Exercise 3.1 p. 57 (Questions p. 59)
--Identifying the Elements of Visual Arguments--
1. I consider all of the visuals on pages 57-59 to be visual arguments, since they all seem to focus on and discourage violence. The only visual I could see as being designed solely to present information is the first pie chart, which does not seem to key in on any specific point but just displays a set of data. However, below the image the source says "Protecting Children from Harmful Television," which suggests it Was designed with an argument in mind.
2, 3 4, & 5.
The first visual communicates, subtly and through a set of data, that almost All PG-rated movies have violence, sex, and/or language in them.
The text conveys most of the message in this visual, but the relatively small "piece of pie" representing "None" is also an aid in conveying this message.
The general purpose seems to be to educate the audience, and/or to point out that children's movies are too harmful.
I think this visual is most likely to appeal to parents of children who watch these "PG" movies.
The second visual communicates that the United States has a much higher homicide rate than other (selected and represented) countries.
The elements supporting this visual are the selection of countries represented, the organization of countries from smallest to largest, and the large amount of blank space in the chart drawing your eye to the huge gap between the United States and everyone else.
The general purpose seems to be to motivate Americans to work against our high national homicide rate.
I think this chart is likely to appeal to both American citizens and government/criminal justice officials.
The third visual conveys the prevalence of violence on TV and suggests a boycott of TV violence.
The live demonstration of the murder, the murder victim's white suit, and all the masked people holding signs with text that communicate the message all support the main idea.
The general purpose is to decrease viewing of violence on TV.
This visual seems likely to appeal to all audiences-kids, definitely parents, and maybe people involved in TV entertainment.
The last visual conveys that parents need to control how much TV violence their children are exposed to.
The picture of the family watching TV, the text arguing against media violence, and even the red and black graphic design and print help communicate this message.
The apparent purpose is to increase parents' awareness of and protection against the violence their kids experience through media.
I would say the main target audience is parents of young children.
Exercise 3.4 p. 61
I think the first visual (upper left) on p. 62 supports Jones' argument pretty well because his claims about frightened children taking on stronger identities against the evils they experience in their lives is clearly reflected in the comic. The little boy ("Tommy," as the text labels him), representing the shy, passive outer identities of kids, is hiding behind the strong superhero who is blasting away all the attacking monsters, which represents the strong, self-defending person Jones argues kids should be allowed to become.
The second visual I find very confusing, because I don't understand who all the random characters on the bottom are (one being a feathered showgirl who seems out of place), why their speech bubbles say "shut" instead of maybe "shoot," or why they are not holding guns... I think this very graphic image with no clear positive message and a scantily clad woman on the left is not bound to have any good effect on kids.
In the last image, I find the dismembered, almost naked women's bodies to be both inappropriate for children and possibly hindering to girls' psyches who are being represented as a stereotypical item of vulnerability in this image. Also, I have no idea why the monster/character is yelling SHUT UP to the broken body in his hand, and I dislike that the man in the lower left is saying "Jesus Christ." I think both dialogues would only encourage kids to use unnecessarily crude language, and do not feel this argument supports Jones' argument well.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Reading and Responding to Arguments (Ch. 2)
Complete Exercise 2.1 (p. 36) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39).
Respond to the four (4) items in the section entitled “Identifying the Elements of Argument” (p. 39).
1. Jones's thesis is that violent entertainment helps people express their inner thirst for power.
2. Jones supports his thesis with the story of how the Hulk prompted his own transformation into a more confident child, how his son is experiencing the same transition, how Jones's theory is supported by the research of Dr. Moore, how children are bound to feel rage and need an outlet for it, and how two girls were helped by being able to tell their own violent stories.
3. Jones identifies the opposing argument as the harm that violent entertainment can do in encouraging "real-life violence," but refutes it by saying many more people are helped than hurt by media violence.
4. Jones's concluding statement says that when (all) parents suppress their children's natural aggression they are hindering their children from developing self-confidence and other parts of identity.
Complete Exercise 2.3 (p. 42) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Highlighting.
Complete Exercise 2.4 (p. 42) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Annotating.
Complete Exercise 2.8 (p. 51) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Writing a Critical Response.
According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because they provide an outlet for kids to vicariously express the natural aggression and desire for power that everyone has. Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because he has witnessed what he considers positive transformations of multiple young people who were enabled to tell their own violent stories. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that modern culture "cultivates fear and teaches dependency." I have definitely seen this as a trend with the families for which I nanny. I also support Jones's statement that all children will feel rage; I have never encountered someone who has never experienced a desire to express anger in moments of frustration. However, I have also seen kids find more positive ways to deal with anger than through violent media. On the other hand, I have seen some children very negatively affected by violent media, and believe that Jones is incorrect in believing violent media helps many more people than it hurts. All in all, I found Jones's argument too one-sided and disagree with his conclusion that youth violence should not be discouraged.
Respond to the four (4) items in the section entitled “Identifying the Elements of Argument” (p. 39).
1. Jones's thesis is that violent entertainment helps people express their inner thirst for power.
2. Jones supports his thesis with the story of how the Hulk prompted his own transformation into a more confident child, how his son is experiencing the same transition, how Jones's theory is supported by the research of Dr. Moore, how children are bound to feel rage and need an outlet for it, and how two girls were helped by being able to tell their own violent stories.
3. Jones identifies the opposing argument as the harm that violent entertainment can do in encouraging "real-life violence," but refutes it by saying many more people are helped than hurt by media violence.
4. Jones's concluding statement says that when (all) parents suppress their children's natural aggression they are hindering their children from developing self-confidence and other parts of identity.
Complete Exercise 2.3 (p. 42) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Highlighting.
Complete Exercise 2.4 (p. 42) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Annotating.
Complete Exercise 2.8 (p. 51) regarding Gerard Jones’ essay, “VIOLENT MEDIA IS GOOD FOR KIDS” (pp. 36–39): Writing a Critical Response.
According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because they provide an outlet for kids to vicariously express the natural aggression and desire for power that everyone has. Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because he has witnessed what he considers positive transformations of multiple young people who were enabled to tell their own violent stories. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that modern culture "cultivates fear and teaches dependency." I have definitely seen this as a trend with the families for which I nanny. I also support Jones's statement that all children will feel rage; I have never encountered someone who has never experienced a desire to express anger in moments of frustration. However, I have also seen kids find more positive ways to deal with anger than through violent media. On the other hand, I have seen some children very negatively affected by violent media, and believe that Jones is incorrect in believing violent media helps many more people than it hurts. All in all, I found Jones's argument too one-sided and disagree with his conclusion that youth violence should not be discouraged.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Reflective Entry #1: Defying the article "Defying the Nalgene"
The part of the chapter 1 readings that struck me the most was the inefficiency of the argument in the second essay we read, “Defying the Nalgene” by Zak Moore. I thought the essay did not employ logos, pathos, and ethos in a way that made his argument either convincing or palatable. After reading the essay, I was left with an impression of “Yuck, that was not well done.”
First of all, Moore did not use good reasoning, or as we call it, logos. He made several statements that reflected little thought and/or truth. One example is “landfills: if it is not getting more expensive to put things in them, then there is no problem” which does not take into account all the other issues associated with landfills like space, sanitation, energy wastes, etc. His mathematical logic also seems lacking when he talks about the “4 dollars and change” he spent on a pack of bottled water when tap water also costs something, but in reality the actual price difference between tap water and bottled water is huge. Another large discrepancy in the logic of his argument that I noticed was that in the beginning of the essay he starts out talking about the environment, but then in the body of the essay most of his points of refutation against opposing arguments are based on money, not the environment. He says very little about the big environmental issues related to the bottled water issue, such as the massive amounts of petroleum being used for the industry. Just because bottled water is not that expensive does not mean prices are not accurately reflecting the finite resources we are rapidly consuming and the priority we should be placing on them. To say the least, Moore’s reasoning definitely has some identifiable holes.
This ties in with his poor demonstration of ethos. Due to his lack of facts or other concrete support for the points he makes in this essay, he comes across as not very knowledgeable about the topic. In fact, to the generally environmentally concerned public (audience), he makes himself seem almost idiotic when he says “I do not understand how recycling can be that valuable” and then only follows with a cost-based justification with no comments on consumption of materials versus energy. His constant focus on monetary cost, as well as his seemingly bold statements of personal preference that he does not bother to question, justify, or balance cause his view point to seem selfishly black and white. Overall, I got the impression that he is rather egocentric and does not really care about the planet nor know very well about the topic, but merely formed his opinion based on poorly supported ideas that conveniently fit his tastes and lifestyle.
I do have to say I noticed some good use of pathos in the essay. Moore’s use of personal language and examples (e.g. “I am comfortable…” and “Aquafina tastes the best to me”) made his points seem applicable to the common reader, who also enjoy certain tastes, conveniences, and saving money. I’m not sure how to explain what else he did or said that made me feel like I agreed with at least part of what he was expressing; I could sympathize with his frustration over inefficient ways to recycle and lack of better water containers. I feel his temptation to just grab an easy, tasty, and relatively cheap bottle of water and not worry about the rest. However, I was not impressed or convinced enough by the (il)logical reasoning in his arguments nor his character to adapt quite the same stance on the bottled water issue.
Works Cited
Kirszner, Laurie G. Practical Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. Print.
First of all, Moore did not use good reasoning, or as we call it, logos. He made several statements that reflected little thought and/or truth. One example is “landfills: if it is not getting more expensive to put things in them, then there is no problem” which does not take into account all the other issues associated with landfills like space, sanitation, energy wastes, etc. His mathematical logic also seems lacking when he talks about the “4 dollars and change” he spent on a pack of bottled water when tap water also costs something, but in reality the actual price difference between tap water and bottled water is huge. Another large discrepancy in the logic of his argument that I noticed was that in the beginning of the essay he starts out talking about the environment, but then in the body of the essay most of his points of refutation against opposing arguments are based on money, not the environment. He says very little about the big environmental issues related to the bottled water issue, such as the massive amounts of petroleum being used for the industry. Just because bottled water is not that expensive does not mean prices are not accurately reflecting the finite resources we are rapidly consuming and the priority we should be placing on them. To say the least, Moore’s reasoning definitely has some identifiable holes.
This ties in with his poor demonstration of ethos. Due to his lack of facts or other concrete support for the points he makes in this essay, he comes across as not very knowledgeable about the topic. In fact, to the generally environmentally concerned public (audience), he makes himself seem almost idiotic when he says “I do not understand how recycling can be that valuable” and then only follows with a cost-based justification with no comments on consumption of materials versus energy. His constant focus on monetary cost, as well as his seemingly bold statements of personal preference that he does not bother to question, justify, or balance cause his view point to seem selfishly black and white. Overall, I got the impression that he is rather egocentric and does not really care about the planet nor know very well about the topic, but merely formed his opinion based on poorly supported ideas that conveniently fit his tastes and lifestyle.
I do have to say I noticed some good use of pathos in the essay. Moore’s use of personal language and examples (e.g. “I am comfortable…” and “Aquafina tastes the best to me”) made his points seem applicable to the common reader, who also enjoy certain tastes, conveniences, and saving money. I’m not sure how to explain what else he did or said that made me feel like I agreed with at least part of what he was expressing; I could sympathize with his frustration over inefficient ways to recycle and lack of better water containers. I feel his temptation to just grab an easy, tasty, and relatively cheap bottle of water and not worry about the rest. However, I was not impressed or convinced enough by the (il)logical reasoning in his arguments nor his character to adapt quite the same stance on the bottled water issue.
Works Cited
Kirszner, Laurie G. Practical Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. Print.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
9/15/11 My Position on Bottled Water
The use of bottled water is a controversial topic. Some people claim that drinking bottled water is a waste of money and natural resources, and that more people should drink tap water. Others however, believe that the convenience and other benefits of bottled water outweigh the arguably overdramatized costs. Although both sides of this issue have merit, I believe that a major reduction in the use of bottled water is the optimal plan of action because the case for saving money and natural resources seems both more convincing and important when you consider the amount of petroleum used to produce and transport plastic bottles that are rarely recycled, and the possible options to make up for the convenience of the practice.
Revised with friends opinions:
The use of bottled water is a controversial topic. Some people claim that drinking bottled water is a waste of money and natural resources, and that more people should drink tap water. Others however, believe that the convenience and other benefits of bottled water outweigh the arguably overdramatized costs. For example, my friend Natalia loves drinking bottled water and easily just throwing away the bottles, and does not worry about the consequences of this for the planet. Although both sides of this issue have merit, I believe that a major reduction in the use of bottled water is the optimal plan of action because the case for saving money and natural resources seems both more convincing and important when you consider the amount of petroleum used to produce and transport plastic bottles that are rarely recycled, and the possible options to make up for the convenience of the practice. My friend Bekka points out the easy use of more permanent containers and the water refilling station on campus, and I agree with this more conservative approach.
Revised with friends opinions:
The use of bottled water is a controversial topic. Some people claim that drinking bottled water is a waste of money and natural resources, and that more people should drink tap water. Others however, believe that the convenience and other benefits of bottled water outweigh the arguably overdramatized costs. For example, my friend Natalia loves drinking bottled water and easily just throwing away the bottles, and does not worry about the consequences of this for the planet. Although both sides of this issue have merit, I believe that a major reduction in the use of bottled water is the optimal plan of action because the case for saving money and natural resources seems both more convincing and important when you consider the amount of petroleum used to produce and transport plastic bottles that are rarely recycled, and the possible options to make up for the convenience of the practice. My friend Bekka points out the easy use of more permanent containers and the water refilling station on campus, and I agree with this more conservative approach.
Monday, September 12, 2011
9/13/11 A First Look at the Structure of Arguments
Exercise 1.1 (p. 16) Schwarzenegger
1. This essay's thesis is that Congress should develop an immigration policy that improves our security but is also merciful to immigrants.
2. The three arguments Schwarzenegger presents as evidence are the ineffectiveness of state/citizen border patrol and need for federal involvement, the need for and benefits of an immigrants' worker program, and the humanity of immigrants.
3. The opposing argument is that improving border control would require severe, costly, and in some cases impossible actions. Schwarzenegger refutes this by saying those things are unnecessary and that federal actions, especially that of a worker program, would get the job done.
4. The essay's concluding statement is that Congress should solve the problem by heightening border control and showing sympathy to the immigrant people.
Article 1: In Praise of Tap Water
1. The editorial's thesis is that Americans need to start drinking tap water and stop buying bottled water.
2. The arguments the writer uses in paragraphs 1-3 to support the thesis include that American water is high enough quality, drinking tap water would save a lot of money, and water bottles are bad for the environment due to the natural resources used to produce and transport them and a lack of recycling the bottles.
3. The editorial's concluding statement is that if Americans switch out bottled water for tap water, they will save money and help save the planet.
4. I do not think the writer considers enough opposing arguments. A few others I can think of are: the convenience of bottled water, the water waste that would result from the washing of more permanent containers, the jobs that would be lost if the bottled water industry collapsed, and the probable rise in tap water prices if demand rose and there were not as many companies to compete as in the bottled water industry.
5. Paragraph 5 is a leeway from the evidence into the concluding statement, and provides a sort of ethos; using the example of what the mayor has done encourages following.
1. This essay's thesis is that Congress should develop an immigration policy that improves our security but is also merciful to immigrants.
2. The three arguments Schwarzenegger presents as evidence are the ineffectiveness of state/citizen border patrol and need for federal involvement, the need for and benefits of an immigrants' worker program, and the humanity of immigrants.
3. The opposing argument is that improving border control would require severe, costly, and in some cases impossible actions. Schwarzenegger refutes this by saying those things are unnecessary and that federal actions, especially that of a worker program, would get the job done.
4. The essay's concluding statement is that Congress should solve the problem by heightening border control and showing sympathy to the immigrant people.
Article 1: In Praise of Tap Water
1. The editorial's thesis is that Americans need to start drinking tap water and stop buying bottled water.
2. The arguments the writer uses in paragraphs 1-3 to support the thesis include that American water is high enough quality, drinking tap water would save a lot of money, and water bottles are bad for the environment due to the natural resources used to produce and transport them and a lack of recycling the bottles.
3. The editorial's concluding statement is that if Americans switch out bottled water for tap water, they will save money and help save the planet.
4. I do not think the writer considers enough opposing arguments. A few others I can think of are: the convenience of bottled water, the water waste that would result from the washing of more permanent containers, the jobs that would be lost if the bottled water industry collapsed, and the probable rise in tap water prices if demand rose and there were not as many companies to compete as in the bottled water industry.
5. Paragraph 5 is a leeway from the evidence into the concluding statement, and provides a sort of ethos; using the example of what the mayor has done encourages following.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)