Documentation Quiz

1. MLA format
2. "Works Cited" page
3. Author. Title of Web Page. Name of Website. Date of Posting/Revision. Name of institution or organization. Web. Date accessed.

Essay 2 Prewriting

Claim/thesis (in progress): Amy Chua's arguments are not only offensive to western mothers and fathers, they instigate and reignite age-old stereotypes based on ignorant and illogical claims--most of which lack true evidence.


-offensive
-ignorant
-labeling/stereotypes/racist
-backwards
-title=tone ("Why Chinese Mothers are Superior")...
-snooty
-egotistical
-"I'm-better-than-everyone-else" mindset;
-"I'm-right-and-you're-wrong/stupid-for-thinking-the-way-you-do" mindset
-condescending
-doesn't provide much evidence...only personal experiences and thus has a very closed mind/view
-Not understanding; I would be more accepting of her standpoints if she wasn't so in-your-face about how she's right and everyone else is wrong; she never once says "this is my view, that is yours, and I'm okay with that. Believe what you want to believe"...never. She just prods and criticizes western motherhood and childhood to the point where I cannot accept her viewpoints,. only argue back about how SHE is wrong
-building her children to be robots; not freethinkers; no lives/personalities, but just a human machine
-interesting how her husband doesn't believe in what she does, but allows her to anyways
-destroying her children's self-esteem by calling them SERIOUSLY offensive things
-look for evidence/stats on how Chinese students/children might have depression/suicidal thoughts/self-esteem issues/other problems
-are they HAPPIER as a result of this form of parenting? I'd guess not...they must be miserable out of their minds

Reflection 1.2

In my revision of the essay, I not only edited the paper grammatically by fixing several awkward phrases, using more interesting and provoking words, etc., I added another paragraph near the end of the paper that analyzed the choice of occasion for the paper. I spoke of how Weintraut neglected to utilize pathos through mentioning the Arizona shooting--her occasion for writing the editorial. I thought these were valid and interesting points to note, and I'm glad I added them.

Essay 1.2: Missed Opportunities: Rhetorical Analysis of “Government should create stricter gun laws”

A recent editorial published in The Ithacan entitled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” analyzes gun laws and restrictions—or, more importantly, the lack thereof—in the United States. The author, Megan Weintraut, discusses the dangers and weaknesses of the current laws in place that regulate gun ownership and accessibility. Her argument, embedded in and cushioned by plethora of factual evidence, seeks to sway the reader’s opinion on gun control in the United States to be in favor of stricter gun laws. While Weintraut succeeds to an extent from a structural and organizational perspective, her editorial is regrettably weak, providing sufficient “logos” and “pathos,” but lacking true “ethos,” and thus degrading her contentions into weak and vague assumptions.

Weintraut initially introduces the issue with a sound and pertinent claim; while the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution may have been relevant and sensible when it was drafted, it may not be as valid or safe of a law today as it used to be (par. 1-2). She provides sufficient background information for the intended reader, or audience—presumably, Ithaca College students, staff, and affiliates—while seamlessly utilizing “logos” by demonstrating research, information, and key facts that aid the reader in understanding her approach and opinions. By claiming that “guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival…[so] why bother owning one?”, Weintraut further appeals to logic, indicating how guns are unimportant and only detrimental to everyday survival (par. 2). She cleverly suggests the vanity and needlessness of owning an armed weapon before inserting her opinions into the midst of questions.

Weintraut continues her editorial with several paragraphs dedicated to convincing her audience that guns are detrimental through the consistent use of factual evidence. While many of the facts used are relevant and persuasive, most lack the “logic” aspect of “logos,” thus dismantling the credibility of the article, or “ethos.” For instance, she notes that “violence in the media constantly reinforces destructive behavior” by “associating violence with humor” and “desensitize[ing] the dangers of guns” (par. 4). Whereas earlier in the editorial she provides a surplus of factual evidence to support her claims, here, Weintraut confuses opinion with fact. Mixing fact with opinion is not only confusing to the reader, but diminishes her intended purpose to persuade the audience. Assumptions such as these can neither be cited nor proven; a presumption is not a source of logical evidence to support her claim. Furthermore, her credibility is debilitated and limited as she is currently a mere student and citizen, rather than a qualified professional with a degree in the subject matter she is discussing.

Likewise, the structure and purpose are equally confusing. The editorial shifts topics constantly; the article therefore lacks overall focus. The title, for instance, has little to do with the remainder of the article. The argument is initially introduced in a clean and sensible manner, but the solid structure and presentation of the beginning slowly deteriorates as the article presses forward. Weintraut provides cluttered and skewed suggestions for what the government should change to regulate gun control and how they should change it. There is no clear flow of her argument; she shifts from background information, to providing factual and statistical data as evidence, to blaming the media for irresponsible gun use, and finally to suggestions for how to solve the “problem.” Because of all of this, the reasoning and evidence behind her claim is weak due to of the overall lack of focus.

The occasion is, likewise, equally unclear; while the editorial was most likely written as a response to the recent Arizona shooting tragedy, this was never made clear in her argument. Because of this, Weintraut missed yet another opportunity to persuade her audience. To make her argument even stronger, she could have focused even more on the “pathos,” or the emotional appeal of the tragedy, citing how the shooting of could have been prevented were American gun laws stricter. She only mentions the shooting on two occasions in the article, and never truly grasps her audience’s emotional attachment to the event as a result. Instead of arbitrarily and irrelevantly focusing on her claim that video games and other media should be blamed for desensitizing much of modern American culture, she could have utilized the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman and several innocent bystanders and used it to her advantage—strengthening her argument by tugging at the emotions of her audience.

Because much of the argument is based on opinion and interpretation, the most significant aspect that is absent from the editorial is the argument’s consideration, acknowledgement and response of opposing or other views. While the article does not necessarily waste time discussing or presenting needless information, more should have been spent addressing some of the other perspectives. At the same time, some of her arguments are weakened by obvious or glaring counterpoints that she neglects to address. For instance, she mentions how “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time,” although several states do have some limitations to gun purchases (par. 5). What she does not mention, however, is how every gun has the potential to kill. Just because the bearer has more than one gun does not necessarily mean that he or she are more dangerous or deadly; a person with one gun could be far more dangerous than a person with twelve. Thus, her argument is weakened and some credibility is lost from neglecting to acknowledge an opposing view.

Weintraut has an overall clear opinion that she expresses persuasively in her editorial. However, a variety of technical and emotional barriers prevent her argument from being sound, particularly on her over-focus on “logos,” almost to the point where she defies her own logic by crossing fact with opinion. Likewise, the structure of the article is lacking focus and backbone, along with a clear sense of opposing views. Because of all this, Weintraut’s editorial is fairly unconvincing, which is disappointing, considering how strongly it began.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web, 6 Feb 2011.

Essay 1 Prewriting

Thesis: While Weintraut succeeds to an extent from a structural and organizational perspective, her editorial is regrettably weak, providing sufficient "logos" and "pathos," but lacking true "ethos," and thus degrading her contentions into weak and vague assumptions.

- begins very good, sufficient background information
- very weak points (all guns can kill, one is enough, some seemingly irrelevant or pointless arguments there)
- mixes opinion with fact, knocking down her credibility when trying to pass opinion as fact (video games/media)
- ethos--immature, ignorant at times, student (little qualifications there)
- logos--some logic, however assumptions/presumptions =/= logic
- pathos--some there, but missed opportunities abound (AZ shooting mostly)


(Note for E. Henderson: I forgot to post my prewriting until now, sorry it's a little late!)

College Free Write

Perstein's article titled "What's the Matter With College?" seemingly meanders in and out of what I see as a non-issue. What he seems to be incapable of understanding is how college life today is different that it was today, and has adapted for the current generation. Just because college was formerly the "noisey, dissident minority" back in the day, doesn't necessarily mean that what it is today--a place where students embrace the opportunity to learn in order to flourish in the future--is "bad." His argument aggravated me, not only because I disagree on so many levels, but because the structure and validity of the argument is lacking and weak.

In contrast to the first article, the article entitled "Why College Matters" by Travis Weinger (a modern day college student) elicited quite the opposite response from me; I wholeheartedly agree with not only his opinion based on his arguments and counterarguments, but I appreciate his appropriately sarcastic tone as a means of protesting Perstein's weak arguments. The diction provides a much more unique and intriguing argument that successfully rebuts the original essay's fervor through satirical and critical language.

Reflection 1.1

After writing the inital draft of the essay analyzing the rhetoric of Megan Weintraut's "Government should create stricter gun laws," I feel as though I have only minor tweaks to perfect and execute for the final draft of this essay. My essay-writing style is usually comprised of critical thought and a lot of time spent on getting the first draft right. Because of this, I feel as though I almost always spend the most time and effort on getting my first draft as close to the final draft as possible. I have one more paragraph to add, and it should be finalized/

Essay 1.1: A Rhetorical Analysis of “Government should create stricter gun laws” by Megan Weintraut

A recent editorial published in The Ithacan entitled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” analyses gun laws and restrictions—or, more importantly, the lack thereof—in the United States. The author, Megan Weintraut, discusses the dangers and weaknesses of the current laws in place that regulate gun ownership and accessibility. Her argument, embedded in and cushioned by plethora of factual evidence, seeks to sway the reader’s opinion on gun control in the United States to be in favor of stricter gun laws. While Weintraut succeeds to an extent from a structural and organizational perspective, her editorial is regrettably weak, providing sufficient “logos” and “pathos,” but lacking true “ethos,” and thus degrading her contentions into weak and vague assumptions.

Weintraut initially introduces the issue with a sound and pertinent claim; while the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution may have been relevant and sensible when it was drafted, it may not be as valid or safe of a law today as it used to be (par. 1-2). She provides sufficient background information for the intended reader, or audience—presumably, Ithaca College students, staff, and affiliates—while seamlessly utilizing “logos” by demonstrating research, information, and key facts that aid the reader in understanding her approach and opinions. By claiming that “guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival…[so] why bother owning one?”, Weintraut further appeals to logic, indicating how guns are unimportant and only detrimental to everyday survival (par. 2). She cleverly suggests the vanity and needlessness of owning an armed weapon before inserting her opinions into the midst of questions.

Weintraut continues her editorial with several paragraphs dedicated to convincing her audience that guns are detrimental through the consistent use of factual evidence. While many of the facts used are relevant and persuasive, most lack the “logic” aspect of “logos,” thus dismantling the credibility of the article, or “ethos.” For instance, she notes that “violence in the media constantly reinforces destructive behavior” by “associating violence with humor” and “desensitize[ing] the dangers of guns” (par. 4). Whereas earlier in the editorial she provides a surplus of factual evidence to support her claims, here, Weintraut confuses opinion with fact. Mixing fact with opinion is not only confusing to the reader, but diminishes her intended purpose to persuade the audience. Assumptions such as these can neither be cited nor proven; a presumption is not a source of logical evidence to support her claim. Furthermore, her credibility is debilitated and limited as she is currently a mere student and citizen, rather than a qualified professional with a degree in the subject matter she is discussing.

Likewise, the occasion and purpose are equally confusing. The editorial shifts topics constantly; the article therefore lacks overall focus. The title, for instance, has little to do with the remainder of the article. The argument is initially introduced in a clean and sensible manner, but the solid structure and presentation of the beginning slowly deteriorates as the article presses forward. Weintraut provides cluttered and skewed suggestions for what the government should change to regulate gun control and how they should change it. There is no clear flow of her argument; she shifts from background information, to providing factual and statistical data as evidence, to blaming the media for irresponsible gun use, and finally to suggestions for how to solve the “problem.” Because of all of this, the reasoning and evidence behind her claim is weak due to of the overall lack of focus.

Because much of the argument is based on opinion and interpretation, the most significant aspect that is absent from the editorial is the argument’s consideration, acknowledgement and response of opposing or other views. While the article does not necessarily waste time discussing or presenting needless information, more should have been spent addressing some of the other perspectives. At the same time, some of her arguments are weakened by obvious or glaring counterpoints that she neglects to address. For instance, she mentions how “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time,” although several states do have some limitations to gun purchases (par. 5). What she does not mention, however, is how every gun has the potential to kill. Just because the bearer has more than one gun does not necessarily mean that he or she are more dangerous or deadly; a person with one gun could be far more dangerous than a person with twelve. Thus, her argument is weakened and some credibility is lost from neglecting to acknowledge an opposing view.

Weintraut has an overall clear opinion that she expresses persuasively in her editorial. However, a variety of technical and emotional barriers prevent her argument from being sound, particularly on her over-focus on “logos,” almost to the point where she defies her own logic by crossing fact with opinion. Likewise, the structure of the article is lacking focus and backbone, along with a clear sense of opposing views. Because of all this, Weintraut’s editorial is fairly unconvincing, which is disappointing, considering how strongly it began.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web, 6 Feb 2011.

Rhetorical Analysis Quiz

Textual Analysis is rhetorical analysis that focuses on the text itself, utilizing the rhetorical appeals--ethos, pathos, and logos. Some examples of textual analysis are the use of language, voice, style, and structure. Contextual Analysis is rhetorical analysis that places an argument within a larger conversation. Contextual Analysis usually revolves around the who, what, when, where, and why of a rhetorical situation--the audience, the occasion, and the purpose.