For this post, you’ll analyze how a writer from the Denver Post reasons through his or argument. First, pick an editorial or an op-ed piece from the Denver Post that interests you. Then, summarize this piece’s main claim or argument. Then, examine how the writer appeals to logos to support his or her main claim.
To do so, you should first examine its use of enthymemes. For example, you might try writing out the piece’s major premise, minor premise, and conclusion (or main claim) like our textbook does on pages 165-177. Or, you might explain what widely held community beliefs—or commonplaces—provide a foundation for the argument and explain how the writer uses these commonplaces to strengthen his or her reasoning. Then, consider the rhetor’s use of examples, analogies, maxims, or signs. How effectively are these proofs used and how do they lead the reader logically to the conclusions the writer affirms?
Please post your response as a comment to this post before class meets on Monday, January 24.
In Friday’s paper the article proposing the idea of helping the children of illegal immigrants afford college brought an interesting view point on this usually one-sided argument. I was intrigued by how the writer established his argument for the new bill being proposed. There has been a lack of support for this bill in the past and his take is that this is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The kids of illegal immigrants are being hindered by their parents’ decisions and they are not being able to benefit our country as well because of it. There are students that have graduated high schools in Colorado that are unable to continue on with further education because of the expense of a state university. His argument appeals to the ethos because he states that these students have done nothing wrong and are being punished for trying to succeed and work hard in our country. He brings up that these students have already been put through many years of education by the state and offering them in-state tuition would be a minor expense for them to better our society. The writer uses the commonplace that illegal immigration is bad, but he acknowledges that there are illegal immigrants that are trying hard to do their best and be assets to our society. The main premise would be that there are illegal immigrants in this country that are trying to succeed. The minor premise is that they are not offered in-state tuition and therefore are unable to further their education and be productive in the United States. The writer appeals to logos by stating that there is a small price to pay by offering these students in-state tuition, but the state has already invested a much larger amount of money helping these students attend K-12 schools.
ReplyDeleteThe Post Editorials
ReplyDeleteIn-state tuition for all students
The main claim or argument of this article from Friday’s paper is that the bill being introduced by Sens. Angela Giron and Michael Johnston should be passed. The bill “proposes that students who are in the country illegally, but have graduated from Colorado schools, be able to pay in-state tuition when they go to college”(Denver Post Editors). When I first read this claim, I was surprised that the editors thought that this bill was a good idea and should be passed. Illegal immigrants have been a very controversial topic over the past several years. I didn’t know how these writers would persuade the American public that this was, in fact, a good idea. The use of logical arguments, however, did end up convincing me that this may not be a bad idea.
The article starts out by identifying the problems and common places that many people have with illegal immigrants and acknowledges “there is anger over the lack of immigration enforcement”. After acknowledging the problems, the editors can then talk about how this bill can overcome it and why it is important to put some of these angers behind us. “Colorado can’t always afford to wait around for Washington to fix our problems”(Denver Post Editors). Later in the article the editors provide another logical argument. They say, “children who have invested the time and effort to finish their high school education have shown they are serious about their futures in this country. It certainly doesn’t serve anyone’s interest to continue to create a pool of young people, who despite their best efforts, face a future with few prospects.” Americans are patriotic and want what’s best for their country. The editors do not mention the fact that more jobs will be taken by these immigrants, which will take jobs away from those who have always been in the United States legally. They chose to bring up the logical argument that putting these minds through school is best for the future of this country. The way the article is laid out and the choices of logical proofs throughout the article causes the reader to accept these proofs and believe that this will in fact benefit this country.
I read the op-ed piece from this Sunday’s Denver Post entitled “Recovery by a thousand cuts.” The main argument, of the collaborated piece from the post, is that new Governor John Hickenlooper should continue with the tax cuts that previous Governor Bill Ritter implemented. The writers back-up their claim with describing that this is following the political scene. They use this to show that Colorado should follow the economic plan that is beginning to work for other states. They further this claim by expanding from states trends to show that even Obama is starting to retract some of the regulations that he imposed on big business. The wording in that sentence work to play into the feelings of many of Coloradoans. The sentence starts by saying that “even Obama” insinuating that even extremely liberal Obama is backing tax cuts. Later on in the sentence they say that Obama “needlessly tie the hands of business” playing to the Coloradoans emotions towards smaller governments. The article then changes their rhetoric from other opinion based evidence to numerical evidence. The authors correctly use multiple types of proofs to ensure that those people who need opinions and those who numerical data are both convinced. The conclusion is very important in any rhetorical piece because it’s the author’s chance at a final expression and the conclusion in this piece is very successful. “At some point, given the lean nature of the state's finances, there will have to be talk about structural reform and probably revenue enhancement — yes, we mean taxes. For now, however, frugality should carry the day.” I think the single most convincing aspect of the conclusion is how they become somewhat colloquially and directly address their audience. At the end of the day the purpose of op-ed piece is to convince your audience and that’s what that conclusion was doing.
ReplyDeleteIn an opinion piece by Ruben Navarrette from Washington Post Writers Group run in The Denver Post’s January 21, 2010 paper, Navarrette outlines a very bleak outlook on the man who shot Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords recently. He found that Latinos were able to breathe a sigh of relief when data came out identifying the shooter as white, and not Latino. They feared for the already-negative view of their culture. A widely held community belief in Arizona is that the majority of people of Hispanic origin are illegal, and a recently signed immigration bill allows police to question anyone who appears to be Hispanic. The article says that many Hispanics—illegal and not—have left Arizona since the signing of the bill because they feel very prejudged in their own community. Navarrette wonders what would have happened if the shooter had turned out to be Latino? He concludes that there would have been a mass segregation between the whites and the Latinos not only in Arizona but all across America. This notion seems entirely possible given peoples’ natural tendency to segregate and is effective in that way. He further says that the prejudging that goes on in Arizona towards the Latinos is very similar to that of the US and Muslim terrorists in that when something bad happens, people tend to blame the prejudged group over the white Republican group. The article is a bit accusatory towards non-minority groups, but the accuracy in his predictions of what would happen if the shooter had been Latino implants beliefs in the reader’s mind. For example, the author continues to allude that white Republicans would probably be the first to accuse someone outside of their group of committing a crime. But he continues in his sarcasm that Democrats would probably blame anti-government groups. These are both bold and unfair statements to make without much evidence. But his point is that no matter who commits a crime, there is always going to be negative backlash from opposing groups. So this article is ultimately about the amount of segregation that still exists in our so-called ‘free’ nation today. And in through the outrageous examples, Navarrette is extremely effective in making his point that the shooter in Arizona could have been anyone, but for the sake of the already-present drama with Latinos in Arizona he is glad that the shooter was not Latino.
ReplyDeleteIn Friday’s Denver Post Editorial, the paper asserts that providing in-state college tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants is the right thing to do from both an economic and moral standpoint. Young children from Mexico often illegally cross the border with their parents and are therefore considered illegal immigrants.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial says that even if these children of illegal immigrants excel in Colorado’s K-12 schools, they’re out of luck when it comes to getting the CU in-state rate of tuition. The author(s) state that this does not make economic or moral sense. The author thinks that if the state invests $175 million annually on providing the children of illegal immigrants a K-12 education, then it only makes sense to spend a bit more to “help those who want to help themselves” by attending college.
The major premise of this editorial is that providing in-state college tuition to children of illegal immigrants would strengthen people and communities. The minor premise is that children of illegal immigrants who crossed the border at a young age are not allowed the privileges of citizenship and thus, they often can not attend college even though the state is already required to fund K-12 education for all students. I think that this logic enables the editor to present a compelling argument by appealing to both those who sympathize with the youngest victims of the immigration system and those who are most concerned about the state’s finances.
Harsanyi: Blood libel? Oy vey
ReplyDeleteMr. Harsanyi speaks of the recent shootings in Tucson, and more specifically to the reaction of the country in terms of the language which could have brought us to this point. He mentions how many people (mainly in the left part of the political spectrum) are voicing their opinions regarding Mrs. Sarah Palin’s political schemes and rhetoric which many of them believe are the root cause for this violent reaction against Mrs. Gifford. Mr. Harsanyi essentially claims (as can be seen clearly in his title), that these opinions are a clear overreaction to the use of words in our political system.
Mr. Harsanyi appeals to the current situation in our country seeing as this incident is one of the most widely talked about subjects in the country. Two days ago I was in someone else’s car being subjected to the words of Rush Limbaugh, he was talking about Mrs. Palin’s word choice and how it is irrelevant, as well as John Stewart and Steven Colbert cracking jokes about the situation as well. By talking about the Tucson shootings, Mr. Harsanyi is able to express his belief regarding political rhetoric and its eventual consequences.
Mr. Harsanyi begins his argument (and continues it) with humour. He begins with an assumption, even though it is not voiced directly but rather implied, that the political pundits crying “Blood Libel!” at Mrs. Palin is just another ploy for people to yell at one another more. He makes sarcastic comments about how this entire discussion is irrelevant by saying things like, “Jews… well, we can be offended like it’s 1257.”
He supports his claim by quoting a liberal Alan Dershowitiz, who also believes that the use of the term “blood libel” has no place in this situation.
He also appeals to many people in firing a quick shot at Mrs. Palin. He does not try to make the argument that Mrs. Palin is blind to the consequences of her words, but rather that she is just blind in general. “Feel free to question if [Mrs. Palin] had any idea what blood libel was before Wednesday,” Mr. Harsanyi states. This type of humour directly appeals to how most people consider Mrs. Palin less than brilliant, and offers the idea that she probably had no idea what she was implying by using the words she did.
He finishes his claim by stating “There are plenty of genuine things to get offended about in the world if you’re Jewish.” This supports the idea that this is just being used as a technique to create discord and that those who are sincerely offended are just overreacting.
Overall, I believe that Mr. Harsanyi effectively uses humour and his examples to prove his point. As a person who has taken his fair share of women’s studies and sociology classes, I completely understand the importance of words in the media and their effect on society. I, however, tend to agree with Mr. Harsanyi in believing that this outrage over Mrs. Palin’s words and the events in Tucson, are just political ploys to get people talking.
Columnist Bill Johnson’s article “Charge 10-year old in accidental fire? Grow up”, was in the Denver Post on Thursday January 20. In this article, Johnson describes how a 10-year-old boy and his friend will be put on the stand and tried as an adult in court for starting an accidental fire. As the story goes, the boy and his friend were playing with a lighter they found at home and lit a piece of paper on fire, then threw it on a dried pine bush. All said and done, there was $200,000 worth of damage to the town home complex. Homeowners exchanged insurance, which should have been the end of the accidental ordeal. However, prosecutors have decided to try the boys and if persecuted will spend two years in jail. Mary Ellen Johnson, Executive director of the Pendulum Foundation solidifies the authors point when she says that there is no point in putting this boy on trial.
ReplyDeleteBill Johnson’s entire argument is focused around the commonplace that Americans in general believe that children are just innocent youth who make mistakes. This article brings attention o the fact that this commonplace is under question. The author quotes Mary Ellen Johnson who says, "Doesn't it say a lot about our country and how we view our children? It says we don't care. It says we have become a selfish, moralistic society that somewhere along the way lost its compassion." So on top of criticizing this particular case, Bill Johnson uses it as a jumping point to them explore the commonplace of the innocence of children. Starting form the basis of believing that children make mistakes, Bill Johnson brings in a major societal contradiction to that commonplace to prove the ridiculousness of the situation. Bill Johnson is also effective in his argument because of his sarcasm in the piece.
I chose to analyze an op-ed piece titled “Colorado Voices: Journalist and the term “illegal alien” posted to the Denver Post by Dick Hilker. Dicks main argument in this piece is centered on the use of words amongst professional writers, which drives so called political correctness such as the term “illegal alien”. Dick starts this argument by including all of Journalism, stating that it is losing the war against pseudo-newspersons who want to hijack the craft of personal motives. Dick uses a common sense argument against his claims and provides a few examples to help get his views across to the readers. The Associated Press is proposing a change to refer to “illegal aliens” as “undocumented immigrants”, and to make this decision in 2011. Dick attacks this change by referring to the definition of undocumented by asking, “what does “undocumented” mean? Did they forget to mail in their census form?”
ReplyDeleteDisk also chooses to use someone from the opposing end to strengthen his argument and to give the reader a measurement of which to weigh his or her own. From that point onward the writer seemed to be writing in direct response to the other persons views and beliefs. Pointing out where this person is confused and offering up a sensible, easy to understand example of what he termed “common sense”.
Dick ends this piece with more of an attack than a conclusion to the argument. Stating bluntly “this person needs to get real”. “People who do illegal things are illegal”.
In Wednesday’s Denver Post, the editorial Hickenlooper making the right call on cell phone use states that Governor Hickenlooper plans to make his state cellphone records public to create a more transparent government. By opening and displaying the state cellphone bills to the public, Hickenlooper hopes to gain the trust of Colorado and show that he will only have business-related calls made on that phone. This action is in response to Governor Ritter’s phone records, in which he refused to show the public even though he was a public servant. Instead of using his government cellphone, he used his personal cellphone for work and personal calls. Ritter refused to show his phone records, which sent the message that, “if Colorado public officials want to conduct business under the radar of public disclosure, they simply needed to pick up their personal phone.” The Denver Post has sued Ritter for the cellphone records, and is currently pursuing an appeal to the state Supreme Court for the records.
ReplyDeleteThe major premise of this editorial is that Hickenlooper is attempting to make his administration and actions more transparent to the public so that government can be better trusted. The minor premise focuses on Hickenlooper’s cellphone records as an example of transparency compared to Ritter’s hidden cellphone records. In conclusion, the editorial makes points that more citizens today would trust a government that was ran more transparently so that there are less scandals and more trust. Citizens have a right to know what is going on in their government, and that actions that Ritter took create doubt and question if the government is corrupt.
The article in Friday's paper regarding a bill that is expected to be introduced by senators this month was particularly interesting. The major premise of the article was that every child in Colorado that has completed high school should attend college. The minor premise was that students should be rewarded for their invested time and effort to finish their high school education. The Conclusion of the claim was that kids that are in the country illegally but have completed high school in Colorado should be able to pay in-state tuition when they go to college. The writer uses the wide spread common place of the economy to support his claim. He writes that in-state tuition would amount to a relatively small expense and would pay off in the long run by producing productive members of society. He also, very subtly, utilizes the opportunity to address the morals of the reader. He argues that it is a moral obligation that we, as Colorado people, help those who want to help themselves. Examples that the author includes are the fact that many of the students were brought to this country as babies, and as a way to help those who have committed no crime, assimilate and aid their long-term economic prospects, it makes sense to create incentives for them to finish school. The term “makes sense” is used on multiple occasions, implying to the reader that his point of view is the only practical, pleasing solution. Through common places and examples, the writer successfully persuades the public to agree with his claim.
ReplyDeleteIn Sunday’s paper in the opinion section, “The Post Editorials”, was an article titled “In-state tuition for all students”. The premise of this article was that all illegal immigrant kids that graduate high school should be given in-state tuition. The article then goes on to say that this will cost money in the beginning but in the long run due to the educated students being productive in society it would pay of the initial costs. The argument shows a lot of resemblance to logos writing. The article has the major presence that the state legislation understands this is a debatable and imperfect scenario, topic but that it does potentially hold some promise. The minor premise is that we cannot wait for Washington to take care of our problems. The conclusion is that in the long run, after some preliminary expenditures,, that in state tuition to illegal immigrants graduating high school will strengthen our economy because of their education. This writing style would be looked at with appealing eyes from the optimistic group. The people who strongly support the idea that an education leads to a stronger community and society. The writer of this article used some analogies that hold a good amount of meaning. An example of one of these analogies is “the situation is not ideal but morally, and economically, it makes sense for Colorado to help those who want to help themselves”. This is effective use of rhetoric because it brings in a large crowd of people by bringing morals, and the economy into the argument of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. It is effective because it is a convincing argument and is written in a manner that applies to a large group of people.
ReplyDeleteIn today's Denver Post editorial section, the article "Clamp Down On Gun-Clip Overkill" addresses the recent shooting in Tuscon that killed six people and wounded 19. The major premise is that high-capacity gun magazines are unnecessary and jeopardize the safety of the public. The article describes how Jared Loughner was able to successfully execute and wound several innocent people in a shooting due to the 33-round magazine he had loaded in his Glock pistol. The minor premise of the article is that Jared Loughner killed and wounded several people with his fully high-capacity magazine. The conclusion is that high-capacity magazines are dangerous and unnecessary, and should therefore be banned. The editorial goes on to explain that banning magazines with the capacity to hold excessive ammunition have no purpose other than empowering owners to easily kill a lot of people, as hunting doesn't require such readily available rounds and neither does any self-defense purposes. The author uses a persuasive logos appeal by explaining that a paranoid home owner is most likely not going to be invaded by 33 armed assailants, for which a magazine such as Glock offers would be considered necessary. Although the restriction of the right to bear arms is considered unconstitutional or unpatriotic and therefore leaves the writer with no commonplaces; the article states that "This is not a debate about taking anyone's guns away. It's simply recognition that if people want to kill a lot of people, the ability to fire a lot of bullets quickly makes it so much easier." This excerpt strengthens the writer's logos appeal by assuring gun activists that this is a matter of public safety rather than an attempt to take away the right of every citizen to own guns. Furthermore, the article quotes Dick Cheney saying "maybe it's appropriate" to bring back the ban that was instituted by the Clinton administration in 1994 with the support of Reagan, Carter, and Ford. This example, along with the reference to the 1993 Long Island Railroad shootings which resulted in the death of the husband of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. and the wounding of her son, encourage readers to agree with the need for a ban on high-capacity magazines. The proofs used in this article are very effective because they logically lead the reader to agree that these magazines are dangerous and need to be banned. The writer ends the article with "Let's agree, and not just for the sake of argument, that the number is dangerously and unnecessarily high — and needs to be changed." This statement is a convincing conclusion which, persuades the reader to agree with the arguments presented and serves as an inspiring piece of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteRead more: Editorial: Clamp down on gun-clip overkill - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17161989#ixzz1By0plR4p
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
In Thursday’s Denver Post there was an editorial piece called “Leave Immigrant law in desert.” The article wrote about the idea of helping illegal immigrants children pay for college by providing in-state tuition to them. I was intrigued at how the author lays out his argument for the new bill proposal. He argues that their needs to be a new bill because he believes the bill will help in the treatment of the children of illegal immigrants as state residents and is the right thing to do, both morally and economically. The kids of illegal immigrants are suffering for the actions of their parents and therefore cannot help better our society or economy. As a result of this the kids who have graduated from Colorado high schools cannot afford to go on to college. His argument is appealing to ethos because he argues that these students have done nothing wrong and are being punished for trying to make a better life for themselves. He argues that in the long run it makes sense for our government to provide incentives to finish school such as in-state tuition. He appeals to logos by then stating that this would amount to a relatively small expense and would pay off by producing productive members of society. He states that we have already invested for their education up to this point, so why not continue it. He uses the commonplace of achieving “American dream”, but also acknowledges that illegal immigration is wrong. The main premise would be that illegal immigrants are trying to make a life for themselves just like everyone else. The minor premise is that their kids are being punished for the actions of their parents and therefore are not offered in-state tuition, so they cannot go on to college.
ReplyDelete