Reading and Writing to Find Out Who We Are and What We Think
June 9, 2009 at 5:14 am
· Filed under 1
I’m adding a link here to the page where you should post your work on Periodicals.
Since there is bound to be a current events question on the AP test you will be required to read 3 opinion pieces from three different sources and write a short analysis of the writers’ argument and style. These will be due the first day of class and should follow the format posted on the blog.
Look at articles from these sources:
Rolling Stone
The New Republic
The National Review
Think about the audience for each periodical. Read an article from each one. As you read each one, think about and make notes on the following:
- Do you agree with the argument? Make a note on the article at the where the author won you to his side? How does the author establish credibility? Is he an authority on the subject? Has he done research or interviews?
- What types of evidence does the author use to support his claims? Is he appealing to his reader’s feelings, pathos, or his intellect, logos? Do you see any problems in this argument? How does the author address those problems, or not?
- How would you describe the style of writing? Consider the intended audience of the article. How does the author’s style reflect his knowledge of his audience? Does the style of writing affect the effectiveness of the argument?
Pay close attention to the argument, and write a one page response to the goals of the writer. Start your paper with source of your article.
Author’s Name. (year). “Title of the Article.” Name of the Periodical, Pages.
Next summarize the content. What is the author’s main thesis and how does he support it? This will be about ¼ of your response.
Finally, discuss the author’s style. Look at his language and word choices and write about how these choices affect you response to the argument. This will make up the remaining ¾’s of the response.
Permalink
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Rachel S. wrote @ August 30th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Lydia DePillis.(2009).”Stop Pointing the Finger at Fat People!”. The New Republic
This article is about how americans should stop being so quick to scold obese people, and how we should find other ways to cure the problem besides immediately blaming them. When I began reading this article, my first instinct was to disagree. The author started by writing that blaming fat people for their weight is a kind of discrimination. My automatic response was to disagree with that because I usually would think of people as responsible for their own weight. I have to admit, though, this article definitely did sway my opinion.
The article was written to target the people who criticize the obese, but don’t think about any ways to stop the problem. The author did well to target this job by hitting points that question why these people feel the way they do. She established the problem, and challenged the reader to find a solution. It was at this point that my opinion began to change. She used well known people’s (Obama, etc.) health habits to show that certain people have an easier time controlling their lifestyles, while it is a challenge for others. The author also suggested that instead of pounding out orders or insults to fat people, there is no reason why we shouldn’t make it easier for them. She even gave possible ways to do this, such as making fresh produce cheaper.
This article made a good point about why it’s bad to treat obese people the way most of society does, and how it is doing nothing but worsening the problem. The author used a problem and solution to make me, as a reader, think about my opinion and my actions. It was well written and educational.
Mark Seal. (2009). “Ruth’s World.” Vanity Fair, 216-229.
In the Madoff Chronicles Part IV, the fourth installment in a set about the rise and demise of the Madoffs, the author takes a more meaningful look into the life of Ruth Madoff. In a letter to Ruth Madoff, Mark Seal, the author, tells her “I am hoping to humanize a woman who, I sense, is more than the person portrayed in the media”. Seal establishes credibility by interviewing with friends, colleagues, and relatives of Ruth. He spoke with close to 100 people who knew the Madoffs, tracked comments from readers off websites such as the New York Times and The Las Angeles times, and quoted television shows and news broadcaster’s opinions. Seal also incorporated several statements read in court by the victims.
The article begins with Ruth’s public apology, seven months after Bernie was arrested; and the outrage it created. Seal then ventures to the Ruth’s humble beginnings, as a daughter of a middle class family living in Queens. He explores their 59-year marriage in complete thoroughness, including how Ruth was trapped in Bernie’s extravagant shadow.
As I was reading, I noticed that the interviewee’s opinions in the article were very contradictive of each other. One would say she was a loving, well-composed woman with a sharp sense of humor, while another would say she was an ungrateful, artificial, hurricane of a woman, who would explode at the slightest imperfection. I like that he shows both sides to the argument and gave us a broad range of views. Contrary to what Mark Seal stated about “humanizing” Ruth Madoff, he failed to sway the readers towards that direction. Instead, he simply put the facts in front of the reader’s faces and left them to deduce their own opinions of her; Consequently appealing to the reader’s pathos. Seal’s style is very informative, as he states the plain facts.
All in all, this gave an interesting perspective to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. However, I couldn’t help but walk away from the editorial thinking that Ruth Madoff was a very manipulative person, instead of the good guy in the situation, which was the intent of the author.
Kalyna P wrote @ September 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Michelle Cottle. (2009). “The School Speech Craziness Gets Crazier.” The National Review
This article, written by Michelle Cottle, is about how outrageous the response of Americans is to the speech president Barack Obama plans to give about staying in school. Many conservatives are concerned that Obama aims to spread his “socialist ideology” rather than give an innocent speech regarding the importance of education. Cottle argues that those people are overreacting to the situation and have no reason to be getting overly concerned with a speech that is being given to try to help kids rather than brainwash them. Cottle supports her opinion by giving examples of statements certain people in news, radio, and politics have made that question Obama’s intentions for giving the speech. She purposely chooses statements that seem ignorant and unintelligent and uses humor to poke fun at them. This way, the reader tends to side with Cottle because she makes the opposing argument seem stupid.
As I stated before, Cottle uses a lot of humor and sarcasm to prove her point. By making the opposing argument seem ridiculous and foolish, she makes the reader believe that her opinion is the intelligent one. Cottle’s choice of statements made by conservatives against the making of the speech is very strategic. She purposely chose these statements because they were not intelligent or rational. This is the only thing I did not like about the way she went about making her point. She did not recognize the other argument intelligently. But, even though it might not be fair, it does persuade the reader to think that Cottle’s argument is the right one. Cottle also uses an exaggerated comparison to convince readers that conservatives are reacting irrationally. After giving an example of a statement made by a person with the opposing view, she accuses him of suggesting that Obama is acting like Kim Jong-il or Saddam Hussein. The comparison of Obama to these people is extreme and ridiculous. This is where Cottle won me over; she made the opposing argument seem unintelligent and, honestly, insane. Another way Cottle wins over the reader is by using simpler words that everyone understands. She uses current slang that makes it easy for people of all ages to relate to. I did not have to look up any words in order to decipher the meaning of Cottle’s article. I clearly understood what she was trying to get across to me as the reader. Overall, Cottle wins over the reader by successfully using humor and comparisons to make the opposing argument seem irrational.
Lydia DePillis(2009) “NIMBY Backlash?” Not so much. “http://www.tnr.com/blogs/the-vine”
Lydia DePillis wrote the article about how Gov. Freudenthal and many other governors turn down the Ideas of “green” or energy efficient wind turbines on ridgelines across the United States. Lydia states there are some people that disagree with the idea just because the don’t want to be looking at a wind turbine out their window . In Wyoming last month or so there was a wind-energy conference to debate for them . Gov. Freudenthal stated he didn’t them because he was worried that the bird speciessage grouse would be slowly put on the endangered species list due to them flying into the wind turbines. When he was really concerned about the coal industries becoming obsolete.
Lydia’s paper on wind turbines is very interesting . She writes a persuasive/informational paper about the advantages and disadvantages about solar wind turbines. Her argument is that wind turbines will benefit the environment and protect the atmosphere from fossil fuels . Her argument has a lot of supporting details and evidence that proves in the long run solar wind turbines will help the atmosphere .
Linda Shepard(2009)OU faculty, administrators to work on contract ‘around the clock’
http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2009/9-02-09/OU-faculty-admin-contract.asp
Linda Shepard’s paper is about how the Oakland University teachers union and fellow students boycotted the start of school due to a number of new rules and cuts in benefits for the teachers and a raise in tuition for students. The teachers had their tenured positions reduced dramatically so, seniority doesn’t even matter. Also,faculty have lost most health benefits and pensions for retirement . The faculty will not start school unless an agreement is met between the school officials and faculty.
Linda’s paper was a informational piece about what the faculty at Oakland University were boycotting for. I feel Linda didn’t want to make an argument towards Oakland University Officials but , to support the teachers in their fight for better wages, benefits, and tenured positions. I feel Linda has a great argument along with the faculty at Oakland because , of the hired tuition and lowered benefits and wages doesn’t add up. The school will have more money, and they lower wages and cut benefits! it just doesn’t add up I totally agree.
James Copnall(2009)”Sudanese ‘trousers woman’ jailed”http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8241894.stm.
Lubna Ahmed Hussein has been jailed for a month after refusing to pay a fine for “dressing indecently” by wearing trousers. She could have just payed a 200 dollar fine but felt it was wrong to have to pay fine for wearing pants in public. Lubna Ahmed Hussein is a journalist in Khartoum, Africa. She feels its wrong for women not being able to wear pants and other garments in public.Lubna Ahmed Hussein wants to stand-up for women and try to prove a point that men and women are equal and shouldn’t have the same basic rights as males do so, instead of paying the fine she wanted to contest the ticket in court for a hearing. She got some help from the London-based human rights group Amnesty International.They called on Khartoum to withdraw the charges against Ms Hussein and repeal the law used to justify flogging as a penalty for “indecent” dress.
Jason Copnall paper on Ms Hussein is a persuasive/ informational piece. It’s hard to realize that even in todays world there are still many sexiest based nationalities and religions all over. I feel Jason is trying to support Ms Hussein and her actions to raise awareness of sexiest behaviors . I agree with Jason because, I personally women are equal to men and should be able to do what they want when they want to.
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
