jennam042-blog

[jennam042-blog]

I agree with the argument and purpose of not paying NCAA athletes however I think that the reasons you give are kind of based on assumptions so maybe just refine some of the sources to make it more credible. Also in regards to the call to action, I’m not really sure what it would be so be more specific on what regular college students should do or believe about paying NCAA athletes. Overall I would suggest just strengthening your argument with actual facts that can be proven and a more specific reason for why you are arguing this to us.

NCAA Athletes

[jennam042-blog]

I agree that this ad utilizes the text in a very specific way. The use of repetition in the ending sounds ‘ey’ is a rhetorical device that is good for describing this drink in a positive way. Also visually it is also appealing with the dark background and the bright white lettering it helps to emphasize the drink and also its attributes.

This ad is for McDonald’s new Iced Mocha. The ad of course includes a picture of the new Iced Mocha. This image of the Iced Mocha makes it look beautiful and delicious. It makes people want to go and get this new drink. It is in the center because it is McDonald’s brand new star drink.  With the words creamy, dreamy, icy, and chocolatey bolded and right in the center it grabs the audience’s attention. The words describe what you get to taste with this great new drink. All of these words aren’t typically used to describe coffee drinks, especially chocolatey. McDonald’s is trying to get new customers that don’t usually drink coffee to come get this new drink. They are trying to make new customers think that this drink does not have the typically coffee taste. The white bolded words stand out. If they weren’t this bold then McDonald’s is not getting their point across about the new drink of theirs. Along with the bold words, the background of this ad has deep browns and swirls. It is trying to imitate coffee and give off a relaxing vibe. It allows the picture of the drink to stand out.  The ad of course the big McDonald’s “M” on it and their famous saying “I’m lovin’ it”. McDonald’s does this to make a point that they were the ones behind this great new drink and great ad. They are known for the “M” and their famous saying so it would be best to put it on everything they make or advertise.

[jennam042-blog]

I think that this ad would be pretty persuasive to anyone who was interested in getting a cat. You brought up the point of saying that it would not be persuasive if someone was searching for a particular type of cat, which is a very valid point to make. However maybe it could be the case that this could persuade them against it, I believe this because the caption is written in a way that makes you feel almost obligated to go see these cats. It says they ‘want’ to meet you, this giving cats a human characteristic and drawing to someones emotions and imploring them to go to these animal shelters.

This image is put forth by TheShelterPetProject. It features a small, orange cat, with words that read, “A shelter pet wants to meet you.” This is an add that promotes the adoption of an animal from a shelter instead of buying one from a pet store or the like. The cat is adorable, and it reminds me of how I adopted my own two kittens from a local shelter. While the images is adorable, it doesn’t really do such a great job of persuading the adoption of a cat. It tells you that you should, but it doesn’t tell you why. As an animal lover, I knew that I wanted to adopt my cats instead of purchasing them from a pet store. I wanted to save a creature from a life in a room filled with other creatures. I already wanted to adopt. But if I didn’t, if there was a particular breed or age of kitten that I wanted, this image would do very little, if anything, to persuade me otherwise. If they had shown say, the over done before adoption and after adoption image that everyone does. I guess its overdone for a reason. It works.

[jennam042-blog]

Ad Analysis

In my advertisement created by the CDC, is pictured a very cute baby taking a bubble bath, and captioned beside it says “In the battle against whooping cough, she needs more than cute.” The appeals used in this ad are pretty obvious, and the CDC recognizes that and uses it to promote their cause. They know that the cute baby will draw attention to the ad itself, and then once they read the caption viewers are meant to be left with a sense of reality about diseases and the importance of vaccinations. Specifically aimed at parents of young children, visually with the use of a baby, and then by further explaining that many immunizations should be administered before a child turns 2 years old. Naturally, any parent that has a baby or toddler will be drawn to this ad because they have something in common with it and could possibly hold a stake in what it is advertising. Also it makes parents realize that it could happen to any child, their child is no different than the other children who have contracted these preventable diseases and that is why it is so impactful in persuading these parents. I believe that this ad is successful in appealing to it desired audience and contextually it is also successful in getting the facts out there in order to show the importance of vaccinations which is their overall goal and motivation behind this ad.

[jennam042-blog]

Speech Reflection

While preparing for my speech, I was pretty nervous going into it that I would forget what to say during my speech. One of my biggest flaws in public speaking is not speaking loud enough, and forgetting what to say and having to rely on my notecard to get me through it. However in this speech I was very proud of myself in how well I was able to speak fluently without using my note card. I also practiced it a lot more than I have done speeches in the past so i definitely understand how big of a difference that can make in preparation. I think that I was able to remember my speech better than I have in my past speeches because I organized it better, and I also did thorough research on my topic. I’m glad that we had all semester to form views on our topics because I think it really helped in forming my argument and finding good sources. One thing that I did mess up on is my time, while practicing it by myself I was usually at a little over 4 minutes, however during my actual speech I was just at 3:50. So my nerves made me speak a little faster than I had practiced. Also I may have said ‘uhm’ and ‘so’ too much in between my transitions between ideas. Overall I think I did pretty good on my speech and I also enjoyed everyone else's as well.

[jennam042-blog]

I also struggle with speaking to fast during my speech, due to nerves. I struggle to be able to fill up the remaining time and that is what makes me struggle with my speech. I agree that the time limit should not be as strict, for I believe that the information given is more important than how long or short it is.

Speech Preparation

For my upcoming speech, I am mainly concerned with fulfilling the time limit. I do not get nervous easily and I can speak in front of an audience fairly well. Despite practice, I find that I still speak fast during my actual speech. In order to compensate for my fast pace, I will likely include extra facts, anecdotes, or words. The problem with this is redundancy. Sometimes I think time limits weaken my argument. My thoughts on this are that if I can get my point across in 2-3 minutes, why do I need to drone on for another minute or 2? While I understand the importance of being able to follow a time constraint, I just wish teachers wouldn’t put such an emphasis on time limits or word counts.

I have had a decent amount of experience public speaking but I always get slightly nervous. As the speech goes on I will get more comfortable and hopefully that is evident to my audience. I do expect some nerves prior to my speech but I can control it and normally channel it to my benefit.

My personal goal for my upcoming speech is to control how fast I speak. I want to be able to meet the time limit without being redundant or including irrelevant information. I want my speech to keep my audience focused and interested and hopefully be informative. I am passionate about the topic of infant immunization and I hope to influence the opinion of my peers.

[jennam042-blog]

I also struggle with being kind of shy and not being able to control my voice when I give a speech. I often forget the order in which I was going to give information, and I have a hard time not being able to memorize something word for word. Both of our goals are in regards to our voices and actually speaking rather than the actual structure of the speech.

Speech

When it comes to speeches I tend to get extremely nervous, and my anxiety skyrockets because I am a shy person and standing in front of people is uncomfortable for me. I haven’t really had to do many speeches throughout school which is what a lot of students have said on their blog posts. My fears are that I haven’t had enough time to prepare myself and work on the speech and I will forget some on the information (which I have done in the past) then just stand there awkwardly, then say something random that doesn’t really tie to my topic. I fear that no matter how much I practice I will still stutter over my words, and my voice will get shaky while presenting. I also fear that I will not reach the time limit because when I am nervous I usually talk fast, and I am afraid I won’t present the information as clear as I intended to.  My goals for presenting this speech is to make sure my thesis is clearly stated, and my evidence is tied back to my main points and for me to stay calm while talking. Another goal is to make sure that my body language and gestures are natural and not distracting to the class, and I am projecting my voice clearly. I know that the other students in class are having trouble with the same type of thing, which kind of makes me feel better know I am not alone.  

[jennam042-blog]

Goals, fears, and expectations for Speech

Leading up to the editorial speech there are several worries that I have. Last semester I took CIS 110 which is more based around communication rather than writing and rhetoric. In this class I learned several helpful tools in overcoming anxiety about speeches, and also how to prepare a proper speech. However, prior to this class I was not a very strong public speaker. One of my main issues that my previous professor would point out is that I do not speak loud enough when giving my speeches. Naturally I am a pretty soft spoken person so to be able to get up in front of people and have to project to a whole classroom is very challenging for me. So my main goal for this speech is to be louder and project my voice better. Also my nerves play a role in the way that I speak as well, sometimes I will stumble over my words so being able to pace myself is something else I hope to be able to do.  Another thing that I am afraid of is forgetting what to say. I’m also very bad at relying on my note card when giving my speech, so not being able to recollect all my information is my biggest fear. I expect myself to be able to give good information, in an organized way however. I also expect my topic to be interesting to most of the audience which will help in gaining their attention.

[jennam042-blog]

Believe Me, Its Torture response

In Christopher Hitchens article, Believe Me, It’s Torture, he attempts to tackle the controversial topic of water boarding. Water boarding is a torture technique that is employed by the United States Special Forces in order to prepare these soldiers for the barbarism that they may be subjected to in these terroristic situations in the Middle East. One of the first things that Hitchens discusses is his own personal experience of being water boarded. Rhetorically, this strengthens his argument right of the bat by using ethos. This is because he has experienced it himself, it automatically allows him to have credibility when discussing this topic and more importantly when arguing this topic. He goes through his day leading up to the water boarding with great detail. He explains his apprehension, which is to be expected for someone who is voluntarily drowning themselves, by quoting the waiver he had to sign before continuing this process. In short the clause stated that waterboarding is dangerous and can cause serious injuries and death. He specifically points this out in order to show that waterboarding is in fact torture, contrary to what the latter opinion may be. After using his own anecdote to describe the scary, torturous experience of being strapped to a wooden board and being suffocated by wet towels, he then breaks down the argument into two sides. The first side he develops with the help of his recounts and conversations with the special forces members who carried out his waterboarding, once again utilizing ethos. From these men's perspectives, waterboarding is means of torture that allows the offender to still come out of it and be ready and willing to release information, or as Hitchen puts it as “foreplay”. The other opinion he set up was helped by a man named Malcolm Nance, he is highly intelligent and experienced with torture techniques used in America and also speaks Arabic and is involved in the tracking al -Qaeda. Hitchens provides 4 main points to Nance’s  argument of why waterboarding should be used as a means to resist torture, rather than use it on people. In short these points state that by using these torture techniques on terrorism around the world, we are leaking information and helping these groups in inflicting this torture on US soldiers. He then gives his own opinion which is that waterboarding is definitely a form of torture, and it has no business being used by Americans who are fighting to end such heinous acts. However, he also in a sense leaves it up to the reader to make their own opinions on the matter, I believe that is why he gave both sides equal credibility and explanation.

[jennam042-blog]

I think you found a really good image to embody your stakeholders exigence. It simply puts together the situation at hand by the images and labels so it’s pretty easy to spot the rhetoric used behind the ad. I think that this topic is something more people should make themselves aware of sense it effects basically everyone in the United States.

Rhetorical Analysis Introduction

On an everyday basis, food grown on family farms is consumed. Also on an everyday basis, the crops grown on these farms are being patented and genetically modified against the farmers will.  Many of these small farmers are joining together to fight against a large cooperation named Monsanto. This company makes a profit off of monopolizing on genetically modifying and causing genetic contamination to the crops on these farms. Due to these actions from seed corporations, small town famers are losing profit off of all of the hard they have put in to their planting. On fooddemocracynow.org there is an image put out that shows how farmers feel controlled by Monsanto. This image shows a man waving a flag with the word “farmers” on it, and he is also holding a pitchfork. The man is facing what look to be a police blockade, and the riot shields being held up say “Monsanto” on them. Being a public website, the farmers behind this movement are grabbing the attention of other farmers, cooperation’s like Monsanto, and anyone that would stumble upon this page. The purpose of this image and the whole website, is to pursue other farmers to join in on the fight and to make the public more aware of the acts of these competitive companies. This analysis of the image from fooddemocracynow.org, will demonstrate that farmers successfully use visualization to portray Monsanto as a blockade to overcome, and effectively express the issues family and small town famers are currently experiencing.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/farmers-vs-monsanto

[jennam042-blog]

I really enjoyed reading your intro, I think it flows very well. You explained the back story of the author and his exigence so that anyone reading could understand what the remainder of your article will be about. I would be interested in reading more about his author and the way he presents his argument by first proving, then disproving. I feel like this is a very effective article which is probably why you picked it. I think that the topic of NCAA players being payed is a very hot topic especially being at an SEC school that is primarily carried by our basketball program. I also think that there are many different sides to this argument so by presenting both sides it is more effective in its purpose.

           Being a sports fan is a love hate relationship filled with ups and downs. On any particular game day, a Wildcats fan could be the happiest they have been all week, while in the same moment a Cardinals fan could be at the lowest, all because of some simple game. Ekow N. Yankah shares his thoughts and feelings, as a Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law and a Michigan alumni, about college athletes and the matter of whether they should be paid in his article “Why NCAA Athletes Shouldn’t be Paid” published in The New Yorker. Yankah’s decision to write the article first came form the closing of the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The suit was against the NCAA by college athletes. College athletes were mad because their names were being used in video games to generate money and attraction to the games, yet the athletes themselves were seeing none of this profit. The final ruling of this case stated that the NCAA had indeed broken antitrust laws, but the court also reversed a ruling that would have required the NCAA to pay out as much as $5,000 to athletes whose images and names were used in the games. This case is what really sparked the larger debate as to whether college athletes should be paid in general. Yankah goes on to discuss in the article his opinion on the matter. Yankah starts the paper by listing off reasons players deserve to be paid, and then blindsides the reader by stating why it is much more important that college athletes not be paid. Yankah’s article has a strong persuasive tone, which appeals to the emotion and tradition based roots of sports fans to take his side and not support the pay of college athletes.

[jennam042-blog]

Rhetorical Intro

In the past 6 years a new vaccine has hit doctor's office’s across the country. If you have been a parent or adolescent teenager in these past 6 years then you’ve probably heard of it’s popular brand name Gardasil. Gardasil and its many different counterparts are an immunization that helps prevent against human papillomavirus, such as cervical cancer or genital warts in both girls and boys. The  CDC recommended age for this vaccine to be administered is around 11 or 12 because this is the age in which girls and boys hit puberty and sex organs are developing. Due to the fact that this vaccine is so new on the market, the advertisement for it has been heavy in order for these pharmaceutical companies to start making profits. One company in particular, Merck, released a commercial urging parents to get their children vaccinated for HPV by using several rhetorical appeals. The commercial shows a woman and a man affected by human papillomavirus in their adult lives and how they reflect back to their childhood by showing flashbacks of themselves of age when the vaccination is most effective wondering why their parents did not get them vaccinated. This employs the pathos appeal directed towards the parents emotions by using a series of rhetorical and hypothetical questions throughout the commercial.

[jennam042-blog]

At first glance this isn’t a very noticable fallacy, and it really made me realize how hard they can be to find, even in a news paper like the New York Times. I also found a trend in how the extremity of your article is similar to the one that can be found in mine. Politically, America is divided right now so it makes sense for the news companies to be as well. Hence the reason why its so easy to find logical fallacies in todays news.

Logical Fallacies

This article is about the resignation of Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser. The article further goes into detail about the different angles that were taken about this topic. These different angles were taken by the left liberals and the right conservatives stance on this issue, and the true reason he resigned. It then gives examples of reports from both sides of the reporting spectrum. Additionally, how each source, the left and right, took the leaks and twisted them into their points of view, for the benefit of their readers who would favor that story line (Ember). These two viewpoints lead to the title of this piece, “Divided Media on Michael Flynn: Patriotic Leaks or Political Espionage,” displaying the contradictory views on Michael Flynn’s resignation. Within this article there is a logical fallacy, specifically in the title. This logical fallacy being false dichotomy. False dichotomy is the use of a disjunctive statement, such as an either/or statement, which only lets there be two possibilities as an answer. It is either this or that, no other option. The title is a perfect example of this type of logical fallacy because of the use of the word “or.” This “or” creates the situation of only having two options to how the information, that was leaked, got out (Ember). For all the readers know, someone could leak it just to receive all the media attention that the resignation has been getting. But, the reader would never take this option into consideration due do the logical fallacy.

Citation

Ember, Sydney. “Divided Media on Michael Flynn." New York Times, The New York Times Company, 14 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/media/divided-media-on-michael-flynn-patriotic-leaks-or-political-espionage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0. Accessed 15 Feb 2017.

[jennam042-blog]

I also discovered a ‘poisoning the well’ fallacy in my article as well. My article was also about Hillary Clinton, and how unfit she is to be president. I think that it is common for news artciles to use these specific logical fallacies to distract readers from other topics or points of discussion. Mostly the fallacies of relevance, which are easy to use for these news companies especially in todays political world. 

Fallacies

Morsolo, J. “Surprise: Obama Joins the Attack on Trump’s presidency." Americanthinker.com. American Thinker, 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

The article I chose talks about how President Obama has confirmed that he plans to try to help the transformation of our country even though he is no longer president. It explains how the Opposition Party is refusing to accept that Trump is our president and how there is a. “political civil war” (Morsolo). They claim that this party criticizes every move he makes. One quote I picked out from this article is, “The Republicans and Trump had better realize quickly that the Opposition Party is out to destroy the Trump Presidency” (Morsolo). This is one of the many fallacies found in J. Morsolo’s article., “Surprise: Obama Joins the Attack on Trump’s Presidency.” The Fallacy of composition is being used here to say that all people of the Opposition Party goal is to completely take down trump in any way possible. This isn’t logical because many people who do not support all of Trump’s moves still are not going to tear him apart. Just because some members of the Opposition Party are expressing their anger in President Trump’s moves and are trying to figure out how to get him out of office, does not mean every single person is. Then, the article goes on to say, “Hopefully he [Trump] will support Conway and tell the OGE to investigate Hillary” (Morsolo). The fallacy used here is a poisoning the well, for this is completely irrelevant to Obama not wanting to support president Trump’s decisions. The author is trying to shift the attention away from why Obama is working against Trump, and focus it on why Hillary is a “criminal.”

[jennam042-blog]

Logical Fallacy

Cillizza, Chris. “Hillary Clinton should absolutely not run for president in 2020. And democrats should stop her if she tries.” Washington Post, 13 February 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/hillary-clinton-should-absolutely-not-run-for-president-in-2020-and-democrats-should-stop-her-if-she-tries/?utm_term=.d21a9bfc9494 . Accessed 15 February 2017.

“Clinton ran two national campaigns. In each, she looked on paper to be a sure thing. In each, she didn’t win. Why? Because there was something about her that people didn’t like or trust.”(Cillizza, par. 9) In this quote from the Washington Post, the author is using a logical fallacy of poisoning the well. This fallacy can be defined as an author using accusatory or negative information in misleading questions or statements. This article has several examples of this logical fallacy along with others, all directed against Hillary Clinton. The reason why this can be considered a logical fallacy is because the author is asking a loaded question to his audience which has an obvious negative connotation towards Hillary Clinton. The overall tone of the article is consistently bashing Clinton and why she shouldn’t run for office again after failing two times already.

[jennam042-blog]

I do agree with all of your statements regarding what these authors were arguing, however I believe their arguments are a little more in depth than just what is in writing. In the first article he discusses the issues in Africa and how when the Kony 2012 video was released, it was if this one documentary was going to stop Kony. I believe that his argument is saying that these problems root from white privilege and more of a social issue we Americans possess in todays time. The second article also discusses the white privilege issue in America today, specifically on a cultural level. It takes a Forbes magazine writer and deconstructs all of his article titled “If I Was a Poor Black Kid”. It targets the issue of white wealthy people using their privilege to exploit these poverty stricken children by degrading them and their families. 

The article If I Were a Wealthy Black Suburbanite by DNLee, and the article The White-Savior Industrial Complex by Teju Cole go hand in hand for many reasons. Teju Cole argues the way white people, and American citizens in general, handle the many crisis’ in Africa is the wrong way. He also argues that many people donate and do good for the wrong reasons, Cole says “a nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike savior or, at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied” (Par. 12). This goes hand in hand with what Lee is saying in his article. Lee is writing because he is offended that a very privileged, white male is trying to act like he’s writing to black kids in poor parts of the country to actually try and help them and give them advice. Lee makes the point that Gene Marks, the author of If I Was a Poor Black Kid is writing this article in Forbes magazine, a magazine all about new technology and wealth, something a poor black kid would never see lying around. Gene Marks also writes to black kids saying to work hard and stay in school, as if these kids don’t have parents or guardians of some type that tell them the same thing everyday. Both articles give examples of privileged white people doing things simply to say they are “making a difference” when in reality what they are doing may help in some way, but it does not truly make a difference.

[jennam042-blog]

I agree with you when you say that even small gestures can make a difference and that is worth something. Helping someone should not be measured by size or impact, in my opinion. I believe that most of these wealthy privileged people use their privilege in a positive way. Government issues are for the most part out of our hands as American citizens, as backward as that may sound. So the oil trade comments in one of the articles are very relevant, its not very good support for this argument. 

How would you bring these articles into conversation with each other?

The act of wanting to help those less fortunate than us is instilled within all if us. When we pass someone on the street who has little to nothing, it is all our natural instants to feel bad and wish that we could help them, whether that is supplying food or helping them crawl out of poverty and make a life so themselves. This act of helping those less fortunate is the central idea that the articles, “The White-Savior Industrial Complex” and “If I were a wealthy white suburbanite” have in common and this commonality is what brings these articles into conversation with each other.  Although both these articles have the same main idea, the arguments and sub arguments are very different. “The White-Savior Industrial Complex,” takes a stand on the aid that African American receive in Africa. While many white Americans feel, they are doing enough by volunteering there or sending aid when a natural disaster, occurs they are not actually making a difference in the lives of those that live there. I, do not believe that this claim is true. I think that even the smallest of gestures can change the lives of those receiving the aid. The article claim that these aid acts are just for validation of making a difference for white people. Also, that the white savior complex creates short periods of helping but leaves behind large disasters, many people do not realize that. Finally, this article says the best way of helping others is to put people before the countries resources and instead of sending food to help fix the problems of governance, of infrastructure, of democracy, and of law and order, and that no one is helping those issues which are all the scaffolding from which infrastructure, security, healthcare, and education can be built. The second article, “If I were a wealthy white suburbanite,” talks about the poverty that African Americans face here in America and how this poverty impacts their life. It also identifies how white people assume that African Americans are not focusing on what will give them the ability to climb the social and economic latter.  What whites fail to realize is that it is not that they are not trying, it’s their limited accessibility to resources that prevents them from doing so. Therefore, when people donate food or clothes it is not helping those in poverty and what would help them and make a lasting impact in these people lives is if they worked with organizations to get the same opportunities. In conclusion, both articles have the commonalty of discussing that act of giving aid. Both take completely different stands on how aid should be given and what kind of aid is most helpful. If I were to write an essay on this topic, I would take the stand that even the smallest acts of helping can make a big difference. Also, for example, that one person cannot change and entire government in a country resulting in the inability to help with that truly needs. Resulting in them taking the actions available to them that helps those in need. And that all actions, big or small, are correct in validating that person. Although these articles are two separate idea the main idea in both is the same and for that reason I would use both in my writing, making them come into conversation with each other.