Documentation Quiz

1. MLA (Modern Langauge Association)
2. Works Cited Page (end of paper)
3. Author(s), name of database, title of article, title of online publication, volume, issue, year, pages or paragraph, date of publication, date of access, publisher information

Prewriting Essay 2

First of all, I've never read it, so I need to perform a background check and really understand the tone, style, and language, etc. 
There is no author in the editorial that I'm rebutting, so what does that do with ethos?
I'm going to have to use a lot of counterargument by bringing up new ways of looking at arguments and disproving claims from the editorial.
Huck fin is an advanced college level text (who's reading it? what level of students?)
We shouldn't be changing text b/c its part of history, its a diff social world w/ diff social norms, diff situation all together.
Maybe just postpone reading to older age (no middle schoolers should be reading it anyway/based on research of who's reading it now). Based on the fact that students are too immature. But on the other hand, if your teacher/parent lets you watch a movie that's above your legal rating (ex PG-13 for 6th graders; R for 9th), your maturity increases, as does your respect for that teacher/parent.
If the immature student reads the book and uses the word in question incorrectly in public, then that student wasn't mature enough to read it in the first place, and obviously didn't understand the meaning of the book.
the DVD argument is a little shaky, cant wait to rip that apart.
I do agree with the last paragraph, the bible reference, really only b/c i cant refute it.
basically i have to say that censorship is not the answer to fix this problem, its the education system and stuff like that.
editorial didn't really have pathos, so that leaves logos
obviously, this is a very sensitive topic, so i have to be careful not to piss people off, maybe start w/ ack of bible paragraph and then refute or use counterargument to kill the rest of the argument.
1000 words (3-4 pages) due weds 3/2, 2 days before my birthday

Reflection 1.2

After the conference with you, I felt somewhat confident about my paper and knew that I had to change some structural things as well as general rhetorical changes. I revised my 1.1 draft before Wednesday and met with a professor in the writing center, who read my paper out loud and made some corrections. These were generally small changes, but some major fails on my part were shown: such as i introduced ethos as the appeal on emotion, when the paragraph before that was on ethos. She tried to reduce the wording of some of my paragraphs and then I made those revisions for today. I feel very confident about my paper now. My writing process is very slow in the beginning as it always is with my writing, but I feel that I did not wait until the very last moment to make revisions. I feel that the writing center helped a lot and i plan on using that resource in the future. I do feel rather confident about future papers with the outcome of this one.

Rhetorical Analysis 1.2

Cleaning the Barrel: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s article, “Government should create stricter gun laws”

Megan Weintraut, a senior mathematics major at Ithaca College, published her reasoned and lucid article, “Government should create stricter gun laws,” on January 26^th, 2011, in the student and faculty read newspaper, The Ithacan.  Weintraut describes her occasion for writing this article as the timely editorial in response to the current issue of the shootings in Arizona: “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and most recently the Arizona shooting have forced us to address the issue” (par. 6).  This gives Weintraut the opportunity to display her purpose: to stress the dangers and to extrapolate towards all gun violence and the gun-related governing laws.  Weintraut’s compelling reaction piece is in support of increasing the restrictions of gun-bearing American citizens, and uses the rhetorical appeals and situation to create a persuasive and strong logos based argument.

Weintraut’s first rhetorical appeal used is her strongest and the most effective in her argument.  The logos used in this article cannot be denied, nor can it be ignored: “It [The Second Amendment] was established to create a nationwide civilian army during a time when Britain’s organized and professional army threatened the development of an independent America.  At this time, many families lived in isolation, and it was necessary to hunt and kill animals to supply food.  Guns were essential in protecting and providing for families” (par. 1).  The author clarifies how in a once desperate and determined country, guns were given out much more freely than the present to protect America as a whole.  Now, the United States can provide care and protection to its citizens by means of its multi-faceted government.  The need to own a gun is not essential for survival any more, and so the author moves to create stricter laws against these citizens who own guns just for the sake of owning them.  It seems almost as if she can tell what her critics are going to say next: ‘People need guns for protection.’  Weintraut silences her challengers swiftly with this quote from the third paragraph: “…Americans own significantly more firearms [than other developed nations], and this accounts for our higher rate of homicide.  The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par. 3).  Weintraut explains further that violence in the media has an increasing effect on today’s children, setting bad examples at early ages.  But you cannot fault the media alone since there are no governmental laws that limit the number of guns that can be purchased at once.

The facts above are incontrovertible, just as Weintraut’s sound argument.  She incorporates a number of significant and effective facts that show that this argument is not just an opinion, but a documented and historical correlation between the amount of gun paraphernalia in a person’s life and the tendencies to use those guns.  All of Weintraut’s well-researched facts have a direct impact over the reader to sway towards not only understanding her outlook, but to believe it, too.  However, the author could have made a more logical flow if she had not illustrated in the second paragraph how safe and protected Americans are due to our government, and then in the next paragraph, brought light to the facts about gun-related homicide in America.  It made me as a reader question how effective the government was at protecting its citizens.

The second rhetorical appeal that Weintraut uses is ethos, or her credibility in writing this article.  Weintraut begins this article with The Second Amendment as passed by Congress, showing her readers right at the beginning that this is a serious topic and that under no circumstances is this to be interpreted as a joke.  Knowledge of and manipulation of your audience is vital to a successful and credible argument.  The author understands the readers of The Ithacan are mainly college students and faculty, and so she wraps up her argument with a comedy line from Chris Rock, which displays Weintraut’s practice of “insider language”.  This procedure of using comedy as well as acknowledgement and response shown in the next paragraph provides a common ground for all readers, including those who disagree with Weintraut’s claim, and therefore are more prone to harmonizing.  Although being a mathematics major does not exactly qualify her to be writing in this field, her beliefs are still valid, and being a senior who has published articles for The Ithacan instantly gives her the credibility needed for her pieces to be engaging and reading material for all readers.

The third rhetorical appeal, pathos, involves the use of emotion, and is imperative in any persuasive piece, especially when the topic covers the death of citizens, not to mention children.  Weintraut makes her readers understand the importance of this article by keeping the fear of loss or pain very real in their mind.  She does portray grim facts in the piece, but only to bring about an emotional reaction from her readers and captivate their attention.  In the third paragraph, Weintraut tells the disheartening evidence of the gun-related homicide percentage in America, and in the fifth paragraph, she shows evidence for the lack of government support for gun laws.  In the sixth paragraph, she tells the somber news of the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings.  These are extremely effective in that the positive points are much more uplifting.  Weintraut reassures the audience by reinforcing the promise of gain throughout the article.  In the second paragraph, she presents the United States as a utopia in that our government is securing our complete safety and protection.  Readers would obviously rather live in a world where there is overall well-being than in a dangerous firefight, and so they conform to Weintraut’s claim.  

The use of acknowledgement and response is another way to sway readers to believe Weintraut’s claim and it involves the recognition of opposing views and the defense of her claim in spite of those views.  In this case, the acknowledgement is ‘yes, guns do kill numerous people daily and their destructive presence is felt around the world’ and the response to that is ‘there is always a silver lining’.  Weintraut promises her readers security in the enforcement of her proposed gun laws.  This security can be inferred as safety from unlawful citizens or it can be interpreted as being comfortable in America to live and raise a family.

Within the appeal of pathos, the author takes another path and uses emotional connections such as humor and satire to entice her readers: “Instead of minimizing the number of arms available to the public, the ‘sensible’ argument would be to eliminate gun violence by providing more guns to the public” (par. 3).  Here, she is insinuating that if everyone had access to guns and the ability to use them, everyone would get shot, and would die, and there would be no more problems.  Obviously, this is not the answer, but she calms the argument and reader down a little.  Weintraut also uses comic relief as per Chris Rock in the last line of her article: “‘Everybody is talking about gun control…I think we need some bullet control! ...If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders’” (par. 6).  Weintraut uses this quote to express the effect money has on citizens’ actions, when extrinsic motivators should not have a role in the choice of life or death for others at all.  On the other hand, the author could have influenced her readers to make a stand and an impression on our government even more if she had incorporated a call to action or an option for students and faculty to become involved.  This would create an emotional tie with the audience and Weintraut’s claim would reach farther in the long run.

This article’s use of well researched facts (logos), comical and serious quotes which relate to the reader (ethos), and emotion to persuade readers (pathos) all connect to form an excellent case for the intensification of gun laws in America.  This piece should wake up any passive readers to do their part in reducing the pain that must be suffered by family members of the victims of gun related deaths.  The Second Amendment is still enforced today, but then again, it is just an amendment.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. "Government should create stricter gun laws." The Ithacan. January 6, 2011.

Online. January 26, 2011.

College free write

I thought that the rebuttal article had a stronger claim than the original article because it seemed as though the first article was too far in the past and talking out of experience and previous generations related to the 21 year old author in the rebuttal. The rebuttal was very critical of the first article and did not let any point slide untouched. The author did use a acknowledgement and repsonse at least once in the rebuttal to point of the points in the first article that could not be argued.

Reflection 1.1

I felt that my paper was a solid effort, that I did not rush it or just write it for the sake of writing it. I thought a lot about the prewriting process and felt that I had a good amount of detail in all aspects of the appeals and situation. The one thing that I lacked was actually using the terms (ethos, pathos, logos, as well as the situation terms and the ack and response). I covered most of the content, but they were lost in the paper when I did not bring attention to them.  Also my qutoes were "dropped" without proper introduction. I explained them after they were in the paper, but I need to bring them in and out. I need to not start or end paragraphs with quotes, because they will seem out of context and the reader will have a tough time following my logic. Two of my middle paragraphs lacked a logical order and I need to work on those in my final draft.

Rhetorical Analysis 1.1

Cleaning the Barrel: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s article, “Government should create stricter gun laws.”

            Megan Weintraut, a senior mathematics major at Ithaca College, published her reasoned and lucid article, “Government should create stricter gun laws”, on January 26^th, 2011, in the student and faculty read newspaper, The Ithacan. “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and most recently the Arizona shooting have forced us to address the issue” (par. 6). This timely editorial is a response to the current issue of the shootings in Arizona, and gives Weintraut the opportunity to stress the dangers and to extrapolate towards all gun violence and the gun related governing laws. Weintraut’s compelling and logical reaction piece is strongly based in support of increasing the restrictions of gun bearing American citizens.

            Weintraut’s rational argument is its strongest appeal. The facts cannot be denied, nor can they be ignored. “It (The Second Amendment) was established to create a nationwide civilian army during a time when Britain’s organized and profession army threatened the development of an independent America. At this time, many families lived in isolation, and it was necessary to hunt and kill animals to supply food. Guns were essential in protecting and providing for families” (par. 1). The author explains how in a once desperate and determined country, guns were given out much more freely than the present to protect America as a whole. Now, the United States can provide care and protection to its citizens by means of its multi-faceted government. The need to own a gun is not essential for survival any more, and so Weintraut moves to create stricter laws against these citizens who own guns just for the sake of owning them.

            “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par. 3). Weintraut explains further that violence in the media has an increasing effect on today’s children, setting bad examples at early ages. But you cannot fault the media 100 percent.  “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time” (par. 5). 

The facts are incontrovertible, just as Weintraut’s sound argument. She incorporates a number of significant and effective facts that show that this argument is not just an opinion, but a documented and historical correlation between the amount of gun paraphernalia in a person’s life and the tendencies to use those guns. All of Weintraut’s well researched facts have a direct impact over the reader to sway towards not only understanding her outlook, but to believe it too. Weintraut could have influenced her readers to make a stand and an impression on our government even more if she had incorporated a call to action or an option for students and faculty to become involved.

Weintraut, being a senior and publishing articles for The Ithacan, gives her the credibility needed for her pieces to be engaging and “reading material” for both students and faculty. Weintraut begins this article with The Second Amendment as passed by Congress, showing her readers right at the beginning that this is a serious topic and that under no circumstances is this to be interpreted as a joke. Her argument ends with a comedy line from Chris Rock, which displays Weintraut’s use of “insider language” and the knowledge of her audience due to the location of her article. Although being a mathematics major does not exactly qualify her to be writing in this field, her beliefs are still valid. It would strengthen the influential aspects of the piece if the reader understood where Weintraut was coming from in this article or why she decided to write it.

The use of emotion in any persuasive piece is imperative, especially when the topic covers the death of citizens, not to mention young children. Weintraut makes her readers understand the importance of this article by keeping the fear of loss or pain very real in their mind.  She does portray negative facts in the piece, but only to bring about an emotional reaction from her readers and captivate their attention. She plays the other aspect as well as she reassures the viewers by reinforcing the promise of gain throughout the article. Yes, guns do kill numerous people daily and their destructive presence is felt around the world, but there is always a silver lining. Weintraut promises her readers comfort. Comfort can be inferred as safety from unlawful citizens or it can be interpreted as being comfortable in the United States to live and raise a family.

            Weintraut takes the complete opposite path now and uses emotional appeals such as humor and satire to entice her readers. “Instead of minimizing the number of arms available to the public, the ‘sensible’ argument would be to eliminate gun violence by providing more guns to the public” (par. 3). Here, she is insinuating that if everyone had access to guns and the ability to use them, everyone would get shot, die, and there would be no more problems. Obviously, this is not the answer, but she calms the argument and reader down a little. Weintraut uses comic relief as well in the last line of her article: “‘Everybody is talking about gun control…I think we need some bullet control! ...If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders’” (par. 6). Weintraut uses this quote to show how effective the role of money has on citizens’ actions, when money should not have a role in the choice of life or death for others at all.

            This article’s use of logic, well researched facts, comical and serious quotes, and emotion to persuade readers, all connect together to form an excellent case to increase the gun laws in America. This piece should wake up any passive readers to do your part in reducing the pain that must be suffered by family members of the victims of gun related deaths. The Second Amendment is still enforced today, but then again, it is an amendment.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. "Government should create stricter gun laws." The Ithacan. January 6, 2011. Online. January 26, 2011.

Prewriting Essay 1

2nd amendment (look at title)

thesis: compelling logically based in support of x

logos= organized, vocab, info, alot of facts
safely to homicides
(reasoned)
call to action?

ethos= not exactly credible, math major, but rep= senior
on ithacan, so cred w/ posts
use of "insider" lang: comical, knows audience
2nd amendment (serious)
strengthened further if we knew where she came from
pathos= humor at end, serious/sad, mourning in beginning of last paragraph, satire (everyone gets guns, everyone dies)
promise of gain (comfort)
fear of loss/pain

audience= readers of the ithacan so college students, faculty,
my audience=professor, generally towards agreeing w/ article

occasion (genre)= response article
my occasion=paper for class

purpose=inform dangers

ack and response= opp pov= guns are awesome to kill things w/

intro=govt should create stricter gun laws
effective. and b/c?
use of logos words
importance of text, why rh. strategies are significant

hist context=megan weintraut, jan 26th 2011 in ithacan. why produced? timely, rxn piece, response to shootings

summary=main pts, imp features, quotes, no opinions, obj overview

analysis= logos, ethos, then pathos

conclusion= analysis reveal? tell readers? why imp to readers? future w/ this text or persuasion strategy
no call to action
at least restate main pt

Rhetorical Analysis Quiz

Textual Analysis focuses on the language, voice, style, and structure of the text itself.  The Rhetorical Appeals (Logos, Ethos, and Pathos) are analyzed here.  Contextual Analysis places an argument within a larger conversation and focuses on the five "W's". Rhetorical Situation (audience, occasion, and purpose) are analyzed here.