Group items tagged

This should be "connected," not "connect."

I believe that there should be a comma in between the word "said" and "All" before your quote. Also, Foner's name at the end of the quote should be capitalized.

I think this is a very good point. It seems like you really took a lot of time to analyze the works. Good job!

The word "is" should be "if."

I like the way this was said. It's very true!

I like your introduction. It's good that you explained what rhetoric was and how it's used because when writing pubilcly, all readers may not know exactly what you're talking about.

I like that you used the word "tackles" instead of some other not-so-exciting verbs.

Conventions-I didn't mean to pick on your grammer and puncuation, but that was all I could really pick on! The rest of your paper, I thought, was very good. Most of the stuff I could critique involved small grammatical errors, (which everyone makes), especially on papers.

Oh, also, in the Conventions area, your references were correct. You used the correct format and used in-text citations, so there is definitely no plagiarism is present.

Assignment Parameters-I thought you did a VERY good job with keeping on topic. You explained everything that you needed to explain to the reader including if the author's credentials effected their work, what rhetoric they used, etc. It was easy to understand exactly what you were saying.

This is a very good analysis.

Style-You chose good words to use, making the paper not boring. You switched some of the verbs and descriptions you used, which is very important, especially in a long paper. Your sentences varied with construction, which is also a good thing. You kept your opinion out of the paper and kept the point of view as being non-biased.

Overall I thought your paper was very good. I can tell you really took time to analyze the works, figure out what the author was attempting to say, and answer all the questions that were assigned.

It won't let me highlight another section that was already highlighted, but I really liked that you used "tugging heartstrings" to describe the use of pathos.

Speling error.

Good quote.

everyday is missing an e

I like how you introduced each candidate. It makes the paper flow much better.

This paragraph is very short. It's a good point, but I think you can go into it further. You could do this by possibly giving another example.

This paragraph's length makes it one of the weaker points of the essay. It starts off with a good transition, but there is no evidence to support that what he stands for on issues.

I see where you're going with this paragraph, but I'm not sure if it's effective. I think that you need to explain individually in the paragraphs exactly what is an example of pathos, what is an example of ethos, and so on. Otherwise, I think it would be hard for people, especially people who don't completely understand rhetoric, to be able to figure out what is an example of which one.

Organization-Your organization was good and clear. With the exception of the conclusion, I wouldn't change anything.

Your organization between candidates is good, but I would probably discuss the rhetoric each candidate uses within the paragraphs in which you discuss the candidates. It would help the paper flow a little better and possibly help improve your transitions between candidates even stronger.

And I agree with Angela, you should most definitely have evidence to backup what rhetoric method each uses. Also there are very little references in this paper to sources, which you definitely need to make sure you use. This is a really good paper and I would hate to see you lose points due to possible plagarism. Even when you paraphrase you need to cite your source.

Assignment parameters- I thnk your main idea is conveyed effectively. I feel that your purpose is clear and easy to understand.

I could be wrong but I think this is misspelled.

Try finding another word besides different, it has popped up quite a few times within the first paragraph, and it's a little overload. Usually you don't want to use a specific word more than two times within a paragraph (three if it's a very large paragraph, definitely no more than that)

Election doesn't need to be capitalized

This first sentence seems a little awkwardly worded.

1) Written doesn't need to be capitlized. 2) This paragraph seems like it stops short. It feels there should be more depth to it. One example is easily to manipulate into saying that "well that's just a one time thing, he did this some other time." The more examples you have, the stronger your argument will be. =)

Same thing applies here as the paragraph above. The more examples you have, the stronger your argument. Make sure you have reputable sources as well.

Right, which means that having a keen awareness of the audience to whom you are writing or speaking is of paramount importance. The concept of "audience" will be an important one this semester. I will often ask you to cater your writings to their intended audiences. And the reality is, even though you may not think about it, in most cases you do this automatically. For instance, in this discussion forum, you are probably writing in a style that you feel is appropriate for an audience of mostly freshmen college students.

Advertising is LOADED with rhetoric, and it's usually not all that subtle. Have you ever seen an Axe bodywash commercial? How about Cialis? In politics, generally rhetoric can be a bit more tricky. Fortunately, we're in prime season for political rhetoric and we will have a project that focuses on how the candidates each approach "being rhetorical."

Two thumbs-up for being concise AND covering a lot of ground. Also, good work digging up a good academic resource from RPI. I have used that exact source before in previous classes and may very well use it again this semester.

This is crucial, and I am pleased that you raised this point. We are ALWAYS acting rhetorically, even when we aren't writing college papers or giving oral presentations.

Using words like this makes me want to sign the petition simply because it sounds so important and urgent.

Yes i agree, crucial is definately one of those words that stick out when you read them.

I think using phrases that most people know helps their cause because it makes most people feel comfortable.

There is the whole "good for society" bit again. I'm not saying that it is or isn't good for society, but comments like these repeated over and over sure makes it seem that way!

I have gotten the impression over the years that anything that is really good for the society has some sort of flaw in it and they come out sooner or later. But i do agree that when i keep seeing the fact that they are trying to please everyone it does keep me intuned.

Words like these make the space seem unlimited. These words make me feel as if there are no problems with using the space and even if there were problems, there is so much that it wouldn't matter anyway!

When soemthing like this is said, it really catches my attention, I mean who doesn't want lower bills!

I definately agree, with the way the economy is and not knowing if it is going to get better. Who would not want to save some extra cash.

This comment makes me want to sign the petition for the sheer fact that I will be saving money!

They didn't provide any information on what this will do to the environment, if anything at all. Just thought I'd mention that!

Comments like this get people's attention. It makes me think, wow they are thinking of what is best for me and the rest of the public.

This is going to make an incredible amount of money when everyone has to switch over to digital cable, because EVERYONE who watches TV will have to.

It would be great if this wireless revolution ever came to pass but not just because we would all save a lot of money. I also think that in the same way that everyone in the entire country has access to some form of TV even if they don't have cable we should all have free access to the internet. There are still a considerable amount of Americans who don't have regular internet access and so for them this could really be life changing.

This is going to make an incredible amount of money when people switch over to digital cable. EVERYONE who watches TV will be required to.

I did not necessarily think that this switch was going to affect everyone. I thought it was only going to affect those who still had standard cable. What about for people that have Satellite? or for People that have the Verizon Fios? Alot of companies offer pretty cheap starter plans and special promotional packages,and make you sign a contract and get you that way so you can't go anywhere. Anyone know if it for sure is affecting everyone?

You are correct it will only affect people who have standard cable. If you have satellite or even a television with a built in digital tuner you will be unaffected. While in my opinion, google is only trying to persuade the readers to sign their petition so that they can make more money, they also appeal to the readers by saying that it will save them money on their internet and phone bills, which is an extremely effective way to grab the readers attention. Who doesn't want to save money? I didn't know that so much of the "white space" isn't being used, nor did I know what "white space" was, but the fact that they explain just how much isn't been used catches the readers attention. They say that freeing the white spaces is "crucial" to the future of the internet. Using words like crucial makes it seem even more important and urges readers to sign the petition.

This helps to establish a connection with the reader. By them stating this will help their company but then go on to explain that it's not their driving force helps comfort the reader.

I agree with Sean. Google addresses the fact that they will profit from the use of free "white spaces." Their honesty towards the public does create a sense of comfort and trust. To further support their position, they present the readers with benefits they would acquire such as lower prices on phone bills and internet access.

When something as already as good as the internet that is used just about everyday can be improved, who wouldn't want that? Throwing in phrases like this, especially if they are true, really catch my interest.

Access to the internet is already remarkable, I can barely imagine how much more it could improve. If they were to "free the airwaves", web opportunities would greatly improve society.

After reading the petition, I believe that this is a good idea. In the area where I grew up in Illinois, if you do not live in town, it is almost impossible to get high speed internet. My sister lives 10 miles outside of the town in which we grew up and she can only get a dial-up connection. Also, speaking from experience where you are doing an immense amount of research for a class project- a wireless high speed connection in the classroom is a saving grace for those students whose only access to the internet may be limited to what they have at school.

I agree, I came from a really small town where it would have been amazing to have wireless internet, or even anything above dial-up. I just didn't have the patience to even experience the internet because it took forever. Once I came and lived in the city I didn't know how I survived before. I think it would be quite an amazing thing for everyone to have acess to the internet in this sort of way.

I agree as well. This would also give people who can't afford internet better access to it, especially for school.

Great discussion...

Stating the fact that only a quarter of the white spaces are used was an excellent way to start off their argument. Society has done so many excellent things with just this small portion of white space, imagine what can be done with the other three quarters.

After doing a little research on what "white spaces" were, it is amazing that three-fourths of them are unused. I think this opportunity will make wireless much more efficient. I agree with the point above because using this fact is truly a great way to start the argument because it gets the readers attention. It may seem a little hectic to switch to total wireless, but with all the other options given, the switch seems like nothing.

Example comment...

The article uses many different, and effective, ways to draw the reader in and to persuade them. The first paragraph states that a wireless revolution could be reached including "numerous new products and services." This is an effective way to draw readers in and make them want to continue reading. I mean, who doesn't want to be exposed to all these new and exciting products and services? They state two different times that they would like the reader to make their opinion heard-in the last paragraph, and also in the paragraph in which they say, "we hope you'll add your voice…by signing our petition." This can also be an effective way to persuade the reader because they are not only saying it once, but twice. The reader may feel important after "making [their] voices heard." They are honest about why they "care" about the issue and later state that they are not trying to speak for individuals other than themselves, but they are just trying to explain why they believe it is so crucial. This is persuasive in a way because it allows the reader to trust them. Also, the word "urge," although a small word, has a big meaning-it makes the reader feel like it is urgent to do what they are telling them to do.

I think the use of this phrase emphasizes the argument that the other option is better and faster.

The authors at Google do a great job of grabbing the reader's attention by speaking of the technological advances that would result from the global accessibility of "white spaces." The promise of technological progression is appealing for good reason. Advancements in modern technology are taking place at a mind-blowing rate, and people are excited to see what the future has to offer. Google makes an attempt to form a relationship with the reader by suggesting that they are teaming up with multiple companies to benefit not only themselves, but "society in general." This gives the reader the impression that Google shares the same views and supports similar causes. Google really gets people excited when they mentioning the words "lower" and "bills" in the same sentence. The thought of saving money really grabs people's attention, which is probably why this information was presented at the end of the article. The art of grabbing onto the reader and leaving them with a good impression was well executed in this article.

It's more like it's crucial to the profit increase of Google. Not that I'm against it but this whole article is trying to pursuade us to to sign this petition so Google can get more hits and way more money. It's just funny how they make it sound like they "care" so much. Like I said, though, I will proabably sign it.

I think the writers of this article did a very good job pursuading their readers that this change would be in their best interest. First of all it is very informative and tells you what the "white spaces" are and what would be accomplished by making them more available for use. After reading this people will want to know more about the "new products and services" and also about the "future of the internet" and the "far lower cell phone and internet bills." All of the techniques used were very pursuasive and made you trust their opinion.

I feel that this is ultimatly a capitalist venture that is relitivly unconcerned with its users. Google is just trying to forward their agenda and monopolize the internet. Huge profits for them, and what will this give us the consumer? Less of a wait time for mindless distraction on sites such as facebook and online games.

I think this is amazing. It is just another step towards becoming more technological. I think there is almost a limitless amount of stuff that can be done with technology and that I think is main focus for many in todays world.

I'm not sure exactly why this would not be made available. What are some of the downfalls of having this. Are there any?

Isnt this what it is all about. Access would open up new arenas for improvements and innovation I think.

Here is a pretty good, clear and concise statement. We obviously know what the purpose of this article is.