TOW #14 Gillette Safety Razor Ad

This visual text is an advertisement for Gillette brand safety razors. Disposable safety razors were introduced by Gillette in 1901, as a replacement for safety razors that required stropping and honing, a process of sharpening the razor that took considerable time. Before the introduction of this product, straight razors and fixed-blade safety razors dominated the market, though required considerable time to be used properly and safety. Gillette is one of the largest and most successful razor companies in the world, having been established with the introduction of this safety razor in 1901. To attract men to the revolutionary product, Gillette employed ads like this to ensure a more convenient and effective razor. This particular advertisement is most likely directed at men, who require the actual shaving, and women, who most likely buy the shaving products for their partners. The ad employs irony in its image dominated by a baby shaving. It creates an actual representation of the saying "soft as a baby," creating the humorous image of a baby shaving to attain the soft skin it already has. Viewers draw a connection a natural connection to the razor held by the child: that the razor can make anyone's skin baby-soft. The depiction of the baby is also typical of vintage ads, featuring a plump, white child with rosie cheeks. The smile, bonnet, and bib complete the image of the "ideal" baby. While this has little to do with shaving, it certainly associates positivity with the razor. The ad also makes bold claims of "no stropping," and "no honing," very time-consuming and difficult practices required for permanent razors. The word "safety" is also emphasized, sounding much more inviting than the popular straight razors, otherwise known as "cut-throat razors." These claims are backed by the company name below, lending credibility to the organization in charge of the product. The ad is simple to understand, makes clear claims, and is humorous, all of which make for effective marketing.

TOW #13 The Silence of the Lambs Review (Roger Ebert)

This review is written by the late Roger Ebert, one of Hollywood's most renowned film critics. He was the first person to win a Pulitzer Prize for criticism, and is the only critic to have his name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He has written hundreds of reviews, all of which are now compiled on his website. Silence of the Lambs was released in 1991, and details the story of Clarice Starling, an FBI agent who is called to investigate the case of serial killer Buffalo Bill. To do so, she enlists the help of Hannibal Lecter, a man locked in a maximum security prison for brutal cannibalism. Silence of the Lambs was the third film in history to win Academy Awards in all five major categories: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Needless to say, Roger Ebert lists it with the elite title of "Great Movie." His purpose, as a critic, is to give his opinion of a film and to justify his claims. He either supports to dismantles a movie's standing, and he raves for this particular movie. He structures his review with several comparisons. The first comparisons he draws are to other famous horror movies, already reviewed by Ebert as some of the best in the genre, Psycho and Halloween. These establish his credibility and are hyperlinked to their own reviews on his site, to prove that he knows what he is talking about. To truly prove whether the movie is worth seeing, Ebert sets to work closely analyzing it. He does a point by point comparison of Clarice and Hannibal, to prove the ingenious nature of the screenplay and director Jonathan Demme's ability to draw parallels between two unlikely characters. Ebert, in his positive review, brings the movie to life for his reader, describing the camera as an humanlike entity to emphasize the mastery of the film, "When [Clarice] enters dangerous spaces, it is there waiting for her instead of following her in." Ebert describes the sounds of the movie, and uses a particular syntax to bring them to the reader. He strings together the eerie sounds, "There are exhalations and sighs at many points, as when the cocoon of the gypsy moth is taken from the throat of Bill's first victim." Then he leaves on short fragment by itself for emphasis, and to make sure we imagine it, "Much heavy breathing." Ebert also leans on statistics to support his love of the movie, stating that "Silence" won five Academy Awards 13 months after being released, a rare feat. Having seen Silence of the Lambs and having loved it, I am quite biased when I say his analysis is effective. But Roger Ebert has the unique talent of bringing a movie to life with words, without giving to much away, whilst revealing intricacies of design that even movie veterans miss.

TOW #12 "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC"

"The previous ATLAS searches in 4.6–4.8 fb⁻¹ of data at  are combined here with new searches for H→ZZ^(⁎)→4ℓ,¹H→γγ and H→WW^(⁎)→eνμν in the 5.8–5.9 fb⁻¹ of pp collision data taken at  between April and June 2012."


A bit out of my league this week. I'm trying to read scientific papers, and found the 2012 document "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC." This paper, with well over one hundred contributors, is the official identification of the long-searched-for Higgs Boson. It is broken into 10 sections that introduce the concept of the Higgs, the method used to find it, and a long statistical proof of the discovery, all of which intend to report findings and prove that a Higgs Boson was indeed present. The discovery came four years after the completion of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2008. The LHC, located in Switzerland, is the world's highest-power particle accelerator and collider. ATLAS is a particular sensor in the LHC where particle collisions take place, and the resulting data is interpreted to "find" a Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson is a particle that was previously undiscovered, but necessary to complete the Standard Model of the Universe, the simplest organization of physical equations, particles, and forces, to date. Therefore, this discovery, and this paper, are massive contributions to our understanding of particle physics. That being said, this article is obviously written for members of the scientific community involved in this research. One must be very familiar with experimental physics to understand the mechanisms, processes, and results described, as well as a background in statistical analysis. The rhetorical device most obviously present is jargon. The paper, published in one of the preeminent journals of physics, is clearly credible, but it is also obvious from the technical language that the authors have a very thorough understanding of their experiment. Because there is an assumed audience of highly educated scientists, jargon allows for the authors to move on to their discovery, without restating what each concepts mean. For me, this made the article impossible to get through. Should I have know what the symbols and terms meant,  the sequential order of established fact followed by new discovery would have presented logical findings. The paper also made use of a series of images and graphs to present data that would be overwhelming otherwise. Accompanying the sections on data, these concisely represented information. I am clearly not the target audience, so I could not fully grasp the extent of the article's rhetoric, and cannot really comment on its effectiveness.

The data obtained from decaying particles, indicating the presence of a Higgs Boson.

TOW #11 The Universe in a Single Atom (Dalai Llama)

If only I had the connection he does. His Holiness the Dalai Llama with Carl Sagan.

In The Universe in a Single Atom, His Holiness the Dalai Llama attempts to draw parallels between scientific and religious inquiry, a matter often regarded as taboo. As the spiritual and political leader of Tibet since the age of sixteen, the Dalai Llama has significant experience with spirituality. As a world leader fascinated by technology his nation lacks, His Holiness has met with leading scientists throughout the twentieth century in order to comprehend the nature of modern scientific discovery. His purpose in this novel is not to argue which approach is correct, instead the Dalai Llama writes to convey the merits of science and spirituality. In recent years, quantum and particle physics has made huge leaps in understanding the machinations of the Universe, while atheist populations are rapidly growing. He writes for an audience that has trouble with this split in the modern world, with a potential focus on those with a basic knowledge of Buddhism and an interest in physics, as these are the Dalai Llama's passions. The book is written with a moderate, contemplative tone, unique to the philosophical leader of Tibet and an entire religion. There is no feeling of direct argumentation, the Dalai Llama presents his points in a series of interesting connections and personal stories. He spends the first two chapters defining his intentions behind the book, writing "This book is not an attempt to unite science and spirituality...but an effort to examine two important human disciplines for the purpose of developing a more holistic and integrated way of understanding the world" (4). With this mindset established, and considerably emphasized throughout, the Dalai Llama is open to compare two governing bodies of thought. He does so in a way befitting a relaxed tone, with personal stories and experiences. Describing his unique childhood and interactions with widely acclaimed scientists (the one I'm reading about currently was an assistant to WERNER HEISENBERG), as well as establishing his obvious knowledge of the Buddhist faith, the Dalai Llama sets the stage for pages of serious contemplation on ethics and the dimension of faith. I think the book is very effective thus far, as I have been moved to serious thought as a result of the Dalai Llama's obvious experience with the relationship between science and spirituality. It can be a little tedious with pages of philosophy, but he does a good job of intermingling anecdotes from his fascinating life.

TOW #10 Rhetoric of a Carnivorous Plant

Ranging from the hot bogs of North Carolina to the icy peaks of Mount Kinabalu in Borneo, carnivorous are masters of persuasion. They live in nutrient-poor environments, and rely on their roots for the absorption of water, totally incapable of capturing substances necessary for healthy growth. To attain these, carnivorous plants have devised ways of convincing the creatures around them to donate to the plants' growth. Many of the intricate natural traps, like the one above, is totally passive, employing vividly subtle devices to lure flying and crawling insects, frogs, and even mice to their doom. The most obvious of the strategies is imagery, creating scenes of shelter in safety. Be it nice lids to keep flies safe from rain and wind, apparent dewdrops as a source of water, or intoxicatingly sweet nectar, carnivorous plants are irresistible to the senses of their audience. False comforts also lend them credibility, as they assume the persona of a paradise, constructed just for their prey's pleasure.

What a beautiful and comfy umbrella!

A sparkling landing pad.

A feast of narcotic nectar.

On the topic of nectar, carnivorous plants also apply a logical progression to lure prey into their pseudo-mouths for digestion. Nectar can be found dotting stems and leaves, but it always heaviest just inside the slippery rim of a pitcher, or near the trigger hairs that spring-close a Venus flytrap. They entice their prey along this path until the climax, where their true purpose is clear.

How many gooey globules can you count?

Having seen these plants in action, I can confidently vouch that the rhetoric of carnivorous plants is very sound. Molded by millions of years of evolution to appeal to a very specific, and easily tricked, audience, they rarely lose an argument.

Not my picture...yet.

TOW # 9 CHEMISTRY (Brown, LeMay, Bursten, Murphy, and Woodward)

CHEMISTRY tackles such topics as electrochemistry.

CHEMISTRY, was written by Theodore Brown, Eugene Lemay, Bruce Bersten, Catherine Murphy, and Patrick Woodward, all of whom have received a PhD in Chemistry. All are practicing researchers and professors at Universities like the University of Illinois, Ohio State University, University of Nevada, etc. All actively pursue chemistry-related research and have one distinguished teaching awards for secondary science education. Chapter 20, concerning Electrochemistry, is part of the whole textbook, which is geared towards the AP Chemistry curriculum established by the College Board. Students across the nation use this text as a supplement to their education in chemistry, to better understand concepts and utilize the thousands of practice problems. Electrochemistry is difficult to visualize, as it concerns the movement of minuscule electrons and substances. In order to understand, students need points of reference to make sense of the notation and concepts. The authors make several analogies to relate, such as "In a simple sense, we can compare the electron flow to the flow of water in a waterfall" (838). The use of the first-person plural also creates a sense of unity, as if the authors are walking through the material with their audience, wanting them to succeed and understand. Strong diction like this is also enhanced via bolding key words and definitions, such as "electromotive force", "cell potential", and "standard reduction potentials". These help the reader find the most important ideas amidst all the information presented. Additionally, the textbook is written in plain English, only using chemistry jargon that has been learned beforehand. Reader find this easier to understand, and the jargon that is used establishes the credibility of the chemists writing. The position of the words on the page is also effective, as some equations and phrases are placed in their own paragraphs for emphasis and to make them stand out if a student is simply skimming. Having to read this text before a test, I found it to be very effective. It clearly emphasized the most important aspects of the text and methodically presented concepts that had been confusing me in class.

IRB #2 The Universe in a Single Atom (His Holiness the Dalai Lama)

At the age of 14 the Dalai Lama was selected as the 14th reincarnation of the historical leaders of the Buddhist faith. He has advocated for peace in Tibet, especially after leading a "government in exile" during the 1959 Tibetan Uprising. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his humanitarian work. He admits that he has always been interested in science and mechanics, and in The Universe in a Single Atom he seeks to explain "the convergence of science and spirituality." After conversing with scientists, especially quantum physicists, for decades, the Dalai Lama was inspired to write this book to unite two practices for a holistic view of the universe. I am very interested in quantum mechanics and understanding the fundamental facts and laws of the universe. This often conflicts with spirituality, a topic with which I struggle, so I think this book will present an open-minded and pragmatic approach to belief. It will be some fantastic food for thought.

TOW #8 A Walk in the Woods (Bill Bryson)

In A Walk in the Woods, Bryson sells his audience on this point.

In the early 1980s, Bill Bryson, a passionate, comedic, and best-selling author, decided to hike the 2,100 mile Appalachian Trail with minimal previous experience. He had felt the desire to be a true outdoorsman, and decided that the rumored "AT" would provide a true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Departing with an old friend, Katz, Bryson traversed the eastern U.S. on foot, and then wrote A Walk in the Woods to describe his experiences. He writes for a broad audience, targeting those who are environmentally conscious, but also those who have/cannot hike the way he does in the book. It is this audience that he targets with a purpose of convincing them to experience the natural beauty of hiking captured in A Walk in the Woods. He does this primarily through his vivid descriptions of his time on the AT, including the challenges but emphasizing his awe of the beauty around him through imagery. For example, on page 153 Bryson describes a possible camping spot where "Everything you could ask for in a woodland setting was here–tall, stately trees broken at intervals of by escalators of dusty sunshine, winding brook, floor of plump ferns, cool air languidly adrift in a lovely green stillness." This description uses metaphors and powerful descriptions to create the setting Bryson finds himself in. It calls to mind something in a fairy tale, a perfect scene of woodland beauty anyone may have seen on television, but Bryson explains he has seen in person. To further the impact of the beauty and majesty of the Appalachian Mountains, Bryson writes with an awe-inspired tone. He includes a lot of natural history in the book, to transform the Appalachian Mountains into profoundly ancient beings. He writes, "Once, aeons ago, the Appalachians were of a scale and majesty to rival the Himalayas...when simple plants colonized the land and the first creatures crawled gasping from the sea, the Appalachians were there to greet them" (190). These facts are elaborated on to accumulate reader's respect for the Appalachians and a desire to experience them for themselves. Lastly, Bryson's book is focused on the fun experience of hiking, made evident through dialogue. Dialogue acts as a conduit for humor through sarcasm or wit, and demonstrates the various interactions that make hiking such a varied and interesting experience. Bryson's conversations with Katz are always amusing, and inspire a reader to have similar ones on the trail. I think that Bryson does a phenomenal job convincing people to hike the AT. He addresses counter arguments by never shying away from the difficulties of hiking, but always emphasizes the benefits of his journey over the grueling nature of the AT.

TOW #7 ObamaCare Is Taking On Water (Peggy Noonan)

Peggy Noonan was the speech writer and special assistant to Ronald Reagan, and has written five best-selling books regarding politics. She is a conservative, and in this article points out the recent faults concerning the Affordable Care Act's website. The website has been since October 1st, and is intended to make the process of signing up for federal health care simple and fast. Because of its heavy traffic, the site has crashed multiple times and is, currently, closed. Her purpose is to persuade the wide audience of the Wall Street Journal that "This is big history, not small. The ObamaCare rollout is a disaster." She does this with a biting tone, clearly opposed to ObamaCare. She asks rhetorical questions like "Does anyone believe the whole technology side can be fixed quickly?" and answers with a curt "No." Her opinion is clearly opposed to ObamaCare, and her confidence fuels agreement in her readers. Short sentences also emphasize her points throughout the article, such as when she says "So you'd think it would sort of work. And it didn't. Which is a disaster," and, after a comparison of ObamaCare to the Titanic, "The Titanic. Some will see his comments as disloyal. Actually they were candid and realistic." These quick sentences summarize and quickly deliver her point of view, to be further elaborated in the sentences to come. To add to her tone and emphasis, Noonan includes small asides, such as "But–it has to be repeated–they had 3 1/2 years" and "Three and a half years!" to convey her contempt directly to her audience. Anaphora is also present to create better flow and connect her ideas. She writes that ObamaCare is a disaster, "not a problem or a challenge or an embarrassment, not a gaffe or a bad few weeks." Lastly, Noonan uses several allusions to make her points creative and relatable. The confusing website is "like a high-tech Möbius strip," a shape that winds around and always returns to it's starting position. The political cartoon above her article and her title point to her allusion of ObamaCare as the Titanic, though "The Titanic at least had three good days." I think that her article is not very effective, because the tone makes it seem as though she is just whining without proposing any sort of solution. She uses far too many rhetorical questions that make the article seem too based on assumptions and opinion.

Article

TOW #6 Put a Little Science in Your Life (Brian Greene)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01greene.html?pagewanted=all

Brian Greene is a professor of physics at Columbia University, and one of the top researchers in quantum mechanics and String Theory. He is very dedicated to making these complex topics accessible through TED Talks, shows on NOVA, and several best-selling books. In this opinion piece, he considers the present importance of science, but the inability of schools to interest and engage students. He addresses people who are not generally interested in science, and explains why the way science is taught is ineffective, how it can be done better, and why it is important to think about in everyday life. He begins with anecdotal evidence of the significance of science: a soldier in Baghdad who was inspired by Greene's book on quantum physics because "it revealed a deeper reality of which we're all apart." This anecdote is particularly striking because it "might strike you as, well, odd" according to Greene. We generally pity soldiers and their situation, and are inspired when they find hope in something. This anecdote is one of many; Greene also describes his kids as proof that we are all born natural scientists. This applies to all parents and presents the logical argument that if kids have an inherent interest in science, something must change their opinion. Greene defines the "pedagogical approach" to science: that topics must be mastered chronologically. He then refutes this by saying this approach leads to the idea that "the verticality of science is unassailable." Having defined a problem and identified its faults, Greene then presents a solution, allowing students to view the "cutting-edge insights and discoveries" to foster their curiosity. This simple approach is well structured and appeals to logos for his audience. Greene also uses several comparisons in his essay, comparing science to curriculums in music and other liberal arts. These subjects are supposedly those preferred to science, so this comparison is very relevant. Lastly, Greene conveys his own passion by describing himself as a "practicing scientist" (a gross understatement) and using examples he can describe with genuine interests. For example, he describes stars as the result of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, "nuclear furnaces," and the makeup of only 4 percent of the enormous universe. I think the essay is very well done, because it appeals so well to his audience. He has logical organization and clearly demonstrates his credibility.


I am a huge fan of Dr. Greene. If you would like your mind blown, he has some incredible TED talks:

TOW #5 Join or Die (Ben Franklin)

This political cartoon is considered one of, if not the, most famous political cartoons in American history. It was presented by Ben Franklin in the Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9th, 1754. Ben Franklin was one of America's founding fathers, a polymath who was deeply involved in American politics. This political cartoon was released just before the Albany Congress, the first attempt at American unity before the French and Indian War. Representatives from seven colonies congregated to decided on a united defense against Indians and the French. Ben Franklin was a powerful proponent of intercolonial relations, and used this cartoon to convince colonists that unification was necessary. The cartoon appeals to ethos simply because it was published by one of the leading minds in American society in one of the most popular newspapers in the colonies. It may be considered propaganda, as it relies very heavily on an appeal to pathos. Specifically, it targets a universal fear of death. It narrows the choices of colonists to options, automatically creating an ultimatum for any reader. The idea of death is terrifying, especially to those who face danger from the French, Indians, disease, hunger, and several other pressures of the 18th century. Why a snake? Franklin may be alluding to the Bible, saying that the US is a snake that could serve as the downfall of France (and later England), just as the Devil did to Eve in the Bible. It may mean something completely different, however, as there was a common myth in colonial America concerning a snake. A snake, chopped into segments, was believed to have the ability to revive itself its body parts were all connected together. This then proposes a logical argument and metaphor, that America can join together and be revived, or its many individual parts will perish. Because this cartoon has become so famous, and has been used in several situations where a united America is needed, I think it is clearly effective. It relies heavily on pathos, but I do not think it is quite propaganda, given the intentions and intelligence of its creator. It provides logic very concisely, and therefore fulfills the purpose of a political cartoon.

TOW #4: How the Market Can Rein in Tuition Costs (Dave Girouard)

Dave Girouard has many years of experience in business and economics, serving as President of Google Enterprise and currently running the crowd-funding business Upstart. With such experience with money, Girouard takes a look at the rising tuition of many colleges, and explains the "pay it forward theory" as a better alternative to standard tuition, where alumni pay a percent of their salaries to their alma mater for several years or decades. Tuition costs have increased to 500% of what they were in 1985 (Notte). This trend has popularized student loans, of which $1.2 trillion defaults. To combat this, Oregon state universities have changed their tuition policies, so that students pay 3% of their tuition for the first 20 years after they graduate. Girouard defends this policy and tries to convince the general public (and perhaps future college students) that this method needs some improvement, but can be a much more practical approach to paying for college. Girouard begins by establishing the context of his argument, explaining how high current tuitions are how prevalent student loan debt is. He then describes the "Pay It Forward, Pay It Back" method that Oregon State has employed and its credibility via the influential people (two senators) who support the plan. This serves to bias the audience by appealing to ethos before Girouard even introduces his thesis. He argues that the program needs some tweaking, but first concedes to the benefits of the plan: it's always affordable and high-earners will do more to support their school. He then proposes a rhetorical question that is not necessarily effective, but introduces his opinion in style. The rest of the essay is an appeal to logos, beginning with a comparison of present methods and "paying it forward." For example, he explains that students today must pick high-earning majors because they will create jobs that can pay off the lones. By taking a small percentage of a salary, students in the future will have no encouragement to pursue those high-earning majors. Girouard concludes his essay with several rhetorical questions, each of which describe his proposed modifications to the "pay it forward plan." Overall, I think the essay was well-argued and accomplished his purpose. Girouard's use of concession and logic do prove his point, and the use of rhetorical questions was interesting. He used economic jargon that I could not really follow, so I think he should have considered a more general audience.



Article
Citation

A Walk in the Woods Rhetorical Analysis

A hysterical story conveys Bill Bryson's strong opinions on American wilderness preservation.

In the early 1980s, Bill Bryson, a passionate, comedic, and best-selling author, decided to hike the 2,100 mile Appalachian Trail with minimal previous experience. He had felt the desire to be a true outdoorsman, and decided that the rumored "AT" would provide a true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Departing with an old friend, Katz, Bryson traversed the eastern U.S. on foot, and then wrote A Walk in the Woods to describe his experiences. He writes for a broad audience, but he does seem to directly appeal to environmentally conscious readers. Because his book is not simply an entertaining story about his travels, Bryson's purpose is to educate his readers on the dire state of conservation in America. He does this primarily with statistics, establishing his credibility. When talking about the U.S. Forest Service's logging ventures, he states "Of the Forest Service's 150 million acres of loggable land, about two-thirds is held in store for the future. The remaining one-third – 49 million acres, roughly the size of Ohio – is available for logging" (47). This statement uses facts provided by the Forest Service themselves, and are irrefutable. He then goes on to make the logical argument that logging "brings out huge, reckless washoffs that gully the soil," (47) and ends with an appeal to pathos using words with strong connotations: "This isn't science. It's rape" (47). Bryson filters through a large amount of information in these sections of his book, which are placed periodically throughout his narrative. They typically relate to what he is experiencing, displaying logical organization and allowing him to use anecdotes. As part of his description of the U.S. Forest Service's weak service, he describes their pitiful maps of the Appalachian Trail. Just after this, he finds himself in a blizzard, consulting his map to no avail. I think that Bryson's use of rhetoric is very successful. His narrative conveys the beauty of his experience, and his logical arguments regarding conservation concisely convey that there is much work to be done to preserve the Appalachian Trail.

I have a sneaking suspicion he will find one of these, and I can't wait.

TOW #2 (Chevy Superbowl Commercial)

Superbowl XLVI took place on February 5th, 2012 during which a Chevy commercial debuted depicting the rumored apocalypse of December 21st, 2012. In the advertisement, the only survivors are revealed to be those who drive Chevy trucks. It is intended to be humorous, referencing several popular descriptions of the end of the world. The commercial is intended to entertain the Superbowl's 111.3 million viewers (The Guardian), while simultaneously promoting Chevy-made automobiles as reliable and long lasting. This is in an effort to continue the "Chevy Runs Deep" campaign, to show the long-lasting positive effects of owning a vehicle made by one of the most successful car manufacturers in the world. The commercial begins with views of a destroyed city, as well as a close-up on a newspaper describing the Mayan Apocalypse. These two shots quickly establish the context of the advertisement. The music that plays in the background sounds sad, but is not frightening or tense, so does not cause the viewer alarm. The subject of the commercial is made evident when a Chevy truck pulls out of a pile of rocks, which logically leads viewers to the conclusion that Chevy trucks can withstand disaster. The music then shifts to lyrics of "Looks like we made it!" and the camera shows the live driver and dog (a common duo in disaster films). The commercial appeals to humor as the car drives through areas of total chaos, depicting many different predictions of the apocalypse, ranging from giant robots to volcanoes to alien spacecraft. By using such imagery, the commercial establishes how tough a Chevy vehicle is designed to be. The protagonist then drives into a circle of survivors, all standing in front of their parked Chevy trucks, each of which represented a different generation or model. The viewer quickly makes the assumption that in order to survive the depicted apocalypse, one has to be driving a truck. The men all wear flannel or denim, some have beards, and all are cloaked in dirt. This makes another association for the audience, making the desirable stereotype that men who drive trucks are rugged and manly. The best use of rhetoric comes when the protagonist asks where his friend Dave is. It is explained that Dave did not survive, because he did not drive the "longest lasting, most dependable truck on the road," which is assumed to be a Chevy. This is confirmed when it is revealed that he drove a Ford. This acknowledges the competition between Chevy and Ford, but then makes it clear, at least in the context of the commercial, that owning a Chevy is the better option. I think the commercial does fulfill its purpose. It is very humorous, and brings the reader to several conclusions (all relating to how dependable a Chevrolet tuck is), whether they are aware of it or not.

Good to know Twinkies survive, too.

TOW #1 (Obama's Syria Speech)

On September 10th, President Barack Obama delivered a speech concerning the impending crisis in Syria, during which he explained the current situation, his personal stance on the issue, and how the United States may respond. Obama is the current president of the United States, and therefore acts as the Commander-in-Chief for all military affairs. He was moved to address the American public after the authoritarian Syrian government released sarin gas (a lethal chemical) in several villages containing alleged government resistance. The attack killed over 100,000 individuals, and, according to Obama, requires immediate global attention.  Therefore, his purpose is to justify his initial intent of military action, planned to prevent future chemical warfare with the United States, for the American public. In order to do so, Barack Obama delivered the entire speech in his typical calm, slow style. The speech was easily understood and well-divided for audience reflection. He made use of an appalled, but authoritative tone when describing the Syrian massacre. This utilization of pathos was evident throughout the speech, as he consistently emphasized that the victims included children. There will be far more victims if the US does not intervene, according to Obama, because other dictators and tyrants "will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them." His proposed thought experiment effectively calls upon the fear of foreign terrorism, helping to justify American reaction. Obama does address his opposition, citing letters written to him that questions his intentions in involvement in Syria. His speech was then organized as a series of questions and his responses, an effective technique to give the impression that he is speaking directly to each member of his audience. However, there are serious flaws with Obama's approach. The first is that he often contradicts himself. He states that an American strike is "in the national security interests of the United States", but then later says he made his decision "in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security." Also, Obama consistently referred to the American assault as a "targeted military strike," and never outline what it this entailed (which is understandable, because of its confidentiality) or how much of an impact it would have on American citizens or the military budget. Because of this vague nature and Obama's uncertainty, I do not think he effectively justified American military action in Syria.

IRB Introduction #1

For the next four weeks, I will be reading A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson. It was recommended to me as by Mr. Yost and my parents. This apparently hysterical travel memoir describes Bryson's trek along the Appalachian Trail. He explains the bountiful natural setting as well as his own silly adventures. Having little to no experience hiking, with a lacking physique to boot, Bryson and his old friend Stephen Katz attempt to travel from Georgia to Maine in one season. They encounter many eccentric characters along the way, as well as beautiful vistas. Bryson reportedly aims to entertain his reader, but also tries to justify and promote conservation efforts for one of Americas natural wonders. I an enthusiast regarding the natural world, though my nonfiction approach is typically in the form of encyclopedias. I rarely read travel reports, but this book is apparently a phenomenal place to begin. A Walk in the Woods is a narrative, so I hope to explore the use of rhetoric in that form of writing. It will be interesting to see how Bryson incorporates opinions on conservation and travel logistics with imagery and humor.

Who Are You And What Are You Doing Here? (Mark Edmundson) Analysis

Who Are You And What Are Your Doing Here? is written by Dr. Mark Edmundson, a professor in the University of Virginia's Department of English. This is one of Edmundson's many essays on education, and was published in Oxford American, a Southern literary journal. As a university professor, Edmundson directs this essay to incoming college freshmen, teaching them that society pushes students to use higher education as merely a conduit for a high-paying first job. He explores the pitfalls of higher education and the requirements of of receiving a meaningful education that will lead to a spiritually fulfilling career.  He maintains that this fulfilling lifestyle, one in which we "expend our energies in rightful ways" (101) that can "restore you as you go" (100), can be achieved only through finding and pursuing one's particular passion, even though this requires more effort. Edmundson begins the essay in the second person, establishing a familiar tone with the reader, as if he is talking directly to them. This feeling continues throughout the piece, as he uses some informal writing, for example an issue in his teaching career was "small potatoes" (89). Despite this, Edmundson quickly reveals himself to be knowledgable, recounting his time before college when he had to decide what he wanted to study. Later, he makes it known that he is a professor at a university, establishing his credibility. In terms of organization, Edmundson begins with a detailed survey of a typical college life, logically progressing to the positive product of higher education: "You'll get a good job, you'll have plenty of friends, you'll have a driveway all your own" (95). Here he dramatically changes focus, saying that, in fact, a student who does "what society needs done" (100) will not be happy. Edmundson follows with a description of Emerson and Freud, two prominent writers that add to his credibility and provide a historical perspective on modern events. He utilizes an anecdote about his father's unfulfilling career and concludes with a thought experiment about the benefits of following one's passion. I think the essay is extremely well crafted and written with an authoritative tone that convinced me that Edmundson is very knowledgeable. He established an opposing argument and proceeded to refute it, using a barrage of insight, stories, and prominent figures in literature.

Gateway
Decisions in college determine how fulfilling one's life can be.
Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/87434398@N00/173504141/

Creation Myth (Malcolm Gladwell) Analysis

Malcolm Gladwell is a popular staff writer for The New Yorker who has written four bestselling books. In Creation Myth, he delves into the innovative successes originating from Xerox PARC, a research center in Palo Alto, California, credited with some of the greatest technological innovations of the 1900s. He specifically describes two instances, the personal computer that inspired Steve Jobs's Macintosh and Gary Starkweather's laser printer. In this essay Gladwell shows how Xerox PARC's approach to innovation allowed for revolutionary thinkers to develop the technology industry. In addition to proving the potential of Xerox PARC, Gladwell also explores the difference between a novel invention and a product developed for the consumer market. He does this for the general public, assuming they have a basic knowledge of the technology industry, including the companies Xerox and Apple. To describe the processes involved with innovation, Gladwell utilizes multiple stories of creativity, focusing on how Steve Jobs developing Xerox's personal computer into a successful consumer item, and Gary Starkweather's struggle to develop a laser printer without Xerox's backing. Gladwell selects these stories because the innovations are profound enough to already be known to the reader, and in both stories Xerox's management seems to fail the company. After the two stories, Gladwell transitions into a separate anecdote regarding Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. This change of setting not only shows the universality of creativity, but this selected example allows Gladwell to make the logical argument that to produce a product creativity must be controlled and directed Gladwell then returns to the story of Gary Starkweather's fight with Xerox management. Gladwell uses deductive reasoning to show that creativity must be controlled to be successful. Starkweather is creative, and ultimately uses the narrative to reveal that Xerox management made the printer a success. Gladwell ends by quoting Starkweather describing Starkweather when he left to go to Apple, which, ultimately, became as stifling as Xerox. This is a full circle ending, but is also abductive reasoning. Starkweather and the Rolling Stones are the major and minor premise, respectively, leading to the final conclusion about Apple imitating Xerox. I think this piece is effective because it engages the reader with interesting stories and commentary. The transitions and organization chronologically bring the reader to a natural epiphany about innovation, effectively accomplishing Gladwell's purpose.

Success
Apple's personal computer is the result of a long innovative process.
Image Source: monografias.com

You Owe Me (Miah Arnold) Analysis

In this essay Miah Arnold describes her feelings of loss concerning her job as an English teacher (she earned her doctorate in the subject) at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. She works primarily with terminal patients, and throughout the essay tells stories of her time there, describes what it is like to lose those she loves. One of her favorite students, Khalil, has recently died, and it is perhaps that tragedy that inspired her to write this essay. Arnold has worked at the Cancer Center described in the essay for over a decade, encouraging children to write poems and prose. Because her career appears to be so depressing for some, Miah Arnold explores why it is she consistently returns to her job, despite repeatedly bargaining that if another child dies, she will quit. Arnold wrote this essay to be understood by the general public, as indicated by her explanation of a hospital environment and cancer treatment. However, the essay may also be directed at parents with sick children and other hospice caretakers, that they may find comfort in her reflections on tragedy. Arnold relies heavily on anecdotes throughout the essay; it is written as a narrative with sections of omniscient reflection. Each story is selected to get a particular emotional response from the reader, as well as moving the essay forward to her next reflection. For example, she describes her strong relationship with her student Khalil. This transitions to her interactions with her students and how she teaches them as the reflection and analysis. She then returns to a narrative style to describe Khalil's death and then her subsequent reaction and reflection on why she has not quit if students she loves die. This pattern continues throughout the essay, so it is structurally monotonous. However, her essays are so well chosen to induce emotions in the reader and to connect them to her job that it holds interest. Her reflections progress logically, first questioning why she would stay, confirming that she will stay, and then trying to determine what about her can allow her to work with dying children. Though there is no definitive conclusion or epiphany, the reader comes to understand that it is all of her stories and experiences that allow her to stay. Because her stories of death were unique and so well-selected to be moving, I think Arnold did accomplish her purpose. Her use of emotion was very impacting.

Angel on Earth
Miah Arnold treats her students like ordinary children, so they may laugh in the face of death.
Image Source: American Childhood Cancer Organization

How Doctors Die (Ken Murray) Analysis

The premise of How Doctors Die essay is that extended medical care for terminal patients is illogical. In just five pages, author Ken Murray uses several anecdotes and thought experiments to show how "futile care" can lead to more suffering before death than acceptance of one's condition and a natural demise. He blames misunderstandings of medical decisions (specifically the difference between providing "all possible care" and "reasonable care"). Ken Murray's experience with such care comes from his 25 years of experience as a family physician. How Doctor's Die became viral on the Internet, giving Murray the opportunity to be interviewed by NPR and the New York Times. Murray has significant personal connection to the topic of futile care, as his older cousin spent eight months afflicted with terminal cancer in Murray's home before passing. Murray considered the experience positive for his relative, perhaps inspiring Murray to write this essay for those in similar situations, either caregivers or those terminally ill. It did clearly influence his opinion on care of the terminally ill, as Murray is a firm supporter of the idea that "Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever" (4). He contends that extreme medical treatment for terminal patients causes "misery we would not inflict on a terrorist" (2). Murray goes about his argument almost entirely emotionally. He begins with an anecdote of a doctor Murray considered his mentor. This man was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, but he refused treatment from a one of the best surgeons in the nation in favor of a quiet end at home. Murray then addresses why it is doctor's act differently with knowledge that they will soon die, establishing their ethos because they have much more experience with death and modern medicine. The reader, less educated than these reported doctors, is now obliged to focus on this inside advice. Murray systematically breaks down the process of receiving futile care via a theoretical scenario and the potential negative experiences it can cause (ex. broken ribs from CPR). Finally, Murray concludes with another personal anecdote, the one describing his older cousin's hospice care in Murray's own home. I think that the article is brilliantly written, because it uses personal anecdotes to describe dying, a topic that can be very personal for a reader. These anecdotes also establish my trust in Murray, because he obviously has experience beyond my own.

Last Moments
The most peaceful way to depart is in the presence of family at home.
Image Source: Tennessee Hospice Organization

Duh Bor-ring (Joseph Epstein) Analysis

Duh, Bor-ing is written by Joseph Epstein, a writer, essayist, and former editor for the Phi Beta Kappa Society's The American Scholar magazine. He writes for numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Atlantic Wire. This essay, specifically, is an in-depth description of boredom, as Joseph Epstein explores the particular sensations associated with it, its causes, and the positive impacts. Epstein draws from numerous books and papers, from as far back in history as Tacitus to most heavily relying on Peter Toohey's Boredom: A Lively History. Epstein's purpose is to relieve the negative stigma from boredom, and instead attempts to reveal the positive effects it can have on his audience, namely, all who experience bordeom. He says "If I am a useful example as one grows older, one often finds oneself more patient with boredom. Pressureless dull patches in life - bring them on" (7). To convey his message, the essay begins with a brief list of activities and subjects that aim to remind the reader of a time that they were bored (conversations about wine, discussions about the Internet, etc.). Epstein then follows with the argument that everyone has experienced the sensation of boredom, using the deductive reasoning that if scientists have discovered that animals can be bored, surely we are susceptible as well. Epstein then makes clear to his readers his personal experience with boredom, utilizing anecdotes from his own life, for example his time in a peacetime army when he could revel in "the sweetness, the luxuriousness of boredom" (3). Epstein also utilizes refutation in Duh, Bor-ing, quoting Lars Svendsen's A Philosophy of Boredom, a work that, according to Epstein, argues "boredom is the major spiritual problem of our day" (3). Epstein fairly explains Svendsen and other philosopher's negative views of boredom, and then seeks to identify the problem. With a slew of outside sources, Epstein first identifies the kinds of boredoms and their effect, and then presents its positive effects with another set of sources. With this organization and his exceptional evidence, Epstein effectively introduces the common opinion of boredom, effectively explains the emotion, and then seeks to see its positive aspects. To the reader, he abolishes the original negative arguments, and succeeds in conveying his purpose.

Sweet, Luxurious BoredomBoredom allows us to reflect on the world around us.
Image Source: Stuart Richards