Hello, Everyone:
We will most likely spend the first few minutes of Tuesday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of David Kaufer's "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments" and Rebecca Jones's "Finding the Good Argument." Here are some questions to help you read (they are long-winded, but not difficult):
- Jones distinguishes between "simulations" of arguments and real "ethical deliberations" (158). What makes something a simulation vs. an authentic ethical deliberation? Search her entire chapter to see if you can generate a list of qualities, characteristics, principles, or criteria that you think fall under each side of the distinction. For example, based on her dissatisfaction with multi-panel talk shows, we can guess that one of the properties of "simulated" arguments is that the various people who participate are only responding to each other in order to rebut other positions or defend their own (159). Generate as full a list as you can.
- From our <"Course Resources,"> locate a brief op-ed in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion," or -- if you prefer -- select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard. (Select one that is explicitly biased.) Quickly skim it and decide whether it operates based on inductive or deductive reasoning (Jones 164-165).
- Notice the difference between "Level 5 Conflict" and "Some Associated Issues" (Kaufer 58, 63). The issue is the topic or the particular example in which the conflict resides, while the conflict itself is the opposing pair of ideologies that clash in order to make the issue. Can you locate the conflict (the opposing pair) in the op-ed piece you selected?
- Is there anything in the op-ed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way.
- For analyzing and improving some arguments, Jones suggests a "middle ground" activity (160). However, some issues may lend themselves better to a middle ground than others. Isolate the issue that is at the heart of the op-ed you selected, and see if you can perform Jones' middle-ground activity on that issue. Is it a particularly polarizing issue, or not that big of a deal? What are the difficulties of finding a middle ground, or, what makes it easy to find a middle ground?
- Apply the Toulmin method (Jones 169, 171) to the argument in the op-ed you selected. Does analyzing the argument this way allow you to notice any complexities in audience construction (i.e., how the text was written to make an audience feel they are being addressed as a kind of specific person or group)? Does analyzing the argument in this way allow you to notice any disruption of coherence or cohesion? Feel free to visualize the argument if you find that easiest.
- Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (58-59) shows a violation of the Unexpressed Premise Rule (Jones 174), or the Starting Point Rule (Jones 175)?
- Of the ten rules Jones summarizes, it is highly likely that Williams/Colomb would be interested in The Usage Rule (Jones 177), which may be one reason why their longest chapter in Style has to do with ethical violations of clarity. Can you quickly skim their chapter on "Ethics of Style" and find a statement or passage in their discussion that reflects what Jones has to say about The Usage Rule? Can you find connections between The Usage Rule and Williams/Colomb's sections on "Avoiding Distractions"(43) and "Absent Characters" (23-36)?
- Jones claims that -- in the history of rhetorical argumentation -- there is a distinction to be made between being logical and being truthful (163). How does this resonate with or differ from Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61)?
- (Added question) Visit <http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/> and select any campaign ad from any year, OR visit <http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/> and read about various ways that digital tools can re/present electoral results. Each of these visualizations makes an argument about re/presentation. I invite you to draw on any aspect of today's readings in order to explain how the argument works.
Looking forward to our discussion,
--Prof. Graban
2) “The Disappearing Republicans” from The New Yorker operates based on inductive reasoning. Jeffrey Toobin’s claim moves from specific to general. He uses many specific examples of Republican candidates fading out of the political arena to generalize that they areal disappearing. He also uses specific examples of Democratic candidates that are still very politically active to show a contrast between the two parties.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/the-disappearing-republicans-where-have-bush-and-romney-gone.html#entry-more
10) I chose to view Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign advertisement. Obama builds his ethos in the ad by presenting himself as one of “us.” He mentions how he worked and took out loans to pay for college, which many Americans can relate to. His campaign was so successful because of his ability to empathize with the public. Drawing on Kaufer, Obama used terms that can be seen as global values, including: accountability, self-reliance, working hard without making excuses, treating your neighbor how you’d like to be treated, etc. His argument hinges on patriotism. The ad uses images, both personal and political, to become more intimate with Americans, while showing his leadership qualities and his work in communities. He uses clear terms to avoid any ambiguity. Jones’s Relevance Rule applies in this ad: “A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint” (Jones, 174). All of his examples (moving people from welfare to work, cutting taxes, extending healthcare for wounded troops) relate to the point that he is trying to evince: that his platform will reflect his faith in America. Obama also uses parallel structure in his opening lines when he says “strong families and strong values.” In Kessler’s and McDonald’s “Clarity and Conciseness” chapter, they discuss how parallel structure is “vital to both clarity and unity…” (Kessler, 136).
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
1) Jones makes a distinction between “simulated” arguments and “ethical deliberations.” “Simulated” arguments are characterized by the following: not being able to agree on the disagreement, lacking research and basic logic, using fallacies and presenting inaccuracies, lacking consideration of multiple vantage points, and defending an unpopular or irrelevant position. “Ethical deliberations” are characterized by the following: the rules adapted from Eemeren’s Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, Toulmin’s Model, deductive and inductive reasoning (inductive can sometimes be misleading), and a willingness to concede.
8) The following statements in the “Ethics of Style” chapter reflect what Jones has to say about the Usage Rule:
• “If we are socially responsible writers, we should make our ideas no simpler than they deserve, but no more difficult than they have to be” (125).
• “Write to others as you would have others write to you” (125).
• “…we must not just read carefully, but when given the opportunity, respond candidly and helpfully” (127).
• “We owe readers an ethical duty to write precise and nuanced prose,…” (131).
The reader and writer are both participants.
By avoiding distractions such as meta-discourse, we can steer clear of ambiguity (Williams, 43).
By using a specific character, the argument becomes clearer because using “one” is impersonal, “you” is inappropriate, and “we” is ambiguous (Williams, 23).
2 - The article I chose was “Polar Bears Need Love – and a Plan” on the Mother Jones site. I think that this article operates on deductive reasoning because it starts out saying that everyone needs to develop a plan (general) and ends with a list of ideas (specific).
ReplyDelete5 - The heart of my op-ed is that nations need to make a plan to ensure the survival of polar bears. I found it kind of difficult to perform this activity because I couldn't really find any cons in this article. It explains the issue, why it needs to be resolved, and the results of it not being resolved. I guess this isn't really a polarizing issue (I'm going to skip the obligatory pun on polar ice/polar bears, etc...), though it is a big deal. Perhaps there's just no negative effect of saving polar bears...
6 - Jones' claims about truth and logic is similar to Kaufer's claim about weight and scale, yet also different. It is similar in that logic and truth don't always offer the same argument in the same light, yet they sometimes can. In the same respect, sometimes the weight of an argument and the scale of that same argument offer it up in the same light, while sometimes it is in opposing lights. That is to say that sometimes, being logical will appeal to half of your audience, but being truthful is how you will need to get through to the other half.
For scale and weight, think of an argument about abortion. The scales will differ on both sides of the argument. Christians will have a scale that puts more weight on moral values while politicians will have a scale that puts more weight on rights. Therefore, presenting both sides with an argument of murdering an innocent baby who has a heartbeat will have more weight to a Christian, whereas presenting the argument of a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body with have more weight on a politician.
(I realize that this sounds so muddled, but it's kind of difficult to put into words. I understand both concepts clearly, but describing them accurately is something else entirely.)
10 - I visited the page on election results. I will use Toulmin's analysis theory.
Claim: Cartograms are more useful than the basic election-night map.
Data: The images shown (both the election-night map and the cartogram)
Warrant: The cartogram accurately depicts the number of votes each candidate received rather than simply the number of states, which can be misleading.
Backing: The electoral college works based on the population of each state, so the number of votes each candidate gets per state will vary.
Rebuttal: The cartograms which included shades of purple tend to obscure the true red and blue voters.
Qualifiers: (none found)
2. I picked an article called “Departing Pope Has Misrepresented both Islam and Christianity” from The Progressive. In this article, the author, Amitabh Pal, uses deductive reasoning to prove his argument. He starts out with a general statement saying the Pope has created an uproar, and it is a good thing he stepped down from his position. Then, he backs up this general statement with specific instances and examples where the Pope made an inappropriate comment or misrepresented a culture. Pal goes from the top down to prove his argument.
ReplyDelete4. In the article about the Pope stepping down, most of the content is about different values. The author draws on Islamic and Christian ideas to support his claim that the Pope made inappropriate, untrue comments concerning the nature of Islam and didn’t address how much Christianity influenced the Jewish Holocaust. The author draws on abstract concepts like faith and religious values. Neither of these are things that can exactly be seen, so they are abstract ideas. He uses these concepts as ideographs to explain why the Pope is unjust and not representing either religion for what it truly is. Also, the author frames these ideographs in a way that shows he has a clear bias. Pal is obviously not a Christian because he misconstrues Christian values to try to make the claim that they caused the Holocaust. He uses Christian teachings to make an implicit expression of sympathy for how the Islamic religion is portrayed in society. His words use familiar assumptions that an audience who would be reading this article is familiar with. In today’s time, most Americans are pretty familiar with the differences between Christianity and Muslim faith, especially since the events of September 11th.
5. The article about the Pope isn’t really about the Pope. It mainly describes the differences between Christian and Islamic religions. It would be ideal in this article if the author took more of an unbiased approach; he is clearly against Christianity and takes the side of Muslims. To make this article have a middle-ground argument, the entire content would have to be reworded and changed. It would need to be a completely different article free of the bias it displays now. However, this issue is very controversial, and at the heart of the argument, Islam and Christianity are too different for a person to really take a middle-ground in my opinion. It’s a very polarizing issue especially since 9/11. It makes it very difficult for any American to have an unbiased view of Islam since a section of their religion killed thousands of innocent people. Especially since 9/11 was not that long ago, I believe it will be a long time until anyone can argue unbiased for either religion.
10. The Big Bird ad played on pathos to create a representation to create a positive image of Obama and a negative image for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Even though the commercial is a visual representation, it still contains a strong argument for President Obama to be re-elected. The commercial uses inductive reasoning. It starts out with a particular statement that Mitt Romney is not going to be a good President if he is elected. It does not explicitly say that, but from the evidence that is displayed in the commercial, viewers are left with that impression. The commercial opens, and the viewer knows that after hearing a general statement that Romney should not be President of the US, they will get specific reasons as to why that is such as his promise to cut PBS funding. The argument works because it gives the viewer an immediate concept of the commercial, then backs their opinion up with evidence.
-Katherine Saviola
2.) I chose the article “It’s Time to Make Vague Software Patents More Clear” BY PETER MENELL from Wired’s opinion section. I would make the claim that Menell’s article operates using inductive reasoning. Rather than using generalizations to make specific conclusions which would be deductive reasoning, Menell makes that conclusion that fuzzy boundaries surrounding software patents result in the need for a change in the process of making software patents. So, Menell goes from specific to general using inductive reasoning. rather
ReplyDelete5.) Menell’s article “It’s Time to Make Vague Software Patents More Clear” does not present a polarizing issue. Before this, I had never even known there were discrepancies over software patents. Unlike gun control, cap and trade, and free universal health care (the examples Jones gives), software patents are not a hot button topic with deeply ingrained opinions and emotions. It’s rather difficult to find middle ground in this article because it seems like a rather cut and dry argument. Menell does not present any other side to the argument which makes it hard to determine any kind of middle ground.
9.) According to Jones, logic and truth are not synonymous. An argument can be logical without being truthful. Kaufer writes that “...conflict flows less from differences in the weight of evidence than from differences in the scales employed by op-
posing sides for weighing it.” I interpreted this as meaning that ingrained values are more likely to win an argument than the significance of logic. This is very similar to Jones’ distinction between logic and truth. Logic does not require truth in the same way that one set of scales does not require weight of evidence.
10.) 1956 EISENHOWER VS. STEVENSON:
Pathos: Showing war zone, interviewing mothers
Ethos: Vote for Eisenhower because of his record, “I served in the military and I like Eisenhower”
Logos: He’ll keep us out of war
Maintains it’s relevance and starting point
Violates the Burden of Proof rule: “Eisenhower will keep us out of war”- fails to answer how
Uses inductive reasoning: Eisenhower wants to keep us out of war, therefore he is the best candidate for President
-Rachel Cushanick
2) I chose to read the article "The Disappearing Republicans" from the New Yorker. In it, Toobin uses inductive reasoning; he gives specific examples (recently powerful Republicans) then generalizes.
ReplyDelete3)The conflict in this article would be the reader's opinion and whether or not it agrees with the article. For example, Toobin claims that George W. Bush is no where to be seen in the political scene, but I completely disagree; I see something almost every day on my Facebook about politics posted from George W. Bush.
5) I don't think there really is any "middle ground" or resolution in the article I read, because Toobin is clearly Democrat. The issue is merely an observation, so the only polarizing issue would be, for example, if Obama was completely forgotten after this term and/or Romney were to make a comeback.
10)I watched the Big Bird/Obama commercial. It uses inductive reasoning by exemplifying that Romney wouldn't be a good president, then giving examples to support it. Also, pathos is obviously heavily used simply by using Big Bird from Sesame Street, a children's show.
(I'm posting for Donovan, who accidentally "commented" elsewhere.)
ReplyDelete2. Inductive and deductive reasoning are two methods of logic used to arrive at a conclusion based on information assumed to be true. Both are used in research to establish hypotheses. Deductive reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations. Inductive reasoning takes events and makes generalizations. Yet Once More: Political Correctness on Campus, the article by Stanley Fish uses deductive and inductive reasoning. he uses specific situations and general scenarios to assert his point.
3. The conflict is the actual intent of educational institutions compared to the actual actions of those same institutions.
5. The entire article is based on the middle ground principle and offers both sides to the issues that Fish explores. This made it relatively easy locate the middle ground established through out the article. Every time a conflict was presented there was also an alternative that followed.
10. The argument is based on perception and interpretation. Even though the analysis is gathered on fact, the truth is still able to be distorted to soot the demand or emotions of the audience. They way fish implemented the perspective of opposing arguments he was able to manipulate opinion.
-dt
1) One thing that distinguished a simulation of an argument and a real ethical deliberation is the use of fallacies. Fallacies are what highlight the shortcomings of the side of an argument… Thus it might not even represent a real, logical and feasible solution to the problem at hand, which I believe is a ‘simulated’ argument- it has to reach out to something unrelated to be successful. Ethical deliberation is an arguement that is so sound that it does not need fallacies to make a point. It can be evaluated using Toulmin’s model and contains all, but does not overemphasize ethos, pathos and logos.
ReplyDelete2) In the 350.org blog, the writers most often use deductive reasoning. This apparent even through the name of their website, which references the need for the CO2 in earth’s atmosphere to be below 350ppm (Parts Per Million)… They then use their blog to give smaller, more specific examples of why this goal is important. This theme of starting with a large premise and using specific examples to bolster it is consistent through their blogs posts. They provide a general claim about the environment or environmental policy, and verify it through uses of specific actions that are happening today. Deductive reasoning is used in their most recent blog update, titled “ripple effects.” May Boeve uses an overarching concern, that we should stop a bill, and then delves into why it should be stopped. They use these lofty premises, then follow it with examples to show that their premise is true.
9) The scale of a conflict is equitable to the value of employed by the side weighing it. This is also relatable to Jone’s idea of being truthful and being logical- it depends on the value of the people who are within the argument. A person can be logical without being truthful, and a person can have something that is very valuable but might not be the concern of the other person.
10) I chose to evaluate the 1984 Election Commercial, Reagan vs Mondale. Reagan had a pretty good setup, where happiness with his presidency was high. For this reason, the commercial focuses mostly on positive points of his own past presidency- rather than harping on the negatives of his opponent. The commercial represents Reagan in an incredibly positive light. The commercial draws larger values from smaller ones- such as the barber shop closed three hours early today, so the economy must be doing well, so Reagan’s past presidency was a success and he should be reelected. They represent Reagan by using a very large sense of logos- it is logical that, since everything is going so well, nothing should be changed. Although, there may be a fallacy projected in the way that they project all of their examples. These examples may not exactly be related to the presidency- for example, the barber shop closing early might not be a direct result of Reagan’s presidency… Maybe he was just an especially talented barber who got a lot of business!
2) In today’s news, The New Yorker presented an article by George Packer titled, “Long Engagements,” in which he discusses Hillary Clinton’s leave from the White House after a very tiring and hectic four years. Her relationship with President Obama was affectionately showed when they were being interviewed on “60 Minutes.” After Clinton’s hard work that has been more than obvious to our countries government she was known as “The Principal Implementer” of Obama’s foreign policy. Saying this, logic has a huge role in today’s governmental decisions and it is crucial that one must know how to implement it correctly. Aristotle described logic as an artistically valuable criterion of rhetoric. Since this article shows more of deductive reasoning, showing its readers great use of cause and effect, Aristotle states that you can be logical without being truthful. Our government is known to not tell its people the whole truth and possibly even lies but that doesn’t mean they were necessarily wrong. In Packer’s article he wrote, “Obama and Clinton inherited two unwinnable wars, a toxic international atmosphere in which America was reviled where it wasn’t ignored, and a badly diminished stock of national power.” In this case, Obama had to do what any other newly appointed president would do, take action. There is a time for war and there is a time to be truthful just like there is a time to be logical. We saw the cause of what war was doing for nation’s troops and families and it is time for effect and change to take place.
ReplyDelete10) In Barack Obama’s 2012 Election advertisement he corrected Romney’s commercial in which he presented false quotations from Obama. This commercial exhibited re/presentation in such a way, where one would naturally be convinced of Obama’s ad. In Kaufer’s “Sources of Policy Conflict” his second level states, “We misunderstand each other’s intended frame of reference in making certain statements.”(Kaufer59) So in other words, the source of Obama and Romney’s disagreement over unemployment rates are different frames of reference of what is real and what isn’t.
7) Jones, “The Unexpressed Premise Rule,” has a complex definition of meaning with the intention of correcting your point and message. The importance o this rule was to indicate a constant continuation of an argument. For example, “staying off topic” would violate the rules terms. Kaufer’s first level of policy conflict interprets misinterpretations of statements. “Once the reference is clarified, our disagreement can be resolved.” (Kaufer59) Between Jones’ rule and Kaufer’s level both have the common result of argumentation and clarity.
9) Jones claims that in the history of rhetorical argumentation there is a distinction to be made between being logical and being truthful (163). Aristotle first gave his audience an approach to where he drew a fine line between logic and truth. Jones describes in her theories using Aristotle’s ideas that the art of argumentation can be learned through the use of logic. However, things that are naturally better and things that are true have always succeeded to be proven right. Aristotle’s teachings established this system, which also confirmed how argumentation could be taught and learned.
2. The article Shoe Leather: Walk on uses inductive reasoning. Starting off with a specific idea and branching out to a grander idea that expresses the journalists’ passion for walking and wandering.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/03/050103ta_talk_mcgrath
10.Jones mentioned that there is a difference between logic and truth.
Digital tools can represent geographic data in misleading ways to create convincing logical arguments. Deductive reasoning is used to create the assumption that the Republican Party had more voters than the Democratic Party.
9. Jones claims that one can be logical without being truthful. Logic is a skill that uses the brains innate behavior to organize thoughts into a sequence that yields understanding. This logic can be divided into deductive and inductive reasoning. Philosophers like Plato were concerned with proper logic rather than being truthful; it’s about winning the argument not telling the complete truth. Kaufer claims that it is difficult to solve conflicts (arguments) in values. This differs from Jones support of the logical approach to discourse.
5.The issue of the op-ed issue is not that big of a deal. It is about a journalist/ Columbia librarian who enthusiastically walked every block of Manhattan. His friends and colleagues did not understand why he did it. The middle ground in the issue would to be to understand that people are different and find happiness in different ways. What makes it easy to find the middle ground is the simple diction and depiction of genuine happiness while tracking the city streets.
2. I chose “Mama Jones” as my op-ed. Because this site covers a variety of issues, I would argue that it using inductive reasoning. It is using specific stories of specific situations in order to appeal to a wider audience. They are posting about specific issues, yet they want a wide array of readers to connect with the material.
ReplyDelete10. Jones’ articles states, “For Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement or a set of statements. The better the demand is met, the higher the audience’s appreciation.” I chose the Regan vs. Mondale 1984 political ad and I find that this quote directly speaks to how this ad is working. There is an overarching theme of “America” running throughout this ad, and the idea that America=hard work by everyone. Regan is attempting to justify this statement that the president is working just like you are. And this is undoubtedly proven to the viewer through the usage of such industrial American details as the factory, a train, etc. The audience is given overwhelming reason to support Regan’s claim that the presidency is about work through many aspects in this ad.
5. If I had to guess, it appears as if the issues at the heart of this blog are:
1) Crime Rates – need to lower or are an isolated problem
2) IQs – family problem or government problem
3) Government Spending – wasteful or necessary
I would say these issues are “not that big of a deal,” which feels funny to say, because of course they are important issues. Yet, in the grand scheme of things as far as arguments go, these are not necessarily issues that have a definitive pro and con answer. There is more acceptance of a middle ground with issues such as these, except Government Spending. With that, you either think its too much or necessary. It is sometimes difficult to find a middle ground because the pro and con view points contrast so heavily that it would seem impossible for either side to come close to agreeing with the other. They would be sacrificing core beliefs in order to come to a middle ground, which defeats the purpose of having any argument at all in some cases.
7. It would seem that Kaufer’s fifth level violates Jones’ Starting Point Rule, which states that the two arguing must agree on an opening standpoint of opposition. Yet, Level 5 discusses how not all arguments can be dispelled if they are considering two differing viewpoints that hold no factual backing. It is not about permanent change but accommodation. I think Jones’ rule seems to ensure that if two different starting points are clarified for each arguer, on any subject, then it can be argued and thus resolved.
2. The article, “Politics and the Academy: The Same Old Song,” focuses on the hypocrisy of university slogans which claim to do more than they are capable of doing. Stanley Fish argues passionately for changing the marketing scheme which promises to “form” students in impossible ways. His argument starts with specific examples of statements from Wesleyan University and Yale University. “I think of inductive reasoning as stacking of evidence. The more particular examples you give, the more it seems that your conclusion is correct” (Jones 164). However, Fish gives examples about teacher/ student relationships that stem from personal experience. He generalizes out of specifics that aren’t even provided. He undermines academia and its professors by denying them their ethos. The logic is completely faulty, though Fish does employ inductive reasoning.
ReplyDelete5. Fish has a hard time framing his argument. It is faulty at best, and completely false at worst. There is not really an exigence behind targeting universities’ marketing schemes. It is not a polarizing issue. Fish makes loaded statements. He makes assertions but does not qualify them. He argues that universities overstep their bounds but also do not do enough. In one paragraph, he mocks universities for claiming they can change a students’ moral character. An edit of content is below:
Universities need to examine their marketing strategies if they want to properly present themselves to incoming students. Many universities claim to develop students’ “moral, civic and creative capacities to the fullest.” However, many students graduate college without changing any of their moral or civic senses. Why are some students affected by the examples of their teachers and colleagues? Why do some remain uncaring about the privileges of earning a degree? The answer is in the experience of college, in the individuals who attend it, and in how universities can inspire their students to “take up this act of development for themselves.”
7. The fifth rule, a difference in global values, often leads to violations of the Unexpressed Premise Rule (Jones 174) and the Starting Point Rule (Jones 175). This fifth rule covers all value systems, even if they are spiritual, moral, aesthetic, or humanistic. Arguments in the fifth level often misrepresent the other side, because without this skewing of presentation, neither side can argue. As sides mark their differences on life and death, rights and liberties, freedom and responsibility, neither wants to be cast in a negative light. This leads to rhetorical wrangling, denial, and outright lying from some parties. Oftentimes, sides will “demonize” the other side by taking their arguments out of context, violating the Unexpressed Premise Rule (Jones 174).
10. The political ad, “Country I Love,” opens with an interview of Barack Obama, framed against a sunlit bay window which could be found in any middle-class American home. An acoustic guitar adds to the quaint, nostalgic atmosphere. The camera angle is slightly high, giving Obama a quality of humility. Obama speaks directly to the camera as he discusses the personal values which shaped his life. The interview creates the illusion of a personal conversation. “The argument resolves the conflict in a manner consistent with the subjective premises of the group selected” (Kaufer 68). Beyond these aesthetic decisions, Obama argues for a shared commitment to values. He cites himself as a hardworking American, part of the archetypal metaphor for the American Dream. He consistently builds on the themes of courage, dedication, and integrity as he warrants his style as a politician.
(I'm posting for Jordan, who cannot get Blogger to accept his comment.)
ReplyDelete2. “Finding Nemo” in Greg Ladens science blog uses deductive reasoning, as seen by Jones, in his article. He is talking about global warming and how they effect storm systems, and uses examples of previous storms to come to his conclusion of the new storm, Nemo. He starts with a general idea and gets specific in his talks of Nemo.
5. There aren’t really any pros that Laden talks about in regard to Global Warming in his article. To find a middle ground would be hard here because he really just speaks on the negative effects global warming has on the formation and power of storm systems. There is really no polarizing issue here, except that Global Warming is an important issue, and its influence on storm systems cant be denied.
7. The second level is the level that I believes leads to violations of the Unexpressed Premise Rule(Jones 174). The second level to misunderstand each others intended frame of reference in making certain statements. The unexpressed premise rule is devised to keep and argument or conversation on track, but if you misunderstand each others intended frame of reference, you did just the opposite. Irrelevant territory is something the unexpressed premise rule is trying to prevent, but if you misunderstand their statement, your conversation will head for that irrelevant territory.
10. In Obama’s commercial, where he corrects Romney’s commercial where he used “out of context” words from Obama, is obviously an instance where the unexpressed premise rule was broken. Obama uses this new commercial to re/present it to his audience, letting them know his initial intended meaning. This also ties into the second level of Kaufer’s 5 level notion. The idea of re/presentation has to be done to straighten out the comments of Obama that were wrongly interpreted, and thus led the audience to believe a false notion.
Jordan Spina
2. I chose the article, Obama Puts Federal Weight Behind Calls for College Affordability by Kelly Field that was in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article was based on inductive reasoning. Field uses specific examples of President Obama’s view on making higher education affordable.
ReplyDeletehttp://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Puts-Federal-Weight/137281/
3. The conflict in this article would be if the reader agrees with President Obama’s views on making higher education affordable. For example, President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union speech discusses how “he asked Congress to expand job-training programs at community colleges, extend the tuition tax credit, and double Federal Work Study jobs.” Various people didn’t agree with President Obama’s views because they don’t want taxes to be raised in order to pay for these things.
5. I don’t think there really is any “middle ground” or resolution in the article. The article is just about President Obama’s view on making higher education affordable and doesn’t give you anyone else’s view.
10. I watched the Big Bird/Obama commercial. The commercial uses inductive reasoning by showing how Romney wouldn’t be a good president because he wants to cut back on educational funding such as the Sesame Street. Since he wanted to cut the show, one of the main characters, Big Bird, was perfect to appeal to the audience in this commercial.
She'kia Morant