Main points for my Position Essay:
Forcing companies to raise wages is bad
(From the viewpoint of a minimum wage worker)
• It causes the wage/price spiral. Prices inevitably rise to compensate more money going towards wages
• Employees will get cut in an effort to save money
• It's even harder to get a job if you don't have a lot of experience or a full education (Especially teenagers)
• It takes away the ability of the company to independently raise wages according to how the employees work. Which:
• Further destroys the employees motivation to work hard and do a good job.
Examples?
• This happened at Boeing. (I think? Somewheres in Seattle) People got more money but they lost privileges and nobody gave tips. (Research more)
Why is it important, how can I appeal to reader's values?
• It's important to know who these changes are really going to effect, and in what way. While it looks beneficial, it negatively effects the people at the bottom.
Other side of the argument:
Does it do anything good?
(need to research more)
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Collaboration on Position Characteristics and Mediums
Collaboration with Kaori, Mason, and myself about differences we found in three approaches: (Movie trailer, independent articles, essay by Bob Herbert)
1. Use of facts
- A speech did not have very many hard facts
- The mover trailer gave lots of facts
- Herbert's essay contained dialog between himself and a professional
2. Good reason
- Speech spoke of basic rights to all beings
- Herbert talks of children and their need for better education
- The video shows very excited/stressed people who the topic is obviously important to
3. Good Evidence
- Speech cited many examples throughout history
- Though it have a lot of information, the video didn't appear to have good sources
- Articles had strong sources from studies, professors, etc.
2. Authoritative tone
- Speech had "command" voice. It addressed the problem and offered a solution
- The movie was fast paced and had many frames, kept the watcher attentive
- Articles used good evidence and a firm stance to be authoritative
Conclusion:
There is some flexibility for how positions are presented in different mediums. Facts and reliable-sourced evidence is definitely a requirement in academic papers, whereas videos and internet articles have more freedom. Many of the characteristics were evident in all three mediums, and we found the most successful arguments had close to all of the characteristics.
1. Use of facts
- A speech did not have very many hard facts
- The mover trailer gave lots of facts
- Herbert's essay contained dialog between himself and a professional
2. Good reason
- Speech spoke of basic rights to all beings
- Herbert talks of children and their need for better education
- The video shows very excited/stressed people who the topic is obviously important to
3. Good Evidence
- Speech cited many examples throughout history
- Though it have a lot of information, the video didn't appear to have good sources
- Articles had strong sources from studies, professors, etc.
2. Authoritative tone
- Speech had "command" voice. It addressed the problem and offered a solution
- The movie was fast paced and had many frames, kept the watcher attentive
- Articles used good evidence and a firm stance to be authoritative
Conclusion:
There is some flexibility for how positions are presented in different mediums. Facts and reliable-sourced evidence is definitely a requirement in academic papers, whereas videos and internet articles have more freedom. Many of the characteristics were evident in all three mediums, and we found the most successful arguments had close to all of the characteristics.
Looking Closely at the Evergreen Movie Trailer
An aspect of the Evergreen documentary that I thought was meaningful was the short clips of people rallying in the Capital. They gathered on the Rotunda in the Capitol building and held up their signs. Comments turned to shouts and then even physical contact as the people got excited or concerned about the topic. To me this really caught the importance of the issue to the citizens of Washington.
Thinking about the Text
1. Bob Herbert argues that America's current public school system must vastly change to meet the needs of changing times. He discusses this with Professor Thomas Kane, and points to two places that would most easily make the biggest changes. The first was teacher quality. Herbert explains we should be making sure the teachers effectiveness in the classroom is looked at closely, and not just their credentials. The second area Herbert explained is looking at alternative school models. We can take ideas from schools that are set up differently and are more successful.
2. I would describe Herbert's tone as disappointed but also earnest. In the beginning he states, "There is no reason to celebrate these minuscule gains." To me he seems disappointed in where the American society as a whole is putting their focus. In the next sentence he says simply, "We need so much more." At the very end of his essay, he says it again: "They [American kids] need something better...." His persistence in the idea that we need more success and better results indicates to me he is earnest about this subject.
3. Herbert establishes the importance of his topic in the fifth and sixth paragraph. He explains how a four-year college degree is the minimum for living a middle-class life. His sixth paragraph goes on to say, "Over the next 20 or 30 years, when today's children are raising children of their own in an ever more technologically advanced and globalized society, the educational requirements will only grow more rigorous and unforgiving." First he points out the need for a good education in today's world. Any reader then feels the full weight and importance of this article when he states that the demanding need for education will only increase further.
4. Herbert is appealing directly to his reader's values in these two passages:
"The latest federal test results showed some improvement in public school math and reading scores, but there is no reason to celebrate these minuscule gains. We need so much more. A four-year college degree is now all but mandatory for building and sustaining a middle-class standard of living in the U.S.
"If American kids--all American kids, not just the children of the elite--are to have a fair chance at a rewarding life over the next several decades, we've got to give them a school system adequate to the times."
5. I agree with this article in the sense of a need for education to continue America's development. The need for STEM education, for example, is on the rise: more and more fields are asking for these requirements. If we are to move forward as a country, we must move our education forward. However, I disagree with his idea that you need so much education to live a rewarding life. I suppose that depends your own view of what a rewarding life entails.
2. I would describe Herbert's tone as disappointed but also earnest. In the beginning he states, "There is no reason to celebrate these minuscule gains." To me he seems disappointed in where the American society as a whole is putting their focus. In the next sentence he says simply, "We need so much more." At the very end of his essay, he says it again: "They [American kids] need something better...." His persistence in the idea that we need more success and better results indicates to me he is earnest about this subject.
3. Herbert establishes the importance of his topic in the fifth and sixth paragraph. He explains how a four-year college degree is the minimum for living a middle-class life. His sixth paragraph goes on to say, "Over the next 20 or 30 years, when today's children are raising children of their own in an ever more technologically advanced and globalized society, the educational requirements will only grow more rigorous and unforgiving." First he points out the need for a good education in today's world. Any reader then feels the full weight and importance of this article when he states that the demanding need for education will only increase further.
4. Herbert is appealing directly to his reader's values in these two passages:
"The latest federal test results showed some improvement in public school math and reading scores, but there is no reason to celebrate these minuscule gains. We need so much more. A four-year college degree is now all but mandatory for building and sustaining a middle-class standard of living in the U.S.
"If American kids--all American kids, not just the children of the elite--are to have a fair chance at a rewarding life over the next several decades, we've got to give them a school system adequate to the times."
5. I agree with this article in the sense of a need for education to continue America's development. The need for STEM education, for example, is on the rise: more and more fields are asking for these requirements. If we are to move forward as a country, we must move our education forward. However, I disagree with his idea that you need so much education to live a rewarding life. I suppose that depends your own view of what a rewarding life entails.
Looking at Someone Else's Position Article.
The piece of writing I chose to look at can be found here: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/why_do_internet_trolls_troll_they_might_be_sadists/
Her explicit opinion is stated in the second paragraph. Rothkopf states, "The studies...found that the trolls had personality traits that exactly lined up with what is known as the 'Dark Tetrad' of personality traits: sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism..."
Appropriate background information is given in the first paragraph, which explains her experience with trolls and help to define what an internet troll is.
Good reason and evidence for her stand is in the third and forth paragraphs when she explains the studies researchers conducted.
Rothkopf has an authoritative tone, citing studies and quoting their authors. This makes her point sound reasonable and logical.
She appeals to reader's values with her personal story, for even her benign articles have brought negative replies.
Her explicit opinion is stated in the second paragraph. Rothkopf states, "The studies...found that the trolls had personality traits that exactly lined up with what is known as the 'Dark Tetrad' of personality traits: sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism..."
Appropriate background information is given in the first paragraph, which explains her experience with trolls and help to define what an internet troll is.
Good reason and evidence for her stand is in the third and forth paragraphs when she explains the studies researchers conducted.
Rothkopf has an authoritative tone, citing studies and quoting their authors. This makes her point sound reasonable and logical.
She appeals to reader's values with her personal story, for even her benign articles have brought negative replies.
Response to Tim Wise's video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MnmmDiQSdA
Tim Wise's position is basically that the n-word belongs to black folk. It should not be used at all by white folk, no matter their situation or opinion, and they should not try to influence the way black folk use it. The way they use the word is "their conversation" and white folk should simply stay out of it. He reasons this with the way the white population has used it historically as a very denigrating word. He uses many analogies to further get his point across, one of my favorite bringing us back to childhood. "I can talk about my mama, by you sure as hell cannot talk about my mama." When someone from your family jokes and insults your family, usually you know they aren't hating on their own people. The n-word is similar to this. White folk aren't part of the black "family" and simply should not use it.
Wise's audience appears to be a college, but eventually became the world as it was posted on Youtube.
Tim Wise's position is basically that the n-word belongs to black folk. It should not be used at all by white folk, no matter their situation or opinion, and they should not try to influence the way black folk use it. The way they use the word is "their conversation" and white folk should simply stay out of it. He reasons this with the way the white population has used it historically as a very denigrating word. He uses many analogies to further get his point across, one of my favorite bringing us back to childhood. "I can talk about my mama, by you sure as hell cannot talk about my mama." When someone from your family jokes and insults your family, usually you know they aren't hating on their own people. The n-word is similar to this. White folk aren't part of the black "family" and simply should not use it.
Wise's audience appears to be a college, but eventually became the world as it was posted on Youtube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)