http://www.whattheyplay.com/media/images/press/vid_today.html
One of the sources for my paper is part of a news report on MSNBC about a website called "What They Play." This website shows parents specific content of video games so they can judge what is appropriate for their children.
The argument that is being made is that parents have tools available to them to help them navigate through the confusing world of video games. The target audience are parents that are not gamers but have children that are, and don't know which video games are appropriate for their children.
In the report, the website owners appeal to their own authority by explaining how they test the games. Each game is played for around 50 hours, or until the testers can find each of the descriptors the ESRB says is in the game. They also appeal to emotion by trying to empathize with the parents' confusion.
The argument is sufficient, because they show the work that they go through for each game so that they can efficiently inform the parents about the specifics of the game. The argument is also typical, because they explain how there is a need for their services and how they work to fulfill them. It is also accurate, because when you go on the website there are all of the resources that they promised. Lastly, the argument is relevant, because parents worrying about what their kids are playing is a problem that is prevalant in today's society.
I believe this argument is efficient, because it doesn't try to focus on what is good or bad in video games in such a small amount of time--instead, it just focuses on what is being done to help parents learn for themselves what they can do.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Rhetorical Anaylsis 7: Movie Trailer
The trailer I chose is from "Moulin Rouge." The argument that they are making is that this movie is dramatic and visually pleasing. It is also shown as being a sexy love story. The audience they're trying to appeal to is women, particularly the kind that like "Oscar type" movies. They may also be trying to appeal to women that are in their 30-40s by playing the songs "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "Roxanne," even though there are more modern songs in the movie. They also showcase Nicole Kidman in almost every scene, which would appeal to her fans, mostly 30-40 year old women. Nicole herself was 34 at the time of the movie.
The argument does appeal to authority by advertising that the director is the same that directed the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet. Mostly it is an appeal to emotion, with dramatic glances, yellings and gunshots.
The argument being made is sufficient to make some people go see the movie. However, I know many were put off by the prostitutes and intimate scenes that are prominently displayed in the trailer, and assumed the entire movie was little more than pornography. For many, though, they saw the love story and cinematography in the trailer and raced to the theater. The argument is typical, mentioning the past movies of the director and spending more time with the biggest name (Nicole Kidman) regardless of the main character (Ewan McGregor). It is mostly accurate, although it downplayed the fact that it's a musical. The argument is relevant, it sticks to what the story is about, showing off some of the best moments of the movie.
I believe that this trailer is effective. It has some problems at the beginning, when it is trying to show off all the different songs portrayed in the movie which is very distracting. But when it stops and just focuses on showing the drama and romance, it is enticing.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Rhetorical Analysis 6: Encounter
I went to the new "Throwdown" gym on State Street for my encounter. In all fairness, I have a feeling that the girl trying to sell me a membership was new and had never signed anyone up before, based on the way the girl at the desk got her to talk to me and her obvious nervousness.
It is difficult to tell what sort of audience she thought she had. The pitch felt more like it was rehearsed for a different audience, such as young men. She extolled the virtues of the MMA classes with an apology in her expression as though she knew I wouldn't like it. Almost as I was leaving, she remembered that they also had Pilates and Yoga classes, which I was more interested in. Basically, it seems that she could tell that I wouldn't be interested in hardcore fighting classes, but she didn't find a way to use that to her advantage until the very end.
Her main argument was that I should join their gym, and especially that I should sign up for a one year contract. Though I had to continually prompt her to find out the information I wanted (hours open, cost per month, classes offered, machines available) she was knowledgable. She did a good job of comparing their gym to others and showing why they were better by using logic. For instance, she pointed out the Gold's Gym doesn't offer classes in how to really fight, their classes are mostly just cardio. Also, with a membership, all of the classes are free and you can take as many as you want whenever you want. And she pointed out that the jiu-jitsu place up the street only taught one form of martial arts, and it was more expensive with fewer classes. She tried to use pathos to pressure me into giving me my information to come to a free class, but I just told her I'd rather not and she dropped it.
If I were looking for a gym, the argument might be sufficient. The pricing and the unlimited classes is appealing. But it was not enough to convince me to join when I'm not interested in a gym. The argument was typical, comparing their good points to the bad points of other gyms. I know parts of the argument were accurate, such as the pricing, but I don't know for sure if Gold's Gym has classes that really teaching fighting or not. The argument was relevant, because she referenced all the things that I would be most interested in if I were looking for a gym.
Overall, the argument was about as effective as it could be considering the salesperson. There was nothing wrong with the argument itself, but the salesperson seemed so uncertain of herself that I wasn't convinced. She needed to be more assertive and confident, and to be able to adapt her memorized script to the individual.
It is difficult to tell what sort of audience she thought she had. The pitch felt more like it was rehearsed for a different audience, such as young men. She extolled the virtues of the MMA classes with an apology in her expression as though she knew I wouldn't like it. Almost as I was leaving, she remembered that they also had Pilates and Yoga classes, which I was more interested in. Basically, it seems that she could tell that I wouldn't be interested in hardcore fighting classes, but she didn't find a way to use that to her advantage until the very end.
Her main argument was that I should join their gym, and especially that I should sign up for a one year contract. Though I had to continually prompt her to find out the information I wanted (hours open, cost per month, classes offered, machines available) she was knowledgable. She did a good job of comparing their gym to others and showing why they were better by using logic. For instance, she pointed out the Gold's Gym doesn't offer classes in how to really fight, their classes are mostly just cardio. Also, with a membership, all of the classes are free and you can take as many as you want whenever you want. And she pointed out that the jiu-jitsu place up the street only taught one form of martial arts, and it was more expensive with fewer classes. She tried to use pathos to pressure me into giving me my information to come to a free class, but I just told her I'd rather not and she dropped it.
If I were looking for a gym, the argument might be sufficient. The pricing and the unlimited classes is appealing. But it was not enough to convince me to join when I'm not interested in a gym. The argument was typical, comparing their good points to the bad points of other gyms. I know parts of the argument were accurate, such as the pricing, but I don't know for sure if Gold's Gym has classes that really teaching fighting or not. The argument was relevant, because she referenced all the things that I would be most interested in if I were looking for a gym.
Overall, the argument was about as effective as it could be considering the salesperson. There was nothing wrong with the argument itself, but the salesperson seemed so uncertain of herself that I wasn't convinced. She needed to be more assertive and confident, and to be able to adapt her memorized script to the individual.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Rhetorical Analysis 4: Souce for Paper A
http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57688
The argument being made in "Honor Code Unifies Students" is exactly what the title implicates. The audience is the students at BYU, since it was printed in the campus newspaper.
The article also attempts an appeal to logos, but the attempt is pitiful. They quote one diverse student that says the honor code agrees with her religion. This doesn’t support the argument that the honor code unifies students, it only means that it doesn’t bother one student of another religion. The one dissenting voice is quickly silenced by the addition that he follows the honor code even if he doesn’t agree with all of it because he agreed to. The rest of the article is simply informative and makes no further stances.
The argument is not even remotely sufficient. There isn’t one good reason for anyone to believe their claim. The arguing is typical by using specific examples of students, but fails in that it doesn’t allow any truly opposing voices to be heard nor by citing the general feelings of the students as a whole. There is no way to know if the argument is accurate, because we never see a single fact or statistic. The argument would be relevant if it could prove what it claims to, because certain aspects of the honor code are often said to be difficult for students to adhere to due to their different backgrounds.
This argument is totally ineffective. Like most BYU articles, it ignores the actual question and just focuses on making BYU look good. It attempts to appear to look like it’s not biased by putting in one slight dissension, but then turns around and says that even if you disagree, you should just keep quiet because you signed it. BYU treats itself as though it is the church, but it is not. While a faithful member would never criticize the church, BYU students should be able to criticize BYU. This article should have tried to find the real story behind the effects that the honor code has on students from other backgrounds, but it instead tries to placate the dissenters by making them sound as though they are bad people for not believing in the “spirit of the law.”
The argument being made in "Honor Code Unifies Students" is exactly what the title implicates. The audience is the students at BYU, since it was printed in the campus newspaper.
The article also attempts an appeal to logos, but the attempt is pitiful. They quote one diverse student that says the honor code agrees with her religion. This doesn’t support the argument that the honor code unifies students, it only means that it doesn’t bother one student of another religion. The one dissenting voice is quickly silenced by the addition that he follows the honor code even if he doesn’t agree with all of it because he agreed to. The rest of the article is simply informative and makes no further stances.
The argument is not even remotely sufficient. There isn’t one good reason for anyone to believe their claim. The arguing is typical by using specific examples of students, but fails in that it doesn’t allow any truly opposing voices to be heard nor by citing the general feelings of the students as a whole. There is no way to know if the argument is accurate, because we never see a single fact or statistic. The argument would be relevant if it could prove what it claims to, because certain aspects of the honor code are often said to be difficult for students to adhere to due to their different backgrounds.
This argument is totally ineffective. Like most BYU articles, it ignores the actual question and just focuses on making BYU look good. It attempts to appear to look like it’s not biased by putting in one slight dissension, but then turns around and says that even if you disagree, you should just keep quiet because you signed it. BYU treats itself as though it is the church, but it is not. While a faithful member would never criticize the church, BYU students should be able to criticize BYU. This article should have tried to find the real story behind the effects that the honor code has on students from other backgrounds, but it instead tries to placate the dissenters by making them sound as though they are bad people for not believing in the “spirit of the law.”
Saturday, October 4, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html
In "Legal Immigration? Anybody?" the author is arguing that it would be good for Congress to pass a visa-recapturing bill this year, yet acknowledging that they won't because despite the best efforts of certain Democrats, Republicans are "sabotaging" them with "ridiculously restrictive amendments." The target audience are people that oppose the idea of visa-recapturing bills because they believe that passing such a bill will result in an onslaught of new immigrants.
Much of the argument is made using pathos. The author chooses his words carefully to victimize the Democrats that toil tirelessly to gain rights for immigrants and make the Republicans appear as vicious immigrant haters. He attempts to invoke feelings of patriotism with line such as "The myth of Ellis Island becomes more mythical."
The more effective argument is made with logos. The author points out that many fear passing a visa-recapturing bill because it will bring in many more immigrants. However, this is not true, because it simply gives out visas to those that the Congress has already approved to people that have been waiting in the U.S. with temporary visas. That makes the bill more about keeping worker rather than gaining them.
The main question that is being asked is "What are the consequences of a visa-recapturing bill on the influx of new immigrant workers?" The claim being made is that a visa-recapturing bill will not bring in new immigrants as much as it will give new visas to highly skilled workers that are already here.
This argument is sufficient in the logic for its argument. It addresses the main questions that his audience may have and points out why it is not valid. The argument is also typical and follows a normal train of thought by looking at specific numbers and what would actually happen if the bill passed. The argument seems to be accurate, using names and numbers and facts. However, it does not cite any of its sources, so we cannot check on it. It is also very relevant, and concerns one of the main problems that is being addressed in the election debates today.
I do believe that the argument is effective. I myself am convinced that if the author has the correct facts that a visa-recapturing bill would be good. However, the author is so incredibly biased that it makes him seem less reliable. He is so clearly biased against Republicans that I can't believe anything he says about them. There is no objectivity in the editorial, which makes me wonder what the other side would say about it. I wonder if he is holding back on certain information that would ruin his logic.
In "Legal Immigration? Anybody?" the author is arguing that it would be good for Congress to pass a visa-recapturing bill this year, yet acknowledging that they won't because despite the best efforts of certain Democrats, Republicans are "sabotaging" them with "ridiculously restrictive amendments." The target audience are people that oppose the idea of visa-recapturing bills because they believe that passing such a bill will result in an onslaught of new immigrants.
Much of the argument is made using pathos. The author chooses his words carefully to victimize the Democrats that toil tirelessly to gain rights for immigrants and make the Republicans appear as vicious immigrant haters. He attempts to invoke feelings of patriotism with line such as "The myth of Ellis Island becomes more mythical."
The more effective argument is made with logos. The author points out that many fear passing a visa-recapturing bill because it will bring in many more immigrants. However, this is not true, because it simply gives out visas to those that the Congress has already approved to people that have been waiting in the U.S. with temporary visas. That makes the bill more about keeping worker rather than gaining them.
The main question that is being asked is "What are the consequences of a visa-recapturing bill on the influx of new immigrant workers?" The claim being made is that a visa-recapturing bill will not bring in new immigrants as much as it will give new visas to highly skilled workers that are already here.
This argument is sufficient in the logic for its argument. It addresses the main questions that his audience may have and points out why it is not valid. The argument is also typical and follows a normal train of thought by looking at specific numbers and what would actually happen if the bill passed. The argument seems to be accurate, using names and numbers and facts. However, it does not cite any of its sources, so we cannot check on it. It is also very relevant, and concerns one of the main problems that is being addressed in the election debates today.
I do believe that the argument is effective. I myself am convinced that if the author has the correct facts that a visa-recapturing bill would be good. However, the author is so incredibly biased that it makes him seem less reliable. He is so clearly biased against Republicans that I can't believe anything he says about them. There is no objectivity in the editorial, which makes me wonder what the other side would say about it. I wonder if he is holding back on certain information that would ruin his logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
