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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
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)