Group items tagged

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.

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.

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.

very was used like 4 times. a bit distracting

you might want to elaborate more on how it made you feel personally, more reflective?