Group items tagged

Convention- Incorrect spelling

Convention- wrongly capitalized

Convention- order would make more sense here

Convention- sentense doesn't make sense

Convention-sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- and/or

Convention- commas are needed around "although not acceptable in today's society"

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- should just be Levin

Convention- should be "and of making a choice"

Convention- Levin

Convention-Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. The mother said she would want to administer the torture not just watch.

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- doens't make sense

Convention- parts of sentence don't make sense, wrong tense used for reason

Convention- commas needed around "when needed", need to specify who has no knowledge

Convention- sentence changes tense

Convention- should be "and is considered Lincoln's"

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. Foner is just citing "sentiments that are likely to be with us for some time to come." The article is actually about how he thinks "the most patriotic act of all is the unyielding defense of civil liberties."

Convention- commas are also needed around the quote

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- the authors have a similar style of writing not the magazine

Convention- Levin

Convention- This is wrong. As I stated earlier Foner completely disagrees with these actions and McCullagh never even says that he agress with the actions taken by our government.

Convention- doesn't make sense

Organization- The closing doesn't really relate to the rest of the paper. Ethics is only mentioned one time before this.

Organization- There is no opening to the paper. You go right into discussing your first article instead of introducing your main idea.

Convention- Ursula

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Assignment Parameters- The paper does not really reflect the idea that was assigned. There is only one reference to rhetorical basis and style (pathos, logos, or ethos). You didn't always state whether the author was for or against torture. You also didn't really mention anything about the credentials or authority of any authors or sources so there was nothing about how this affects the success of the message. You also did not research any additional articles on torture so there was obviously no discussion about their specific claims or how they use situation and fact.

Organization- There are a lot of good details used in the paragraphs about LeGuin's story but many of the things talked about do not relate to the topic. The first two paragraphs are good discussion on the story but don't relate to the subject of torture and there is no mention about how this author uses rhetorical strategies.

You use a lot of good details and quotes throughout the paper but the fact that you have incorrect references and have the whole idea of Foner's article wrong might make your paper look unreliable.

The paper doesn't tie together very well. For one of the authors you talked about rhetoric, for one you talked about different aspects of the plot and for some you gave too much review of the information in the article and not enough about the message they were trying to portray and the writing style they used to get it across to the readers.

The paragraphs about Levin are good. You use details that help develop your ideas and also state what kind of rhetoric style he uses to persuade his readers.

The paragraphs about McCullagh have too much review and not enough of your ideas on his writing style, message or credentials.

The paragraph about Foner's article is really confusing to me. Not only are your references not accurate with his article but I don't understand that sentence about how he claims "his views on terrorism by bringing people right of speech"?

Your bibliography page is also supposed to be in MLA format, not just the link to the website.

I like how the author responded to this concern by citing examples from other childrens books and also giving logical reasons why these issues are addressed in childrens books.

In this sentence we see that the defender has a clear understanding about what the argument is

The author makes a good arguement here and supports his point very well. The fact that he wrote a book on the subject makes you believe that he knows alot about the topic and that his views about preserving our individual liberties are correct.

Basically saying "I know more, if not as much as you do. So I'm probably right." Haha

Yes i agree with Cybil, he basically just said that he knows his stuff in this subject matter.

This small statement is a way of persuading the reader. Without this piece of information, the reader may not trust the Board of Trustees or care about them.

I agree, this statement provides an understanding of the authority of the Board of Trustees.

This statement shows the reader that they will make an informed decision and not a biased one.

After stating that children's books deal with many different things, she went on to provide examples. This is important in persuading the reader to believe what she is saying.

I like the way Mr. Larue stated that children's books can deal with anything and everything, even things that may be inappropriate because it is relevant to the situation that those books are allowed at the library.

By showing that other children's books deal with issues about anything and everything it shows that all childrens books aren't always happy.

I dont think that this paragraph is defended well at all. I am absolutely not convinced in this paragraph. Just because there are many disturbing childrens books does not make them right.

Again, she's providing specific examples--very effective. I thought it was interesting that she used an exclamation point instead of a simple period to end this statement. I think the point of it is to persuade the reader even more to listen to her. It's kind of like saying "hey, listen to this statement, it's important, and I'm completely right!"

I love the part about the children's stories, it's so true! A great reminder to the reader to help get their point across.

I agree with Angela. By stating these examples, he is more likely to persuade.

This is important in persuading the reader. She is going on further to prove her point.

Whoops, I mean he!

Yes i agree, this was a good way to further persuade the reader.

Nice comment!

This is good that they explained what actually defines the children's book since earlier on in the piece they said that the topic wasn't what defined it.

Ethos! He wrote a book on the topic, making the reader think that he knows what he's talking about and that he is trustworthy.

Wow! I bet that response was a bit of a sock. I would hate to strike an argument with someone who was a professional on the subject, especially if I didn't know they were beforehand.

The Author shows much credibility on the subject, with this sentence.

This is definitely a great way to persuade the reader. He's throwing out facts from the dictionary to prove his point. And the fact that he states that definitions and legal rights change is very true. Also, stating that gay marriage is legal in some parts of the country is great. I think he did a really good job in this particular paragraph.

I think the first definition sort of weakened his argument about gay marriage, seeing as how the first definition says "relation between husband and wife." I would have also added an updated version of Webster's definition of marriage to see if the wording has changed. He goes on to say that word definitions change, but just because you have a 1960s definition of "dog," and say that word definitions change, does not mean that that specific word's meaning will be the one that changes.

I feel that definitions from the dictionary are a great way to prove yourself. He is telling her the facts, you can't argue with that. But I do agree with Dena. The first definition does weaken his argument.

The fact that he states that gay marriage is legal in some parts of the country, is a good point in explaining to the reader that if something is legal, they can't say that writing a book about it is inappropriate.

This is a very good point also.

He brings up a good point by explaining that not everyone shares the same opinions and a good bit of the material present will recieve mixed feelings.

I think it also helps that he earlier showed that he was opened to multiple views not just his own.

Great point. The purpose of a library is to educate people. Many people go to the library for a general knowledge of many different topics. If someone personally wants to censor what they or there children read, that should be a personal decision.

I agree with all of them, this is a great point.

He brings up a good point that he objects to certain books, but it doesn't mean that other people and cultures don't enjoy them. I also like the fact that he states that the library doesn't endorse any of the books people may deem innapropriate but they are there for people who want them.

I think that this a good point. There are many things that are disagreeable and should be disagreeable

He is being very respectful about the whole issue.

You do not find that to often.

Jamie does a good job explaining his decision, while still being respectful of the womans views. I personally think this shows a reflection of his character.

this was good very persuasive.. ( it's like the old saying " kill people with kindness) she cannot get mad at the way he ended this.

That was very reputable of Jamie to respond to the fact that the woman does care about her family and this is why she raised the issue. It shows how respectful of others he is.

I like the way he ended this on a positive note even though he didn't give the decision that the patron wanted.

I really like how he said this. It shows that he is very respectful. I also agree with Alex, this does show the a reflection of his character.

I like how the author even looks into the sources provided by the individual filing the complaint. This shows that he has truly looked over the claims and is taking the issue seriously.

Yes, i agree with Garrett on this one. I like how the author looked over the source to let it be known that the author know's what he is talking about.

The usage of specific examples to show that not all children's stories have happy endings is very effective.

This statement shows that while some may find certain things inappropriate, the same things may be hepful to others. And in this case, a similar book proved to be a helpful tool for a different mother.

This is a valid statement. Different personal circumstances allow for different interpretations of things. What may be helpful to one person, may be innapropriate to another.

Assures the reader that their feelings have been considered. Very persuasive.

Here, we assume that the laws and regulations have been thought over and agreed upon by a credible authority. The last sentance in this paragraph is very important. When running a public service there is always going to be someone that is unhappy. Utilitarianism is important in making these decisions, "the greatest good for the greatest number".

I agree with Cybil here. As I start reading this article I become more and more convinced that the Board of Trustees are a credible source.

Jamie describes the rules and regulations of public libraries here. He is building his case with firm evidence that will help the woman understand his decision.

I agree with you completely. By him bring up the rules states that he is bringing up facts. With facts behind the decision that he is making the lady can't really say that he is wrong she can only have a opinion since he has a fact.

I agree with the both of you. You two said it all.

This is very persuasive because the person defending the piece seems to be well educated. A good education is one of the most credibe factors concerning a person.

He shows that he is making his own decisions, and researching the topic. Jamie wants to understand why there is an issue and gain supportive evidence why he makes the decision that he does.

In making a constructive argument for a position, the sympathy of the woman is needed. Obviously she thinks strongly about her opinion, and swaying her mind is not going to be easy. Clarifying the situation in a non assertive manner is a step forward in making his case.

In an argument it is extremely important to be able to understand the position of the other person. The Author does a great job portraying this in this paragraph.

Making sense of the world is not an easy thing. Intorducing children to very real circumstances when they are young gives them an advantage in dealing with issues that will undoubtedly face them in their lifetime. I dont think it is how long someone can sugar coat that shapes personal opinions, but experience and informed decision making.

Once again I am absolutely not convinced by this. This is just one mans opinion. My opinion is that children's books are supposed to be entertaining. I dont think a five year old needs to understand the world.

Censorship has long been banned and for good reason. Everyone wants freedom of speech for themself, but not necesarily for others. Parents are there to give guidence, and support. Not to censor their childrens lives and introduce them to a non-existent world.

I agree with Alex on that. Even though the books involve parental guidence, it isn't the parents job to formulate their opinions by themselves. I completely agree that people want everyone else censored, but at the same time want to be able to say whatever they want. It can't work both ways.

I agree with Alex, people want censorship, but only when its not them being censored. It can't work both ways.

Why else would children books be used. They are stories that most times use fantasy and fiction to teach a lesson.

It is a good point that not all parents are looking for the same thing. One parent may want to teach their kids to accept gay people and another may teach them that its wrong and to not accept them.

This also portrays that the Author is credible. In this paragraph the author makes clear that he understands the womens arguments about the piece. By this paragraph the lady arguing against the piece can better understand what the author has to say.

This is much more convincing. There are examples where some disturbing children books can be good.

This is convincing. The women can look this up to see if it is a credible source.

I defenitely agree that a book about homosexuality is innaproprite for a child.

This is true. People should have rights. I dont think homosexuality is wrong. I do think it is wrong though when it is put into Children's books. I think this abnormal psyche could harm youth.

How can a child make such a decision?

comma

stifles

you may have to site this.

You need a tab here if it's a new paragraph. =)

I don't know if you're using MLA format or not- but you might need to site this at the end of the quote.

what's the source on this?

Can you think of any other way to word that? I know that's his title, but that seems really awkward reading it.

comma after *that*

need an apostrophe unless you're talking about more than one McCullagh.

you need a comma after the year.

Really good work overall, your biggest problem seemed to be grammatical errors which are the easiet to make. I don't know what sort of formatting you are using, which makes it hard to judge on what you should and should not site- but other than that I think it's a really good paper. Also- if you have your works cited page ready, that would be good to post sometime soon. Depending on what format style you used, mistakes are easily made with that as well. (p.s.- sorry it's so late, these last couple of weeks have been really hectic for me and I'm trying to get caught back up in all my classes! =/ my bad!)

also, after reading over it once again, the last half of the paper seems a little less organized than the first half. The first part flows very well, but the last couple of paragraphs seems to jump ideas a little bit. You might try rewording the first sentences of the paragraphs and that should help it.

you might wanna site where you found out its his dissertation. I don't think I remember reading that in the article.

I like how you positioned these two paragraphs together since they were similar articles. I felt both had a lot of similar content and made it flow very nicely.

I think this statement should probably go somewhere closer to the beginning. By now after reading the paragraph, it already seems a little bit of a given.

You might wanna clarify on who wrote about these subjects since you throw four names out there, and you almost always want to write as if your audience has no idea who wrote what.

I wanna say this should be italicized, but I'm not entirely sure. I know something should be done to distinguish it- but I am not entirely sure what.

sentence error?

i like this, its a strong point.

add an s.

typo

good point

i believe you have to site this? since you are reiterating what he has said.

This is a good way to look at rhetoric. It gives me a new perspective on it.

I think this is one of the best explanations of rhetoric i have seen so far.

Using rhetoric to persuade each other is an excellent idea because it helps make an answer to a question more objective and it reduces any biases.

I never thought of rhetoric being used by animals but now that is explained to me, I guess I could see where it is possible!

I would have never thought about animals using rhetoric. I found it very interesting that they would use it in such a simple way. They convey what they need throught their sounds and actions.

Wow, i never thought of an animal using rhetoric to make sense. My dog will get his leashe when he has to go out or when hes hungry he will put his head on my leg while i am sitting down. Also he eats around the same time everyday and he will start following me around and pacing back and forth till i get him his food.

My dog does many of the same things. So really, rhetoric is communication. If we did not have a need to express different ideas we would not need language.

When I read the line above that states "rhetoric is manifext in all animal life..." I thought that sounded ridiculous. But by reading this line, I now understand what they are talking about and, in fact, it seems very true.

Thinking about this comment, I reflect back to when I speak to my friends and pretty much anyone and I realize that in some way or another I am always trying to persuade them of something. Even when I don't realize it!

Yes. And I'd like you to carry this idea to the papers you write for this class. You'll want to pay careful attention to whom the intended audience is, and then make your own rhetorical writing decisions based on what you know about that audience's expectations.

This is so true! If you are trying to persuade someone to be on your team, but they are already on your team, then why are you trying to persaude them?

This statement solidifies the importance of the audience when it comes to rhetoric. You could have the best argument in the world, but without the right audience it could be meaningless.

I never knew this. Interesting fact!

I had no idea. Must be tough!

you don't really think of rhetoric as being any different from any other language or culture. I guess it's all relative.

I couldn't imagine going to study in China and having to write like that. Hats off to the students over here.

This is an awesome paragraph and really helps to describe what its like being immersed in something you don't know and how we still use what we learn after we are not involved in it anymore!

These two paragraphs help me with understanding alot about rhetoric and how to use it!

This entire section of the work makes it more clear how everyone uses rhetoric. When I think of rhetoric, I just think of advertisers and authors who use it to persuade their audiences, but I really didn't realize how much we use rhetoric until you see an example like the dog and cat example in the sixth paragraph.

It's kind of exhausting when we think about all the rhetoric we see on a daily basis. Especially in advertisiing!!!

This is an excellent title for a section because, while most of us do not realize it, we all do practice rhetoric on a daily basis. Because its such a broad topic, people dont realize how often it is used.

I like this metaphor. It makes the story a little bit more interesting. I don't feel like I'm just reading something out of a textbook when I read this. It makes me want to read further to understand exactly what they are trying to say.

I agree with Angela about liking this metaphor. So many people think that rhetoric is a "trick..meant to decieve" but really they probably use it all the time without even noticing.

Yeah i really like this metaphor also, and i agree with the second comment i dont think alot of people realize how often they use it.

I think this comment is very accurate. Sure, people may not realize how often they use this technique, but when in use, rhetoric helps to steer the listeners opinions in the speakers direction.

I really like the way this was put-it makes me think further into what he means.

I love this. It's such a huge statement on the basis of the world, and in philosophy. Talking about energy and the way it comes through people is another subject altogether.

I like the way that he put this-it really makes me tihnk further into what he's saying.

It would be nice if that could always work and we could avoid wars and other conflicts!

Yeah i agree, wouldn't it be nice to bring some troops home or had a couple of wars and such avoided?

Wow. If we could work stuff out by just using words, wouldn't the world be quite a different place!! There's only one requirement though, everyone would have to be educated and intelligent. So until then, if we're gonna be dumb we gotta be tough.

I wish the world would work like this. I feel that people today are so concerned with being "right" that they forget to try look at all of the angles my self included. Many of are just so stubburn that we will never be able to think this way.

I think this is very true because we use rhetoric in papers we right in school to convince the readers of what we are discussing. Faculty uses rhetoric to persuade their colleagues and students almost every day.

I think at some point everyone uses rhetoric probably once a day if not once a week to try and get something across.

Again, I have to agree with this statement. As college students, we use rhetoric everyday to try and prove ourselves. More specifically, logos is used almost everyday at the university level.

I liked this paragraph because I think it is very true, when we practice rhetoric we are making a decision about what we want to convince our audience of and how to do it. At the same time the audience makes the desision of how to take the information and accept it or not. This is really evident in a debate, because you as the speaker make the decision of how to convince your audience and they in return decide how they will respond to it.

Hitler was indeed a truly evil person with a hidden agenda who exterminated over 6 million people. Unfortuantely, as many people realized he was a very skilled public speaker. He was popular for a reason. He was extremely good at persuasion and making people think what he was accomplishing was good for the nation as a whole. This is where the danger lies. One always has to think critically and see beyond the rhetoric.

I agree with Cybil. Rhetoric is, as Hitler has proven, a powerful form of persuasion. We must always remember, however, that it is just that--a method of persuasion.

A mind-set that many people should change. It's never about being right or winning for the sake of winning.

So philosophical and deep. I could debate on this for hours!