In a recent magazine, newspaper, or blog, find three editorials- one that makes a forensic argument, one a deliberative argument, and one a ceremonial argument. Analyze the arguments by asking these questions. Who is arguing? What purposes are the writers trying to achieve? To whom are they directing their arguments? Then decide whether the arguments purposes have been achieved and how you know.
In a deliberative argument people who are trying to make their point are the ones arguing which are in this case are the automakers suggesting that we should replace the fossil fuels that are responsible for global warming and various forms of pollution. The automotive makers are trying to direct their message to all drivers. By instead using hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but still have high cost producing fuel cells. Another problem is the lack of hydrogen refueling many different reasons, ranging from safety to cost to lack of demand. The benefits of ditching fossil fuels for hydrogen are many, burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil to heat and cool our building and run our cars. Benefits of hydrogen powered fuel cell are made with oxygen and a trickle of water, neither of which will cause any harm to human health or our environment.
In the deliberative argument is that back in the day when we first had started with cars we did not have problem with pollution because there was less humans meaning there was less cars on the road. The cities now and days have so many lights and stop signs that make us wait and have our vehicles on making pollution to our world. We would never worry till now, in the epideictic time we are starting to realize that pollution is no joke. Because of cars and so many humans that are born every day. We need to do something about this in the epideictic time so that in the deliberative time we do not have to worry because we took action in the epideictic time. The action should be presented in the epideictic time, so it would be to switch from using oil to hydrogen fuel to recreate our environment to avoid problems in the deliberative time. The purpose of the argument of the automotive makers has been achieved because drivers are driving hybrid cars and trucks.
My forensic argument is about marijuana and alcohol the people arguing in this is D. Mark Anderson of Montana State University and Daniel Ress of University of Colorado. The purpose that they are trying to achieve is to inform people to legalization of marijuana because it will reduce the drinking. They are directing their argument towards teenager over the age of eighteen. The purpose of the writer has been affective because the sale of beer has reduced to five percent. My epideictic argument is on “Why did the NBA Long Tolerate Sterling?” The people who are arguing are The New York Times editorial board. The purpose that the editorial board, is to inform the people that the owner of the NBA Clippers basketball team made negative racial remarks about African Americans in the NBA. The editorial board is trying to direct this statement to NBA fans. The arguments purpose has been achieved because Sterling has been banned for life from the NBA.
Explore your assumptions! Most of uses regard our ways of thinking as normal or right. Such assumptions guide our judgments about what works in persuasive situations. But just because it may seem natural to speak bluntly in arguments, consider that others may find such aggression startling or even alarming.
My thinking of normal is to be able to do what you are great at doing. If you are right at what you are doing then no one should have the right to tell you where you are positioned in life. Woman have the right to choose their profession at what they do with their life’s because at the end of the day we all have a brain of our own with our individual thoughts. I believe that if a girl wants to be a teacher or police officer she has the right to. Generations change, specially now, because in today’s world you can get married with your own sex, you can pretty much do what you have in mind. My personal values have gotten added as in woman being seen differently in today’s society, because woman now and days have the power to accomplish anything and everything equally as in with men. Woman have the power to go for their goals and accomplish them in today’s society as in back in the day it wasn’t, woman would just be home taking care of their kids. In today’s society man or woman can stay home to see their kids grow up, but most family’s mom and dad are both working having equal power as individuals.
What common experiences, if any, do the following objects, brand names, and symbols evoke, and for what audiences in particular? What sorts of appeals do they make: to pathos, ethos, or logos?
AUSDA Organic label- The USDA label reminds me of organic healthy expensive food. (Logos, pathos) The golden arches- The golden arches remind me of junk fast food, unhealthy food. (Ethos, logos, pathos) The Sean John label as seen on its Web site- Sean John remind me of the Sean John clothing brand that make pants that cost around 100-$300 (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) A can of Coca-Cola- A Coca-Cola can, makes me think of a red can with sugar and liquids that can cause diabetes. (Logos, Ethos) Oprah Winfrey- I recall a wealthy African American woman, having her own show. (Pathos, Ethos) Sleeping beauty’s castle on the Disney logo- Disney Logo reminds me of imagination fiction and dreams. (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) Ground Zero at the World Trade Center site- World Trade Center remind me of a big building around big building, surrounded by a city. (Ethos, Pathos)
I have experienced symbols wanting to target certain individuals, for example red ribbon week at elementary schools. They are targeting kids to try and make them understand that drugs are bad and that they should stay away from them. That can be either good or bad, good to those who agree and bad to those who are curious about why should they stay away from drugs, all they ever tell them is stay away from drugs, they don’t tell them the reasons why they should stay away from drugs. Ethos goes with the red ribbon because it all depends on their ethics. I also have experienced brand names targeting certain audiences, for example Prada targets people who have big amount of cash and travel, so they target mostly Asian men and woman, I know this because their clothing is designed to be extra small even when it’s large, and most of their cliental are Asian. Most of their employs that work at Prada are Asian men, with this being said pathos is involved including ethos because they feel that they need these things to be able to be an individual.
Take a look at the bumper sticker below, and then analyze it. What is its purpose? What kind of argument is it? Which of the stasis questions does it most appropriately respond to? To what audiences does it appeal? What appeals does it make and how?
The stasis responds to what actions should be taken and what should be done at the time, informing people with this sticker about the SUV. The purpose is to represent patriotism, the argument is for others to believe in it in thinking they are better. Patriotism is a very powerful word that has a lot of emotional appeal to it. The sticker represents our country with the American flag on it and including cars focused just on SUVs’. This sticker could represent the fact that we all as American get most of gas from other countries, making us to depend on other countries foreign oil. The purpose to this is for Americans to agree that they need to buy vehicles that get better gas mileage. And the most purpose of this sticker is because they want it to be seen when people are driving. The appeals that it makes are that is killing us by polluting the air and has a very positive point. Hopefully the audiences which are the SUV drivers get convinced to change into a more economic vehicle.