Analyzing Arguments

When finding an argument to analyze, I looked to the Chicago Tribune, and flipped to the Editorial section. I immediately was drawn in by the article, "China's Milk Problem". The author wasn't listed, but it's published by Tony W. Hunter and edited by Gerould W. Kern. This article describes a problem going on in China at the moment, thousands of babies becoming ill and even being hospitalized due to the chemical Melamine that has been added to baby formula. I found this a very good argument, backed up by sufficient evidence.

The editorial makes the claim that the Chinese government should have acted sooner, ending with the powerful line "What a shame that it took the lives of children to force the governors there to pay heed to the governed." I had a difficult time finding ethos in the article having no author to go from, but the opening line develops a little trust with some background information, "China's rulers have long tried to control the flow of information withing their borders". Although not amazing, the fact that the author seems to know what he or she is talking about helps his or her ethos. The article immediately moves on to provide strong logos, with the facts that "Melamine that was added to infant formula in China has sickened 53,000 babies there. Nearly 13,000 had to be hospitalized. Three have died." These cold hard facts prove that their is clearly a problem in need of help.

I found plenty of pathos in the argument, mainly with the picture planted right in the middle of the article, forcing you to look at it. The picture is of a Chinese baby crying, which pulls at the heartstrings. The line "Grieving parents demanded to know how the government could have permitted such substandard construction", also proves pathos when it reminds the reader of everyone who suffers from the issue.

The main problem I found with this article was that there was no real connection to the reader, but in my opinion the logos and pathos made a strong enough statement not to really require a strong reader/author connection. The author also doesn't seem to have a specific audience, which in this case is a good thing, because nobody feels restricted from reading it or that it doesn't apply to them.

Overall, this argument was very strong, including at least a little of ethos, pathos, and logos, and thoroughly convincing. By the end of reading I was ready to fly to China to help with the problem! If anything, the author should have done more to establish themselves with ethos, proving that they should be believed about the topic.

Will History Repeat itself?

On Wednesday night legislature leaders, Mccain and Obama were called to a White House summit to discuss the current financial crisis. Bush warned that if the $700 billion financial bailout wasn't acted on, we could face a recession, and be thrown into another great depression. The Democrats and Republicans were finally reaching an agreement and have a meeting set for Thursday to start drafting a bipartisan bill. Bush describes the consequences of not acting soon: "America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold". This distressing scenario might include shrinking retirement savings, rising foreclosures, lost jobs and closed businesses.

This brought me back to The Crucible, and the Salem Witch Trials. In my opinion, the main reason so many people were killed was because of the mass hysteria that broke out due to the rising fear of witchcraft, and this was brought about by the fact that the puritan community was steadily falling apart. The Puritans were facing perilous times, and witchcraft was brought into the picture to bring them closer together. It's pretty obvious that it didn't work out so well for them. Now, in modern day perilous times, will we face another set of Salem Witch Trials? Probably not, but I think we need to get out of these times as quickly as we can before America slips into panic.

EVERYTHING is an Argument

Upon reading Everything's an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, I immediately thought of the presidential campaign, and I couldn't really fit it under just one sub-section of argument. It would definitely fall under "Arguments to Convince"(10), because each candidate argues to America that they would be the best leader for the country, a very difficult task. For example, Barack Obama's campaign slogan is "Change we can believe in", an argument obviously meant to convince us of his ability to change America, and his overall ethos. I also found the campaign easily fitting under the the heading "Arguments to Make Decisions", because it is described as aiming "at making good, sound decisions"(13), and that's something that America is attempting to do. It's up to the candidates to convince us that they would be the better, more sound choice. A third heading I found was under "Arguments about the Future" (18), mainly because the it includes establishing "policies for the future", and that's what the presidents are all about. They have to argue why they would be good candidates for the future of America. Obviously, the presidential campaign is full of argument both secret and hidden, I guess it's up to us to decide which arguments to agree with and which to ignore.

White House at War over Lipstick?

About 2 weeks ago, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin made a comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a warthog is that a hockey mom wears lipstick. Fast forward two weeks to yesterday, and Barrack Obama makes a comment about the Republican party, joking that "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig". Although a seemingly innocent comment, the Republican party jumped on Obama's comment, calling it sexist and claiming it compares Palin to a pig.

This made me think of how news is usually told from one point of view, thererfore presenting a bias. On one side of the story, Obama made a sexist comment that was meant to demoralize Sarah Palin and the Republican campaign. If you take a look at the other narrative (in this case, both seem to be equally dominant), Obama used an everyday phrase that was misconstrued as a sexist remark. Either way you look at it, the Democratic campaign could be seriously damaged due to a simple choice of words (or not). Luckily, I found an interesting website that has a short post from both a democratic and republican author. Check it out here.

First Post

This is the FIRST post!