by ending the trailer with a humorous dialogue between Alfred and Bruce. It ends it on a high note, leaving the viewer thinking "that would be a good one to see".
I think the trailer was effective in accomplishing its goal, at least as for me as a big fan of "Batman Begins" the trailer satisfied my hope that this movie would be as good as the first.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
RA 6, Visual Art
http://cfac.byu.edu/uploads/RTEmagicC_8d66579a21.jpg.jpg
This painting is "No place to go" by Maynard Dixon, from 1935.
I saw this painting in a section about American History at the Museum of Art at BYU. It was painted during the Great Depression, so it's pretty important to understand what kind of audience it was directed towards. Most of the people in the country had very little money, as there were few jobs. I imagine that most people were just searching for a way to make ends meet.
The man in this picture is carrying a sack over his shoulder. He's clearly trying to find a new home. What he has with him is probably all that he owns. However the clothes he's wearing don't seem to me as the kind of clothes someone wears when going on a long hike like he is. They're more like worker's clothes. I would interpret that as meaning he was recently a worker and has left that life to search for something new, but hasn't found anything.
The fence he's leaning up against stretches on both sides for as far as we can see. It represents a kind of prison keeping him from going further. Although he could easily go through it or over it, I think its main purpose is its representation of the end of the line. He's come as far as he could, and he didn't find what he was looking for.
I think the background carries a similar theme. I'm not completely sure but it looks to me like an ocean. When I see an open sea and a horizon like that it makes me think of freedom. However, his way to the sea and freedom is blocked by the mountains.
Also, the landscape that he's in is very dead. Other than the ugly grass, there isn't a living thing anywhere. No trees, or flowers, or any kind of animals. There isn't even any shade. This clearly isn't a place he wants to stay.
For all these reasons, I think the painting is portraying the emotion people had that they're searching for a way to get out of the situation they're in, but they really don't have anywhere to go.
This painting is "No place to go" by Maynard Dixon, from 1935.
I saw this painting in a section about American History at the Museum of Art at BYU. It was painted during the Great Depression, so it's pretty important to understand what kind of audience it was directed towards. Most of the people in the country had very little money, as there were few jobs. I imagine that most people were just searching for a way to make ends meet.
The man in this picture is carrying a sack over his shoulder. He's clearly trying to find a new home. What he has with him is probably all that he owns. However the clothes he's wearing don't seem to me as the kind of clothes someone wears when going on a long hike like he is. They're more like worker's clothes. I would interpret that as meaning he was recently a worker and has left that life to search for something new, but hasn't found anything.
The fence he's leaning up against stretches on both sides for as far as we can see. It represents a kind of prison keeping him from going further. Although he could easily go through it or over it, I think its main purpose is its representation of the end of the line. He's come as far as he could, and he didn't find what he was looking for.
I think the background carries a similar theme. I'm not completely sure but it looks to me like an ocean. When I see an open sea and a horizon like that it makes me think of freedom. However, his way to the sea and freedom is blocked by the mountains.
Also, the landscape that he's in is very dead. Other than the ugly grass, there isn't a living thing anywhere. No trees, or flowers, or any kind of animals. There isn't even any shade. This clearly isn't a place he wants to stay.
For all these reasons, I think the painting is portraying the emotion people had that they're searching for a way to get out of the situation they're in, but they really don't have anywhere to go.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Article for paper A
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-There-A-Difference-Between-Loving-Someone-and-Being-In-Love?&id=321212
This article is very general and that makes me think that it has a very broad target audience. The author uses questions that incorporate ideas for people who are in relationships, those who are going through break-ups, and probably even people who are not in a relationship at the time.
He uses numerous examples of what it means to be in love, as well as siting his own extensive research to boost his ethos. He clearly posts numerous articles, so he probably has a fan base of people who believe in what he says.
I think he uses the part of asking readers to ponder a couple questions in order to show them how confusing it is to find answers about what love is. That could be called an attempt at logos.
His argument is effective, although it seems to me that he kind of takes the easy way out. Anyone who sees this article and decides to read it will most likely do so because they are searching for an answer to the question "what does it mean to be in love?" His answer to that question is what the reader already suspected: there is no straight answer. Although that is an answer most everyone can agree with, that still shouldn't stop you from giving a try at a more extreme view.
This article is very general and that makes me think that it has a very broad target audience. The author uses questions that incorporate ideas for people who are in relationships, those who are going through break-ups, and probably even people who are not in a relationship at the time.
He uses numerous examples of what it means to be in love, as well as siting his own extensive research to boost his ethos. He clearly posts numerous articles, so he probably has a fan base of people who believe in what he says.
I think he uses the part of asking readers to ponder a couple questions in order to show them how confusing it is to find answers about what love is. That could be called an attempt at logos.
His argument is effective, although it seems to me that he kind of takes the easy way out. Anyone who sees this article and decides to read it will most likely do so because they are searching for an answer to the question "what does it mean to be in love?" His answer to that question is what the reader already suspected: there is no straight answer. Although that is an answer most everyone can agree with, that still shouldn't stop you from giving a try at a more extreme view.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
RA 3: Article/Editorial
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/neuheisel-game-bruins-2166335-fans-bruin
1. This article was printed in the Sports page of the Orange County Register. The audience is clearly sports fans, especially UCLA football fans.
2. What are the consequences of a football team's high exectations of success on the number of games they win?
3. The UCLA football team's high expectations of success have caused and will cause them to win less games because high expectations cause disappointment that messes with players heads.
4. Ethos: The author, Marcia C. Smith, publishes lots of articles in this newspaper, so many readers who pick up this article already know her and value her opinion. Several quotes by coach Rick Neuheisel are used to show that the opinion has come largely from the mouth of the coach himself.
Pathos: I see pathos in the way the author brings up the disappointment of players and fans alike, as if to say "you don't want to feel like this again, right?"
Logos: Showing quotes of what the coach is saying now "I appreciate the fans for staying" compared to what he used to say about contending for a national championship appeals to the logic that there is a clear difference in the outlook of the team from when the season started to now. There is also a connection made between the disappointment the fans feel and that which the players feel. The author points more than once how dejected the fans were after the losses. A reader of the column can't relate with how a player feels, but they certainly understand the feelings the fans have, considering many of the readers are fans. The author seems to use this feeling to say "if fans are feeling dejected, players are feeling the same way."
5. Sufficient: Several quotes from the coach and players are used, which are a perfect source for describing what has happened to the team. However, I don't feel like there was enough used, especially when the author describes the coach's expectations about the up-coming year. No quotes are used that show him talking about all they will accomplish. Also, there are no quotes from players or anyone on the team to back up the claim that disappointment and discouragement had anything to do with the losses. They might have simply been the worse team, and only the author's opinion contends that, which may or may not be enough for readers.
Typical: The author uses the feelings of the UCLA fan-base as a whole as a reference, so it is a typical opinion.
Accurate: The description of the coach firing up the team may or may not be exaggerated, as there are no direct quotes. The quotes by players and the coach are good sources.
Relevant: The sources, especially the scores of the last three games and reaction of the team to each of those games, are very relevant.
6. The author's purpose seems to be to not only point out what the problem has been for the UCLA team thus far, but to encourage readers who coach teams to not give their teams unjustified expectations. I think it would have the effect of giving a coach something to think about, however I feel that the claims the author makes are too stretched and not backed up enough to really cause a change of mindset.
1. This article was printed in the Sports page of the Orange County Register. The audience is clearly sports fans, especially UCLA football fans.
2. What are the consequences of a football team's high exectations of success on the number of games they win?
3. The UCLA football team's high expectations of success have caused and will cause them to win less games because high expectations cause disappointment that messes with players heads.
4. Ethos: The author, Marcia C. Smith, publishes lots of articles in this newspaper, so many readers who pick up this article already know her and value her opinion. Several quotes by coach Rick Neuheisel are used to show that the opinion has come largely from the mouth of the coach himself.
Pathos: I see pathos in the way the author brings up the disappointment of players and fans alike, as if to say "you don't want to feel like this again, right?"
Logos: Showing quotes of what the coach is saying now "I appreciate the fans for staying" compared to what he used to say about contending for a national championship appeals to the logic that there is a clear difference in the outlook of the team from when the season started to now. There is also a connection made between the disappointment the fans feel and that which the players feel. The author points more than once how dejected the fans were after the losses. A reader of the column can't relate with how a player feels, but they certainly understand the feelings the fans have, considering many of the readers are fans. The author seems to use this feeling to say "if fans are feeling dejected, players are feeling the same way."
5. Sufficient: Several quotes from the coach and players are used, which are a perfect source for describing what has happened to the team. However, I don't feel like there was enough used, especially when the author describes the coach's expectations about the up-coming year. No quotes are used that show him talking about all they will accomplish. Also, there are no quotes from players or anyone on the team to back up the claim that disappointment and discouragement had anything to do with the losses. They might have simply been the worse team, and only the author's opinion contends that, which may or may not be enough for readers.
Typical: The author uses the feelings of the UCLA fan-base as a whole as a reference, so it is a typical opinion.
Accurate: The description of the coach firing up the team may or may not be exaggerated, as there are no direct quotes. The quotes by players and the coach are good sources.
Relevant: The sources, especially the scores of the last three games and reaction of the team to each of those games, are very relevant.
6. The author's purpose seems to be to not only point out what the problem has been for the UCLA team thus far, but to encourage readers who coach teams to not give their teams unjustified expectations. I think it would have the effect of giving a coach something to think about, however I feel that the claims the author makes are too stretched and not backed up enough to really cause a change of mindset.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Response to tv ad
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x58nii_maybe-its-my-fault-michael-jordan-c_sport
Before I get into the rhetoric used in this advertisement I think it would be important to discuss the ad's purpose, including target audience. This is a Gatorade commercial featuring Michael Jordan. However, Gatorade itself is never brought up intil the logo is shown at the end of the ad. A non-sports-fan viewer may not understand what this ad has to do with Gatorade, but I, being a sports enthusiast, will hereby point this out: Gatorade ads are run usually during sports presentations, and are used to associate all that is good about sports with their product. I think the direction Gatorade is trying to go is to make their product and sport inseperable in the eyes of viewers, and to encourage and motivate them to participate in sports, which will not only make them drink Gatorade because it helps with performance, but because they're VERY thirsty!
Ethos: The obvious point here is that it's Michael Jordan talking. Who knows more about success in sports than he does? Anyone who knows what he's done will at least listen to him, and most will believe what he says. Also, the commercial shows some of his accomplishments, which reinforces his reputation. Another thing I noticed is that in the commercial he's talking to a group of young basketball players, seemingly as a coach. This gives the viewer the feeling that they themselves are being coached, and have a great deal to gain from what this man is saying.
Pathos: This one depends a lot on the viewer knowing Michal Jordan. The slide show of his career is used to bring out a feeling of awe at everything he accomplished. You also see and hear about the struggles he went through, which makes him seem human. This has a motivating effect because the viewer sees that he's a normal person with weaknesses, but he still did amazing things. The music has a similar motivational effect. Also, Jordan's last sentence that "maybe you're just making excuses" creates a feeling of guilt where the viewer thinks "maybe I DO just need to stop making excuses and go out and try."
Logos: The logic used here is that if Michael Jordan sometimes failed, and had to motivate himself to stick with it and keep going, you might also have the same success he had if you motivate yourself to word hard. At the end it's implied that he didn't ruin the game, because sports fans know they still love basketball, thus the only reason left that he gives for most people's lack of success is that they make excuses instead of getting back up when they fall down.
Before I get into the rhetoric used in this advertisement I think it would be important to discuss the ad's purpose, including target audience. This is a Gatorade commercial featuring Michael Jordan. However, Gatorade itself is never brought up intil the logo is shown at the end of the ad. A non-sports-fan viewer may not understand what this ad has to do with Gatorade, but I, being a sports enthusiast, will hereby point this out: Gatorade ads are run usually during sports presentations, and are used to associate all that is good about sports with their product. I think the direction Gatorade is trying to go is to make their product and sport inseperable in the eyes of viewers, and to encourage and motivate them to participate in sports, which will not only make them drink Gatorade because it helps with performance, but because they're VERY thirsty!
Ethos: The obvious point here is that it's Michael Jordan talking. Who knows more about success in sports than he does? Anyone who knows what he's done will at least listen to him, and most will believe what he says. Also, the commercial shows some of his accomplishments, which reinforces his reputation. Another thing I noticed is that in the commercial he's talking to a group of young basketball players, seemingly as a coach. This gives the viewer the feeling that they themselves are being coached, and have a great deal to gain from what this man is saying.
Pathos: This one depends a lot on the viewer knowing Michal Jordan. The slide show of his career is used to bring out a feeling of awe at everything he accomplished. You also see and hear about the struggles he went through, which makes him seem human. This has a motivating effect because the viewer sees that he's a normal person with weaknesses, but he still did amazing things. The music has a similar motivational effect. Also, Jordan's last sentence that "maybe you're just making excuses" creates a feeling of guilt where the viewer thinks "maybe I DO just need to stop making excuses and go out and try."
Logos: The logic used here is that if Michael Jordan sometimes failed, and had to motivate himself to stick with it and keep going, you might also have the same success he had if you motivate yourself to word hard. At the end it's implied that he didn't ruin the game, because sports fans know they still love basketball, thus the only reason left that he gives for most people's lack of success is that they make excuses instead of getting back up when they fall down.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Response to advertisement
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/505438675_df7a1f0a11.jpg?v=0
For this advertisement I'm not entirely sure in what kind of magazine it may have shown up. I am pretty sure, though, that it is directed towards young adults, especially those who are surrounded by parties and still in school.
Ethos: The fact that it says the drink helped her through medical school depicts her as someone who's graduated, and thus someone whom a college student could look up to. She's been there, she made it through, she had some fun along the way, and this product is how she did it. She's even wearing a stethoscope to show that she's a doctor. The other clothes she has on, like the headband, are to show that she parties a lot. She's also student-age, so for another student seeing it it shows that the drink will have a similar effect on him as it does on her. Also, the drink itself is front and center in the picture, giving the effect that it was really just the drink, not her skills, that got her through medical school.
Pathos: One of the first things I notice about the ad is the bright orange color. It's very bright and catches your attention, giving the effect that this product is exciting and fun. The smile on her face carries across the idea that using the product will make you happy. Also the fact that she's saying it "got me through medical school" instead of "it helped me go to parties and still get through medical school" would have you think that you can't go to school without partying. And if you do then you must be REALLY boring! So it makes a person feel the need for excitement in their life.
Logos: With what she says at the bottom she would have you believe that it is really unbelievable that she made it through medical school. This works, because people don't usually associate medical students with frequent party-goers. Her claim, however, is not simply that this drink will get anyone through medical school, but that it will get you through ANYthing. That is obviously a little exaggerated, but it carries across the point that the drink will help you accomplish whatever it is you're going for, and not just medical school.
For this advertisement I'm not entirely sure in what kind of magazine it may have shown up. I am pretty sure, though, that it is directed towards young adults, especially those who are surrounded by parties and still in school.
Ethos: The fact that it says the drink helped her through medical school depicts her as someone who's graduated, and thus someone whom a college student could look up to. She's been there, she made it through, she had some fun along the way, and this product is how she did it. She's even wearing a stethoscope to show that she's a doctor. The other clothes she has on, like the headband, are to show that she parties a lot. She's also student-age, so for another student seeing it it shows that the drink will have a similar effect on him as it does on her. Also, the drink itself is front and center in the picture, giving the effect that it was really just the drink, not her skills, that got her through medical school.
Pathos: One of the first things I notice about the ad is the bright orange color. It's very bright and catches your attention, giving the effect that this product is exciting and fun. The smile on her face carries across the idea that using the product will make you happy. Also the fact that she's saying it "got me through medical school" instead of "it helped me go to parties and still get through medical school" would have you think that you can't go to school without partying. And if you do then you must be REALLY boring! So it makes a person feel the need for excitement in their life.
Logos: With what she says at the bottom she would have you believe that it is really unbelievable that she made it through medical school. This works, because people don't usually associate medical students with frequent party-goers. Her claim, however, is not simply that this drink will get anyone through medical school, but that it will get you through ANYthing. That is obviously a little exaggerated, but it carries across the point that the drink will help you accomplish whatever it is you're going for, and not just medical school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)