Janae’s Blog

Rhetoric and Style Questions

1. *OCD*

1. *OCD*

1. He questions the scientific methods when wondering how they obtained their data i.e., only testing elderly women’s brains and not testing the brains of people who died of a variety of causes. He weaves the scientific method with the findings themselves by stating the findings, then how the data was collected, then how together they disprove the original argument that women have smaller brains, as it is strictly conditional and the original tests had strong biases.

1. *OCD*

1. *OCD*

1. The point is that there are many factors that contribute to the size of a brain, be it the age or how a person died or their overall physical health in the first place. Paragraphs 9-12 develop this point by explaining the ways the brain growth/size is inhibited or affected, thus explaining how the information Broca provided to be false.

1. His purpose is to appeal to pathos. Anything dealing with race and discrimination brings up strong emotions, and arguing against what is considered a racist opinion strengthens his argument as more people would be inclined to agree with him.

1. *OCD*

1. He brings both arguments together by stating that the biological research done was not through at all and isn’t reliable because it is so subjective, then stating that any findings achieved with that information would have to be faulty or false as the original data collected was sketchy and inaccurate.

1. He especially appeals to the pathos in women because the material used in his argument is offensive, but he is arguing against it so it strengthens his argument. Also, by bringing up racial issues he strengthens his argument by appealing to pathos because racial issues invoke strong emotions in people, and because he is against someone who appears to be racist, more people will be inclined to agree with him.

1. Shifting from third person to first person strengthens his argument because while his argument is initially strong, third person is more passive and while first person is more personal and people are better able to relate to a first person tone better. First person also makes an argument more clear and definitive.

Discussion Questions

1. Gould believes that scientist think strictly in numbers and data, and are biased towards numbers and don’t take into consideration situations and outside environmental factors.

1. The purpose was to illustrate the ridiculousness on the emphasis of TV Turnoff week, as well as making a statement to what television has supposedly done to us. The illustrations illustrate this purpose because they are so absolutely ridiculous in nature they prove his point that television has taken away common sense and not allowed people to enjoy and live their own lives as they were doing it vicariously.

1. The poster’s tone is mocking. The words are difficult to read but necessary because they are very sarcastic and provide an almost humorous look at what means are necessary to explain something to people nowadays as a result of the TV. Because honestly, doesn’t TV walk you through step-by-step and explain everything?
   
   

1. The connection to an airline safety card makes total and complete sense. The information on both the safety card and the TV Turnoff week ad are important, but presented in a very condescending way, and completely disregards any common sense a person might have. Wouldn’t one think to put on a life jacket if the plane was plummeting towards the ocean? Or that the No Smoking sign really means No Smoking? And wouldn’t one know how to put down a remote control and go outside? Both really insult the intelligence of any capable and functioning member of the human race.

1. Both Gerbner and Gitlin agree that the debate goes beyond media violence, but the real root of the problem. The blame lies with those who own the networks, but it is the people who are responsible for what plays on them.

1. Gitlin states that Japan has worse media violence that is available to the public, but their crime rates are far lower than those of the United States. He thinks that the more violence available to the US, the more crime rates would go down. Gerbner responds with surprise that Gitlin would use that study as proof because it assumes that violence is the sole cause behind social behavior, which, in fact, it is not.

1. Gerbner believes that the V-chip is not the solution to the problem at hand. It doesn’t fix the problem at all, it just hides it under another layer of deceit. Gitlin is not really against the V-chip sense he believes that any power parents can have over censuring television is a good thing. He believes that they are the way to fix the problem because media violence isn’t going to go away, and this is a solution that makes both extreme parties happy.

1. Gitlin believes that the excess of TV violence doesn’t have any devastating consequences. Granted it may play part but it is not the leading cause. Gerbner believes that it plays a large role in our society, though he agrees that it is not the only cause/. However Gerbenr is more concerned with citizens taking control over the airways again then he is, really, with the issue of media violence.

1. The author does address that threat, especially near the conclusion of the article. The author, Julia Scott, also discusses the repercussions of turning off TV’s and the affect of the TV-B-Gone on TV Turnoff week.

1. Scott’s bias is that she seems slightly antagonistic towards the device, and questions the appropriateness of it and the violation it has on people’s rights to watch television.

1. The tone is interested mainly on the TV-B-Gone device, and the affect that it will have. The tone is deceptively antagonistic, questioning the ethics on the creation of the TV-B-Gone device.

1. The political nature of TV Turnoff week is displayed in discussing what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to turn off. Most of the time, public TV’s are tuned onto news stations that cover political information. Also, the entire matter is based on a person’s rights as citizens, and therefore founded in some political basis.

1. Using one form of pop culture to examine another affects Johnson’s argument both negatively and positively. While it does strengthen and give credibility to his argument, it does so in a form that is more questionable and not considered expert opinion.

1. The chart’s Johnson uses illustrate his point in a very visual way. They show the use of multiple threads in various television shows, which supplements Johnson’s argument that television has grown in complexity and stimulates the mind. The charts can’t stand on their own because they wouldn’t make any sense unless there was some explanation of what they meant.

1. Johnson’s argument that the intellectual demands of television are similar to those when reading is partially true. Both require the ability to follow different plot lines and retain information that is given at a fast rate. However, television has a tendency to make things blatantly obvious, such as a flashing arrow, while reading requires the subtle skill of being able to infer and read in between the lines. But it is all dependent on the television show and the reading material. Some reading material requires virtually zero skills to comprehend while others require intense concentration. Just like some television shows, are absolutely mindless and then there are the ones that require thinking.

1. Johnson’s way of introducing counter arguments is stating that some people may not agree with his argument, but then he supports that particular argument with research and information. He addresses specific counterarguments that parallel all of his own instead of addressing one broad counterargument.

1. Johnson’s economic explanation is that by creating more cognitively challenging shows, companies are producing more money because people are liking to repeat watching shows like that, or purchasing them, because they can watch in multiple times to grasp new meanings. I think people are more likely to purchase shows that are intellectually challenging than purely fluffy shows because they get more for their money.

Synthesis is really just citing research that supports an opinion. I believe that the only real difference in a synthesis paper and a research paper is that a research paper is strictly research a subject objectively and without the extreme influence of opinion and a synthesis paper is researching to back an opinion. It does take quite a bit of skill to write an effective synthesis piece. It requires the effort of researching, and being able to filter out good info and bad info. There is also a skill involved in finding information that obviously supports a claim, even if the research isn’t initially something that would be associated with that claim. Being able to use the research in the correct context s is important as well. It’s easy to just plop statistics in the middle of an essay, but they need to apply to what’s being written in the first place. It’s a skill to be able to incorporate any form of research into a piece of writing and have it fit in nicely and flow with the rest of the writing. A good synthesis essay has a good claim that his supported with research, and the research itself needs to be well thought out and places correctly into the essay, as well as cited correctly.

Robert Putnam establishes credibility by citing experts and statistical facts.

Robinson and Godbey, the time experts that Putnam uses to cite the amount of free time Americans allot to television viewing.  Kunstlar is a social critic who Putnam directly quotes about television in relation to families and society.  Needham is cited for his Life Style surveys.

The 3 sources solidify Putnam’s credibility because he shows a variety of facts and anticipates arguments with his sources. His sources cover all bases for possible arguments and it also shows that he realizes that there is counter arguments for his opinion but he is prepares to disprove those.

The purpose is to insure that his opinion can’t be rebuffed. Backing it up with facts and surveys establishes and maintains his credibility. It includes obvious information because it really just is there to provide a reliable source for the basis of Putman’s opinion.

Putnam supports his claim with that information because it is, in essence, saying exactly what he is saying, only it is statistical data written by a well-known social critic who has expertise and experience in that particular area.

Citing Kunstler lessens the blow of Putnam argument. It makes Putnam’s more effective because it doesn’t seem as extreme and Kunstler’s. Putnam’s is more open and ‘user-friendly’. Because it’s not quite so severe, it makes it more approachable for people because they don’t instantly get defensive against his claims. He still has a very strong claim and argument he just presents it in a softer way.

Putnam’s notes and sources suggest that he spend a fair bit of time researching his topic and planning where he was going to go. He uses a vast number of sources, and the variety makes him more credible because it appeals to so many more people. Also, he cites where studies and surveys were done and by whom, so people can double check his sources if they so wish. They really just prove to show that he was very thorough in his effort to prove his claim.

According to Frontline’s Merchants of Cool, I do agree with what they were saying for the most part. While I personally struggle to relate too many of the issues brought up in the video, I do see how they have impacted society and I do agree that it has escalated and that pop culture has been taken to an extreme. I think that a majority of society is so concerned with fitting in, and will go to drastic measures to do so. I think people jump on the latest trends quickly and without thought, and with the quick changing trends they oftentimes can regret their decisions to fit in and be popular. The model of internalization and externalization perfectly illustrates pop culture trends. A few select people start wearing something, it catches on and then it’s like everyone is wearing it. Or something to that affect. My only issue with this model in relation to pop culture is that it all depends on who starts the trend. I think it’s very subjective to here-and-now as well because it seems that when people want to try and start a trend, they oftentimes don’t. Trends tend to be started inadvertently. I must also comment on the fact that everyone is so concerned with be unique and not fitting into a mold. But honestly, there can be no non-conformist group. Granted, maybe they aren’t conforming to the “normal” society, but they are conforming on some level with some group.

            I don’t believe there is really an authentic way to take control of my personal relationship with society. Although I find it difficult at times, I have my standards and such and it’s a bit easier to not get caught up in the trends for me. I can’t fathom ever spending over $300 on a purse. It absolutely baffles me, and I have no real desire to keep up with the current trends. But I’m not the extreme “I’m going to be unique and individual”. I think people recognize what they’re doing, but they justify it with the thought that everyone else is too. If people informed themselves from reliable sources (sorry, Seventeen really isn’t the best choice for ‘expert opinion’) I think that the issues in society would greatly decrease. But, the battle between self and society has been going on since dare I say, Biblical times. Although it’s rather depressing, I really don’t see a big change coming in the near future.

1. Twain’s purpose in “Cone-Pone Opinions” was to illustrate the control society has over individual decisions. While people think they are free-thinkers, must of what they think is dictated by some social norm.

1. Twain changes from “I” to “We” after explaining his viewpoint and begins to solidify his argument. Using “I” explains his own personal opinion, but switching the “we” creates a united tone and strengthens his argument because it relates to more than just himself and is applicable to more people.

1. This anecdote adds a sense of realness to his argument. However, the fact that he was a slave detracts from Twain’s argument because slaves were isolated from participating in “normal” society, and therefore there viewpoint would be skewed.

1. Twain expands Jerry’s definition by qualifying his statement and making it applicable to the general population. By numbering it, he quickly outlines the rest of his argument and where he is going to take and explain his argument.

1. Twain appeals to logos because he uses objects that are so absurd in construction and use that there is little to no room for debate. They strengthen his argument because they prove his point that society quickly adapts what the neighbor is doing in order to satisfy the need to conform.

1. It is ironic because Twain is going outside the conformity to disagree with his statement. Also it is ironic because Twain spent most of his life going against the majority in his beliefs.

1. Paragraph 13 is long because it Twain’s concrete argument without concern for covering the counterargument. It’s his pure opinion through and throug6h. He could have created a new paragraph at “Broadly speaking, there are none but…”. The subordinate clauses prove how common place the corn-pine idea is and the variety of people that are affected by it.

1. The effect of paragraph 14 is to shows the pattern that results from so-called independent thinking. They show the extreme point that Twain wishes to make in how far some people will go.

1. It creates kind of a mocking tone towards how much emphasis people place on “Public Opinion” and to the extent that they believe in it, as fervently as the “Voice of God”.

1. *OCD*

1. “One woman abandons the fashion; her neighbor notices and this and follows her lead;” An example of hyperbole in Twain’s essay that exaggerates to prove his point that people do rely heavily on the thought of others to establish what is the norm and ultimately ‘cool.’