1. We have been using MLA Format
2.The other half of the MLA citation system is a Works Cited page, in addition to in text citation.
3.the format is as follows:
Author. "Title of Web Page." Name of Site. Date of
posting/last revision. Name of institution/affiliation with the site.
web. date site was accessed.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Rebuttal Prewriting Exercise
The only way to rebut Amy Chua's article is to mostly challenge assumptions, due to her severe lack of evidence. I don't see an opportunity to counter argue simply because it would be difficult to generate a strong rebuttal. I think the best possible way to go about the response is to refute.
Some quick pieces of the article that stood out
-overall a childish, poorly structured, weak argument
-many over generalizations
-pompous and egotistical tone
-unethical to the audience she is scrutinizing
Rough Claim
Amy Chua uses Why Chinese Mothers are Superior to present an argument that lacks any sufficient convincing evidence, and supports a claim that condemns and insults Western Society.
Some quick pieces of the article that stood out
-overall a childish, poorly structured, weak argument
-many over generalizations
-pompous and egotistical tone
-unethical to the audience she is scrutinizing
Rough Claim
Amy Chua uses Why Chinese Mothers are Superior to present an argument that lacks any sufficient convincing evidence, and supports a claim that condemns and insults Western Society.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Reflection 1.2
I'm pleased with my final paper. I think, at the very least, that I have learned what a rhetorical analysis actually is, and I think that my paper makes a good effort at trying to analyze my chosen article. As far as my writing process goes, I started with educating myself further about the idea of a rhetorical analysis, and then proceeded to get my ideas down in a first draft. After this draft I incorporated terms and cleaned up on some organization and syntax issues to make the paper flow nicely from one idea to the next. Finally, I found that by organizing my paper, I was able to further analyze quotes from the text, and actually add more material than originally planned.
Essay 1.2: Lethal Weapons: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws"
Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Lethal Weapons:
A Rhetorical Analysis of
“Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws”
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought, that open debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial titled, “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws.” featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. This article was published on January 26, 2011; only 18 days after the Tucson shooting. It would seem that in light of the recent events in Arizona, Weintraut believes there is a strong occasion to speak on the larger issue of gun violence. In her article she makes use of facts, emotion, and is supported by firm logic to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of ethos, or credibility. Her use of statistics allows for the article to retain its integrity, without appearing arrogant or dogmatic. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” (3). By referencing public institutions, rather than a questionable source, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She also oversteps assumptions that the article is not to be taken any less serious than front-page news, simply because it is an editorial. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” (3). This affirms that guns are, in fact, causing an issue in the average American’s life. Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She also supports her claim by utilizing a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text.
Weintraut employs another factor in the article, logos. Logic exists in this text more so between the lines. Logic is more than just appealing to common sense. It is her ability to make the reader recognize that a freedom in our society is pouring salt in an open wound. The salt being guns, the wound being crime. The facts discussed as part of her use of ethos only enhance this feeling. Weintraut draws readers to her side of the fence through this realization. She forces the audience to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American lifestyle. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival,”(2). She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” society any more. This argument contends that we are more sophisticated as a species, and more so as American citizens. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” The realization that finally stems from this logic is that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to fix the issue. The title, “Government should create Stricter Gun Laws,” acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns. In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut also wields these historical events to play at the emotions the public suffered them. In one sentence she references the tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson. All of which involved the use of firearms. These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Weintraut’s comments are brief, however their mention has no less effect. No one desires another catastrophe like these events, and it is incredibly frightening when such moments are brought into the spotlight. That is what makes them relevant. Weintraut’s purpose is to sell the idea that firearms have very little role in everyday life, and this part of the essay is a catalyst for support. Pathos, emotion, is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized in an argument. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important. Here, emotion is used to promote strong opposition to firearms.
Weintraut focuses on several audiences in this essay. These include the Federal Government, gun crime victims, and gun owners. It allows her to address multiple objectives based around her claim that firearms need attention. In another segment she begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut comments, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” (5). This cold reality insinuates that concern over gun crimes is seemingly nonexistent. The judgment almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases: “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.” (5). It seems at this point that Weintraut is indirectly addressing her audience. The audience, government, general public, and victims are all being told that this number is far too small. It is an indirect call to action, in order to build support for changing gun laws, as well as an analysis of society’s inaction.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut creates a very reasonable, smart, and effective argument against the Government’s lack luster efforts to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut generates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011..
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Lethal Weapons:
A Rhetorical Analysis of
“Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws”
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought, that open debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial titled, “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws.” featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. This article was published on January 26, 2011; only 18 days after the Tucson shooting. It would seem that in light of the recent events in Arizona, Weintraut believes there is a strong occasion to speak on the larger issue of gun violence. In her article she makes use of facts, emotion, and is supported by firm logic to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of ethos, or credibility. Her use of statistics allows for the article to retain its integrity, without appearing arrogant or dogmatic. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” (3). By referencing public institutions, rather than a questionable source, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She also oversteps assumptions that the article is not to be taken any less serious than front-page news, simply because it is an editorial. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” (3). This affirms that guns are, in fact, causing an issue in the average American’s life. Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She also supports her claim by utilizing a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text.
Weintraut employs another factor in the article, logos. Logic exists in this text more so between the lines. Logic is more than just appealing to common sense. It is her ability to make the reader recognize that a freedom in our society is pouring salt in an open wound. The salt being guns, the wound being crime. The facts discussed as part of her use of ethos only enhance this feeling. Weintraut draws readers to her side of the fence through this realization. She forces the audience to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American lifestyle. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival,”(2). She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” society any more. This argument contends that we are more sophisticated as a species, and more so as American citizens. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” The realization that finally stems from this logic is that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to fix the issue. The title, “Government should create Stricter Gun Laws,” acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns. In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut also wields these historical events to play at the emotions the public suffered them. In one sentence she references the tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson. All of which involved the use of firearms. These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Weintraut’s comments are brief, however their mention has no less effect. No one desires another catastrophe like these events, and it is incredibly frightening when such moments are brought into the spotlight. That is what makes them relevant. Weintraut’s purpose is to sell the idea that firearms have very little role in everyday life, and this part of the essay is a catalyst for support. Pathos, emotion, is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized in an argument. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important. Here, emotion is used to promote strong opposition to firearms.
Weintraut focuses on several audiences in this essay. These include the Federal Government, gun crime victims, and gun owners. It allows her to address multiple objectives based around her claim that firearms need attention. In another segment she begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut comments, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” (5). This cold reality insinuates that concern over gun crimes is seemingly nonexistent. The judgment almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases: “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.” (5). It seems at this point that Weintraut is indirectly addressing her audience. The audience, government, general public, and victims are all being told that this number is far too small. It is an indirect call to action, in order to build support for changing gun laws, as well as an analysis of society’s inaction.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut creates a very reasonable, smart, and effective argument against the Government’s lack luster efforts to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut generates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
College Freewrite
The response paper by Travis Weinger had the stronger opinion. I like how he attacked the seemingly endless amount of parents and elders that preach for youth to act more like they did. I enjoyed how Weinger associated the changes that have occurred with rapid success, rather than making them out to be college out to be a joke. Perlstein is just another example of someone who is going struggle to endure social changes, and be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I think that Perlstein's accusation that college is no longer a liberating, and eye-opening experience is completely wrong. University level education is still the most freeing experience in most young people's lives, it has simply changed since the 1960's, and that was the most important point made in Weinger's response.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Reflection 1.1
My writing process thus far in the project consisted mostly of brainstorming. I had trouble starting my paper and decided that free-writing any and all ideas that came to mind were the best option. I did a little research about rhetorical analysis and received a clear definition, which aided in writing my first draft. In addition to research, I did some mental organizing by organizing pieces of my article that were important and not so important. I think that I need to improve on some organizational issues with my paper, as well as a few grammatical errors. Another piece I can add to my work are the terms discussed in class such logos, ethos, and pathos. However, this does not mean I missed to mark on focus. I think that I focused the paper very well and have an understanding of concepts examined in class
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought that opens debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. In the article she makes use of facts and along with firm logic and is also supported by to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of statistics. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” By referencing public institutions, rather than someone or something less official, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She attempts to do this through a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text. The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to ix the issue. The title, Government should create Stricter Gun Laws, acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns.
In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut uses historical events to play at the anger and sorrow the public suffered over a few violent acts. In one sentence she references, “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and most recently the Arizona shooting.” These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Emotion is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized to be awareness. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important.
In another segment the author begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut states, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” This cold reality insinuates that concern of gun crimes is not very widespread. The criticism almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases, “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.”
Weintraut employs another factor in the article. She forces the reader to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American living. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival.” She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” type society any more. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” It is now easier to understand that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut’s examination of the Governments lack luster effort to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut creates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011..
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought that opens debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. In the article she makes use of facts and along with firm logic and is also supported by to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of statistics. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” By referencing public institutions, rather than someone or something less official, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She attempts to do this through a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text. The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to ix the issue. The title, Government should create Stricter Gun Laws, acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns.
In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut uses historical events to play at the anger and sorrow the public suffered over a few violent acts. In one sentence she references, “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and most recently the Arizona shooting.” These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Emotion is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized to be awareness. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important.
In another segment the author begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut states, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” This cold reality insinuates that concern of gun crimes is not very widespread. The criticism almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases, “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.”
Weintraut employs another factor in the article. She forces the reader to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American living. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival.” She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” type society any more. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” It is now easier to understand that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut’s examination of the Governments lack luster effort to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut creates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis Quiz
Textual Analysis focuses on the text itself. It is the study of an authors word choice and style. In addition to those are other writing features such as structure and voice. The Rhetorical Appeals are a part of Textual Analysis. However, Contextual Analysis focuses on where the argument sits within a much larger conversation. It places a particular point of view on the table of a much larger issue. Somewhere within a broad, far-reaching argument is an authors published point of view. This is what Contextual Analysis tries to uncover. Other parts include the five "W's" (who, what, where, when, why) and the pieces of the Rhetorical Situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)