Saturday, November 20, 2010


Here's a link to it.

Here's my RA.


1. ARGUMENT - The Prime Minister is not competent and is not handling the economic crisis well for Britain.

2. AUDIENCE - A body of the European Parliament, already familiar with much of what he's talking about.

3. GOAL - To convince the rest of the body of politicians (and voters) of the flaws in the PM's policy for dealing with the crisis.

4. HOW -
Ethos: His manner of address was strikingly different than that of politicians here in the United States. I must confess that his concise and almost brutal manner rather shocked me. However, with that shock came a sense of respect for someone who would speak out and openly say what he thinks in a professional manner, if not a kind one. He also had his facts; he had a very polished, upright, and direct manner; and he performed his speech confidently.
Pathos: There was definite audience response at a couple of points in his speech, and his honest, direct manner definitely affected my emotions. Though it was also a factor in his ethos, its effect was emotional, too--an honest politician (or one who seems honest, at any rate) is a happy thing to behold. His analogy about ships was full of imagery and in that sense appealed to the emotions.
Logos: He had some numbers like the rate of debt and deficit for each child and the percentage of GDP that was equivalent to their debt. He also compared this to other countries, which made for a logical standpoint. Finally, one thing I noticed was his analogy about ships--though it had some emotional ties, it made a very logical point.

5. EFFECTIVE? I actually settled on this, namely because I know nothing about the subject, but some of his audience seemed to agree with his speech, judging from the audible response. I would also say that even though in some sense I don't know what he's saying he is a powerful speaker and a persuasive one, and he made an impact on me. Effective? Yes.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Piece of Art

This was actually something I did myself, but it was convenient and it has a message, so here goes.

1.ARGUMENT: Society is so materialistic today that even superheroes would use their space to advertise.

2. AUDIENCE: Americans, esp. superhero fans

3. GOAL: To make people laugh (and think, hopefully).

4. HOW:
Ethos - By using a certain quality of tools and especially of lettering, an artist can seem more legitimate. Also, a certain skill in the level of drawing makes you take the piece more seriously than, say, a stick figure.
Pathos - By juxtaposing the jumble of logos with the usually crystal-clear logo and appearance of a superhero, as well as the backdrop and the $ signal, the picture will hopefully inspire a laugh or some emotion.
Logos - The thought process going into this was interesting, because it seems like something that would happen if superheroes were actually real. They'd be like a cross between the most amazing athletes and the biggest movie stars. Wouldn't they endorse products? And their advertising space would be a VERY valuable commodity. They could probably live off of that alone.

5. EFFECTIVE? I thought it was effective in getting across the idea of materialism. It could be more concrete or more condemning, but I think I prefer that it leaves a lot of interpretation to the viewer. The art is fairly rough around the edges and cartoony, though. If I had it to do again, I would probably spend more time on it and do it better technically. It would also probably be better in a more Marvel-comic-book style, just to jar the expectations a bit more.

(PS I don't know why it's saying that I posted it at 10: 57 PM, but it's lying. My clock over here says I finished up at 6:06 PM.)

Saturday, November 6, 2010

My Paper A

Ummm... I don't think I'll reproduce it here for you (beause that'd be WAY too long). Instead, I'll just provide you with this handy dandy link:

Paper A

Word Count: 236

1. ARGUMENT - Marriage will not hinder academic success; in fact, it may improve it.
2. AUDIENCE - Students who feel pressure to marry, but care most about their academic success.
3. GOAL - to persuade them that marriage is okay academically, if it's in their way
4. HOW - Ethos: Though the emotions associated with marriage themselves probably make sense, it's nice to have a sense that an impartial judge is able to confirm common sense. The studies (academic ones) and surveys are cited, which provides a voice of authority for the claims being made.
Pathos: Using a light tone, especially on the introduction, brings in humor. An audience member who finds this funny will probably be more sympathetic and willing to hear out the rest of the argument.
Logos: There are many inferences and common sense--I think almost everybody would agree that if you marry the right person, you'll feel happy. Even though this is a highly emotional subject, the use of studies and of anecdotes which make sense should appeal to a logical perspective.
Sufficient: Though the evidence used may not be enough to convince a person already skeptical of marriage, the audience is BYU students--as well, BYU students whose only real obstacle to marriage is their fear that it will decrease their academic success. Though some of the evidence is anecdotal, this is fine for the audience.
Typical: The evidence is relevant to the audience. Two specific instances are the statistics of marriage and divorce in the USA (which applies to BYU students). Another example is the percentage of married couples that graduated from BYU.

5. EFFECTIVE? Yes, with the exception of one crucial element. It's missing a counter-argument, which is that getting to marriage requires a lot of work and tears, etc. It's hard to find a person! It's not like if you want to be married to day you can be tomorrow. However, with this fixed, it should be very effective.