Documentation Quiz

1) What kind of documentation system are we using in this class to cite our sources? MLA format
2)In this there are 2 kinds of citations when you are working to
3)For a web source, list the information you need to include on that page? The author, the webs address, and published sources.

Reflection on Assignment-Draft 1

After discussing Amy Chua's article with a larger group, I am definitely more comfortable with mapping out my argument for the next piece. The group overall agreed that Chua's piece fails to provide any solid and plausible arguments, thus downplaying the significance of her article, to that of a rant. Also, I found it interesting how some members of the group hinted at how Chua's tone throughout the article was somewhat ethnocentric. Perhaps what burned the group most was Chua's attempt to speak on the behalf of all Chinese parents, as if her values universally applied to all those who come from the same culture. It was a very bold attempt that comes off as condescending, in my opinion. My overall view of Chua is sort mixed, if you will. On one hand, I agree that instilling "old world" values in children can encourage a child to excel in school, however I reject Chua's notion that it is the only way to raise a child effectively. As a writer, she failed to acknowledge other methods of parenting without passing negative judgment. In other words, she bashes the opposition (i.e. her husband), as opposed to actually disproving them.

A Call For Regulation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut's, Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws (Final Draft)

Megan Weintraut's, "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws", contends that gun control is an impending issue that the U.S. government cannot afford to put off. Weintraut also argues that the occurrence of gun violence in the nation is increasing, thus leading her to call for tighter restrictions on the distribution of arms (specifically ammunition). That said, she proves to be proficient in conveying the importance of the issue through her use of the rhetorical appeals (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) along with other elements, which made her argument stronger.

One factor that made Weintraut's delivery of her argument successful was her appeal to logic, or Logos rather. She was consistent in providing data, specifically statistics, which helped to substantiate her argument. She used figures to help paint a picture of the severity and urgency of the issue under discussion. In one instance, she stated: "...Many of the 70 million American gun owners claim they own guns for self defense." [par. 3]. A combination of high digits along with a controversial topic only makes the issue seem more dire for the audience. Which could translate into the issue becoming part of public awareness. In other words, providing evidence enabled her to transmit a message of criticality, allowing her argument to be more solid. Her claim also helps affirm her stance, which questions whether or not firearms are a requisite to American security. She states, "But today, the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms." [par. 2]. Such a statement causes her audience to then ask, whether or not 70 million Americans really do need to have firearms at their disposal. In short, Weintraut highlights that security is sufficient in America, thus causing her audience to downplay the need for personal firearms. However, I believe that Weintraut could have made her argument more concrete if she had included studies conducted by experts, and used their input in order to help paint the situation as a critical matter. Had she have done so, the evidence would have appeared more dramatic and severe, hence it would've leaned heavily towards the audience's sense of rationalization. Nonetheless, Weintruat's use of data along with her strong claim appeals to the audience's rationale, which then equates to logic, or logos.

Along with a strong appeal to the logic, Weintraut has also proven to be proficient in establishing some credibility amongst her audience. For one, she relied on a strong variety of sources to help fuel her argument. Outlets such as, "The National Institute of Justice"  [par. 3] and "The American Academy of Family Physicians" [par. 4] , are organizations which specialize in data collection and retains a certain amount of respect amidst members of the esteemed public. Moreover, they're recognized on a national level. Using such entities to back her claim enabled Weintraut to secure her plausibility more efficiently amongst her intended audience. Also, her questioning the relevancy of firearms in the U.S. only emphasized her credibility, for members of her audience would potentially agree that her claim (or reasoning rather) is logical. Yet, I cannot help but feel that Weintraut could have better solidified her argument if she had used sources that had expertise in the topic under discussion. This would have allowed her credibility to manifest throughout her audience due to her selection of data, which could result in her being broadly accepted as competent. In essence, had Weintraut used specialists as her prime sources, it would have made her argument more substantial, thus safeguarding her ethos amongst her audience.

Not only was Weintraut proficient in validating her credibility, but she was effective in her approach to the emotions. Her use of high figures tied to a controversial subject, made the situation strike one as an urgent matter that needs to be addressed. In one instance she states, "...in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders..." [par. 3]. Fusing numbers with an impending issue allows Weintraut to maintain a level of directness to her audience. Which enables her to communicate the seriousness of the issue, by stressing not only the height of the statistics per se, but rather the increase in frequency of incidents occurring due to a dilemma (gun violence) that could prove to be problematic to the stability of the nation. In essence, Weintraut was effective in using data to draw a picture of a nation debating whether or not to implement laws that would tighten gun laws. Perhaps what topped off her argument, was her quoting Chris Rock. It read, "... If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” [par. 6]. In this sense, humor is used to encourage her audience to consider potential solutions that could help relieve the U.S. of its gun violence, by loosely hinting at taxing ammunition as opposed to firearms. However, I disagree with Weintraut's use of humor, as opposed to setting a tone of urgency. Her use of humor to discuss a serious subject matter almost downplays the significance of the topic, which could potentially prove to be detrimental as to how readers at large (excluding her target audience) would view her choice in pathos, which could potentially be seen as inappropriate. Either way, Weintraut was proficient in enabling her target audience to develop some form of sentiment towards the matter, which could lead to some calling for tighter gun control.

 Overall, Megan Weintraut has proven to be sufficient in stressing the imperativeness of gun control in America. Firstly, she provides solid data that substantiate her claim. Secondly, she was successful in establishing her credibility through reason. And thirdly, Weintraut provides information with a tone of directness that causes her audience develop feelings about the topic. These factors, along with other elements, have indeed reinforced Megan Weintraut's argument.

Work Cited:

Weintraut, Megan. "Government should create stricter gun laws." The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web 9 Feb. 

College Free-Write

What I found so interesting about Travis Weinger's "Why College Matters", is the fact that he makes strong refutations against Rick Perlstein's "What's The Matter With College?", in the case of there being a change of culture (moreso ideals) on the American College Campus. Weigner argues that Perlstein's view on college student's of today's generation is flawed in the sense that Perlstein accuses the college campus leans towards capitalism. Weigner argues that it is only the result of a shift in values.

Reflection 1.1

I've learned that I am a proficient writer, however I wish to take my writing another level. After meeting with the professor, it was suggested that I expand more on ideas that I have when writing a rhetorical Analysis. I was assured that the content was sufficient, however personally I would like to expand my capabilities as a writer. Today, a tutor from the writing center came to relay the message that the writing center is always there if we need it (or not). I think this is the perfect opportunity for me to utilize such a resource. I just pray I'm not too afraid to actually build the strength and ask for help.

Essay 1.1:Call For Regulation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut's "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws"

Megan Weintraut's, "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws", contends that gun control is an impending issue that the U.S. government cannot afford to put off. Weintraut also argues that the occurrence of gun violence in the nation is increasing, thus leading her to call for tighter restrictions on the distribution of arms (specifically ammunition). That said, she proves to be proficient in conveying the importance of the issue through her use of the rhetorical appeals (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) along with other elements, which made her argument all the more stronger.

One factor that made Weintraut's delivery of her argument successful was her appeal to logic, or Logos rather. She was consistent in providing data, specifically statistics, which helped to substantiate her argument. She uses figures to help paint a picture of the severity and urgency of the issue under discussion. In one instance, she stated: "...Many of the 70 million American gun owners claim they own guns for self defense." [par. 3]. A combination of high digits along with a controversial topic only makes the issue seem more dire for the audience. Which could translate into the issue becoming part of public awareness. In other words, providing evidence enabled her to transmit a message of importance, allowing her argument to be more solid. Her claim also helps affirm her stance, which questions whether or not firearms are a requisite to American security. She states, "But today, the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms." [par. 2]. Such a statement causes her audience to then ask, whether or not 70 million Americans really do need to have firearms at their disposal. In short, Weintraut highlights that security is sufficient in America, thus causing her audience to downplay the need for personal firearms. Needless to say, Weintruat's use of data along with her strong claim appeals to the audience's rationale, which then equates to logic, or logos.

Along with a strong appeal to the logic, Weintraut has also proven to be proficient in establishing some credibility amongst her audience. For one, she relied on a strong variety of sources to help fuel her argument. Outlets such as, The National Institute of Justice  [par. 3] and The American Academy of Family Physicians [par. 4] , are organizations which specialize in data collection and retains a certain amount of respect amidst members of the esteemed public. Moreover, they're recognized on a national level. Using such entities to back her claim enabled Weintraut to secure her plausibility more efficiently amongst her intended audience. Also, her questioning the relevancy of firearms in the U.S. only emphasized her credibility, for members of her audience would potentially agree that her claim (or reasoning rather) is logical. Thus, allowing her credibility to manifest throughout her audience due to her selection of data, which could result in her being broadly accepted as competent.

Not only was Weintraut proficient in validating her credibility, but she was effective in her approach to the emotions. Her use of high figures tied to a controversial subject, made the situation strike one as an urgent matter that needs to be addressed. In one instance she states, "...in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders..." [par. 3]. Fusing numbers with an impending issue allows Weintraut to maintain a level of directness to her audience. Which enables her to communicate the seriousness of the issue, by stressing not only the height of the statistics per se, but rather the increase in frequency of incidents occurring due to a dilemma (gun violence) that could prove to be problematic to the stability of the nation. In essence, Weintraut was effective in using data to draw a picture of a nation debating whether or not to implement laws that would tighten gun laws. Perhaps what topped off her argument, was her quoting Chris Rock. It read, "... If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” [par. 6]. In this sense, humor is used to encourage her audience to consider potential solutions that could help relieve the U.S. of its gun violence, by loosely hinting at taxing ammunition as opposed to firearms. Hence potentially allowing her audience to develop a form of sentiment to the matter, and may lead to some calling for tighter gun control as well.                    

Overall, Megan Weintraut has proven to be sufficient in stressing the imperativeness of gun control in America. Firstly, she provides solid data that substantiate her claim. Secondly, she was successful in establishing her credibility through reason. And thirdly, Weintraut provides information with a tone of directness that causes her audience develop feelings about the topic. These factors, along with other elements, have indeed reinforced Megan Weintraut's argument.

Work Cited:

Weintraut, Megan. "Government should create stricter gun laws." The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2011

Rhetorical Analysis Quiz

1) A rhetorical analysis is used to observe the elements of rhetoric a writer or speaker may use in their piece. The main focus is the three appeals: Logos, Pathos, Ethos.