Thursday Workshop Questions

1.) Kaufer disagreement

Recently my roommate and I were discussing who the best basketball player currently in the NBA was. The disagreement arose when I stated that Kobe Bryant was the best and he said that Lebron James was. We argued over stats for the majority of the disagreement, but as the disagreement was nearing a stand still I now look back and realize that we had a level 2 conflict.

Kaufer states that a level three disagreement arises when the opposing sides give a different frame of reference to the basis of the argument.

As i mentioned, when the argument came to a stand still my roomate said," He (Lebron) is by far the most athletic player in the game, when he wants to score you can't stop him." This is when i realized that we were in stage 2, my roommate was holding physical ability and scoring as a higher evidence than leadership and reliability. Where as i agreed that Lebron was the more physically athletic of the two, I believed that the leadership factor outweighed this.

Once I explained that I was also factoring in leadership, we both agreed that the other was right in their respective frame, and that overall the two players were about equal as the factors can cancel out. As Kaufer explains, once we clarify our intended frames of reference the conflict is resolved.

2.) Savio Allusion

Savio describes the problem of free speech on the Berkely campus as akin to that of racial equality in Mississippi. What Savio means by this is that free speech on campus is suppressed much like minorities in are in Mississippi. There is this preconceived notion in society that things are fine the way the are, that being static is being right. Savio alludes to this thought process in his closing paragraph in which he says," This chrome-plated consumers paradise would have us grow up to be well-behaved children." This helps allude to Savio's overall aim that there needs to be change in American society and that we must move away from the current (at the time of publishing) static state.

Savio's argument seems to be a conflict level of 4 (i.e. values). Savio lays out that there are people that accept the current American society and values, but there is also a suppressed group that would value change (outspoken students on campus, minorities in Mississippi). The conflict arises due to the university and those in power (generally whites at the time) are able to suppress the opposing side, and this is why Savio is writing for an understanding and possibly call to arms.

4.) Bullard and stasis of cause

Bullard, in his talk, cleverly uses historical references to past natural disasters (hurricanes) to provide ethos to his argument. By referencing the similarities of the past post-natural disaster housing and clean-up efforts to those after Katrina, Bullard gives a somewhat undeniable basis to argue from. His references portray the mistreatment of the minorities due to the clean-up efforts of the federal government and other organizations. This ethos contruction helps Bullard appeal to his audience as they cant really counter the argument, and in theory should assume responsibility to take action.

Constructing this type of ethos can help Wells-Barnett and Savio appeal to their audience the same way it helps Bullard. By arguing in the stasis of cause one shows past references or doings that brought about the argument be subjected. This obtains credibility of the authors claims and implies a thought that something should be done.

Is it Scientific?

In Biello's "Green Apple" article, one can seem to receive multiple views of the aim that is being made.

The first section of the article would seem as part of an introduction in a scientific report. A historic scenario is portrayed and cunningly connected to the topic of the paper, the effort to go green. Background information is given on what it is New York City and other major metropolitan areas are trying to achieve to become more green.

The second and third sections, seem to still be giving more of an introduction. Yes, solar and electric power are viable "methods" the article still seems to lie in the "what if" range. It is this taken tone that I personally feel the paper is somewhat theoretical. As Gross says in his paper, a theoretical paper seems to rely on a consistent world. Though we have small proof of what these alternative energy options can provide, we still haven't seen and actual major time-lapse ( 50 years) result. Therefore the alternate sources are neither proven or falsified.

Some would view this article, as Gross describes deductive theoretical papers have a tendency to be, as a persuasion to forward the effort for a green world. The article, perhaps inadvertently, seems to use the efforts of the metropolitan cities as a call of urgency. If these cities and government agencies are making such an effort, shouldn't we?

In closing, the article does seem to follow somewhat of a Baconian induction path and is very informative. The introductory sections do lay out multiple facts and possibilities, and the final sections discuss the possible outcomes and what could impede the process. The article is arranged to attempt to give the reader the thought that climate change, in theory, is not totally feasibly achievable but anything helps.

SA 2: Letter to President Clinton

In this letter to President Clinton it is made clear who the audience is assumed to be. The use of urgency and worry towards the U.S. policy in Iraq is clearly taken towards the figure who has the power to change it. I particularly like the statement " As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." This sentence is a direct appeal to the audience, the president, by capitalizing on a former statement made by him. This capitalization is an effort to persuade the president that he must back up his words.

The overall tone of the letter also seems to be fitted for speaking to someone in power. The generosity and and almost plea like tone presented in letter also gives the sense that the audience is the only one with the power to do what they ask.

Another audience that this letter could appeal to with ease, and almost does already as a general audience, is the American people. The authors could construct another sense of urgency with the American people by simply changing around their word usage and adding a situation that could bring the audience into relation for them.

The letter could open up by describing the need to protect the future of our country and its people, and give the tone that Saddam Husein is a direct threat to the future of our lives and children after us. Also the tone of the letter, if written for the American people, would probably be written much less as a plea and more as an informative letter. The author would take the position as someone perhaps more knowledgeable on the subject than the average joe. Statements such as, "If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country", could be written to appeal more to the general public by saying something along the lines of, " This is the time we must act and change our policies, for if we stay the current course, we will endanger the future of our country and its people."

Relating to Common Values

In general, people tend to get a warm feeling when they stumble upon something done for a common good. So what better way to appeal to an audience in an opening paragraph then to describe a memory of bringing something good upon a community in the hardest of times.

Turkel does an excellent job of quelling some of the potential arguments that could be made to his essay by relating the audience to a warm mindset. Not only does this set a good tone with the audience but also keeps the audience intrigued as to what the story will lead into.

As Killingsworth describes, the opening argument of a piece of discourse can make or break how the audience will receive it. This tactic can more or less sway an audience to hear the message out and take note of the authors positions in a less hostile way.

Turkel also implies two prominent figures in American history to make his argument. He disagrees with Einstein's idea that individuality can be lost when tied into a group. Turkel follows this opposition with an excellent justification by showing a person's need for companionship, and that someone is more comfortable around like-minded persons.

Turkel also counters Einstein's quote by quoting Thomas Paine. The use of Paine's line, " He sees his species as kindred." is an excellent way to close out the essay. This leaves the audience with a thought provoking idea that sums up what his whole essay was trying to get accross.

In closing, Turkel uses ethos, pathos, and logos each together in the essay. Being a Pulitzer prize winner, one would assume he is credible aside from the fact that he has experienced a lot. He uses pathos by cleverly telling the tale of the community outreach during a hard time like the depression to relate to the audience's feelings. Turkel enters logos by providing sound justification to all oppositions made during his piece.