Response to "The Torture Myth"

Response to "The Torture Myth"

        Anne Applebaum makes a good point, or argument. 

        

        When dealing with something as controversial as torture, it is advisable to focus on points that don't rely on support as malleable as morals or ethics. Applebaum immediately dismisses the morality of torture in the first paragraph of her essay in order to counter any opposing arguments that may use the subjectivity of morality issues against her. Instead, the author argues that torture should be discontinued, not because it is immoral, but because it is an ineffective method of extracting information.

         

        The author negates possible counterarguments in her essay in order to establish her own argument. Applebaum states conditions of rebuttal and explains other positions and their arguments. Then, she explains how the other positions would be invalid in this situation and supports this claim with evidence, quotes from people such as the FBI, who complained that "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative". The author contends that torture is ineffective and is actually counterproductive. She also lists the reasons as to why people would believe otherwise, discussing the common belief that "radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier". She refutes this belief and labels this thinking and practice "self-defeating".

        Applebaum supports her thesis with hard evidence, comprised mostly of statements from credible people with experience on the subject. Without ethos from herself, the author has to establish credibility by citing people that do have credibility. She cites people such as intelligence officers and interrogation officers that work in the field, all of whom are credible sources of information. Most of the people she cites are military, who would have experience in the matter of torturing for information. 

        The author also makes the argument alongside her main claim that torture negatively affects the image of the United States. Applebaum supports this claim with more evidence from credible people, like the CIA. Since the author doesn't have much ethos, she relies on ethos from other people, who also happen to serve as her logos. Throughout the essay, the author mostly uses logos and ethos to prove her claim, deriving almost nothing from pathos, which is mostly due to her initial statement: "Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal, or constitutional problem with torture". It would be hypocritical for her to make an argument based on ethos when she declares that her argument would not rely on the moral issues of torture. 

        The author makes an excellent argument of fact. She states the common belief about a fact, discusses it, provides evidence for her claim about the fact, and counters any opposing positions. Her claim is well-founded, backed by evidence and warrants. Her evidence is also supported with backing, which further cements her argument. By the end of the essay, Applebaum has made a convincing argument that is difficult to argue against. 

        

Response to "Letters From a Birmingham Jail"

Response to "Letters From a Birmingham Jail"

         If there was ever an essay that deserved to be displayed and its author honored for his work, it would be Letters From a Birmingham Jail". 

         In this essay, there was an inordinate amount of evidence, warrants, interpretation, backing, and support, all of which supported his claims clearly and directly. Nearly every sentence had a purpose in supporting his argument. His claims followed his argument. His evidence supported his claims. His warrants and interpretation connected his evidence to his claim. His backing supported his warrants and interpretation. And so forth.

         Martin Luther King's argument contains so many elements that it would be difficult to analyze and explain them all. It contains elements from classical oration, Rogerian argument, and every subject from Tuliman arguments. Therefore, it will be explained using logos, pathos, ethos. 

         

         Logos. Most of his logos derives from his establishing precedent and citing authorities and experts. King also uses much good reasoning and simple logical and moral plays in his essay to persuade his readers. He cites figures such as Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Socrates, etc. With each figure, he supports his example with a statement that explains his citation and connects it to his main argument. For example, when he stated that he was an "extremist for love" and compared himself to Jesus, who was also an "extremist for love", he plants the question of whether Jesus was an "extremist for love" in the reader's mind and compares his actions to those of Jesus, which, according to simple logic, results in Martin Luther King being an "extremist for love". Civil disobedience, King's main weapon against the anti-abolitionists, was also justified based on precedent such as the civil disobedience practiced by the American colonists before the American Revolution. His evidence is well-founded and his support is excellent. 

     

        Ethos too. Not only does Martin Luther King build his argument by citing his credentials as a minister and credits his own experience on this matter, but he quotes several renowned individuals and cites various examples of precedent in history from his jail cell. By doing so, he bolsters his credibility and authority on the subject of abolition and impresses his readers with his knowledge merely off the top of his head. 

      

        Finally pathos. Perhaps the least defined of the three tools in his argument, ethos is present constantly throughout King's entire essay. Its most direct use occurs in his vivid descriptions of the treatment of African Americans, who were often set upon by dogs, beaten by police, sent to jail, restricted from civic duties and community activities, and looked down upon by whites. He continually mentions how disappointed he is in the white moderate, the clergymen of the church, and anyone else who failed to recognize the severe need for abolition. This heavy tone of disappointment, combined with his horrid details of the treatment of the African Americans and the corresponding indifference of the white population, strikes a chord in the heart of the American people, or so he aims to do. 

        What an essay.

Response to "In Defense of Talk Shows"

Response to "In Defense of Talk Shows"

In this response, I will be analyzing the argument with the help of the Tuliman argument outline.

While reading this essay, I found that while there was plenty of evidence and support, most of the warrants and reasons, what little there were, were implied. Most of their evidence relied on the reader already having some base assumptions or knowledge about the topic that would eventually lead the reader back to the author's main argument and claim. The author uses quite a bit of good reasoning, which also goes hand in hand with her implied warrants. Considering the topic, talk shows, it would be more difficult to generate warrants that wouldn't sound too obvious or too naive, which is most likely why the essay relies on previous assumptions. Nevertheless, the author's argument was very structured, containing a claim, a warrant/good reason, and evidence. In the conclusion, the author made a personal response to the topic. This essay seemed to contain a bit of everything from the list of elements in a Tuliman argument. 

Now for a more in-depth analysis. 

The author followed a classical oration format when she wrote her introduction, or in this case exordium. She introduced the situation, provided background information, and established her position, though she did not establish her credibility, which might have not been needed anyway since this essay would have been printed with her name and credentials somewhere near it regardless. In the next two paragraphs, she provided evidence for her initial claim in the form of a narrative, which depicted a classic example of a talk show "victim". She then goes on to make another claim that the plot is repetitive in talk shows. She provides several smaller examples that go to prove her point, with a small warrant near the end of the paragraph. Contrary to classical oration, the author states conditions of rebuttal, acknowledging some of her argument's faults. Then, for the next few paragraphs, she makes a few more narrative-style examples that are supported by a "good reason" and a heavily implied warrant.   As stated above, most of the author's warrants are implied in the penultimate paragraph. As with the bulk of the essay, the paragraph is dotted with smaller examples and evidence that lead back to the claim, which leads back to the original thesis.Towards the end of the essay, the author states her own personal response to the topic, describing what she would do. She even injects some humor into the last part, ending the essay on a happy note. Case closed.

The entire essay is a strong, well-organized neatly-packaged piece of writing. It contains a large amount of logos, which an essay such as this requires. Although it lacks on the side of ethos and pathos, mostly ethos, the essay can stand strong with just the evidence. Overall, it was a good essay. 

Response to "Recipe"

       I enjoyed this reading.

       Although many people would disagree with my approval of this essay, they should not disagree with my approval of this reading. After reading this piece of writing, I concluded that this is more apt to be an instruction manual rather than an essay. Although technically everything is an argument, this recipe seems to lack one, or at most has a weakly-supported, implied argument. In fact, this writing is officially a recipe, which further convinces me that Recipe is not an essay.

        That is not to say that I did not enjoy this reading. Unlike the past essays I have read, there was no clear claim or point of argument that the author took. Although the author makes several small, negligible claims, there wasn't any strong, direct claim to one side of an argument. Like any normal recipe, Recipe instructs people on a suggested way to make chocolate sauce for ice cream. With a writing such as this one, it is possible that the author could have claimed that this recipe was the best, the authority on the best way to make chocolate sauce for ice cream. However, the essay began and ended without that claim. Instead, the author continues to instruct people how to make the chocolate sauce.

        Reading the bio, it is understandable that a person may be confused by such a strange "essay". In fact, the bio states that this is not a conventional essay, as it does not persuade anyone to do anything. Therefore, it is politically incorrect to say that this "essay" is an essay. This piece of writing is more comparable to an instruction manual or even a narrative than an essay, since neither of those aforementioned persuade anyone to do anything. However, this is not to say that I am disappointed in this writing. I still enjoyed it, though I do not agree with the categorizing of this piece of writing as an "essay".

Response to "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions"

          Reading this essay, I felt a strange echo to the Declaration of Independence. In fact, this essay looked as if it was based entirely on the Declaration's structure. I read the bio after I read the essay, and then I understood that is was modeled after the original document.
          Like the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions uses ethos, pathos, and logos in the same manner and order. In the first paragraph, they establish a precedent, presenting a solution to their problems in a similar situation. In the second paragraph, they apply this solution to their own situation, attempting to evoke sympathy in the reader for their situation. This is where the authors employ pathos. By presenting themselves in a sympathetic light, they hope to gain support and convince the reader that their claim is correct, even before they present the evidence. This helps in establishing their argument and proving their claim by mentally proving to the reader that their side of the argument deserves support. In the third paragraph, or collection of smaller paragraphs/statements, the authors present the evidence of oppression of women by society, harking back to the oppression of the colonists by the English crown. This paragraph is where the authors use logos, the "glue" that cements their argument. Hard evidence is difficult to argue with, especially when used in large amounts. This is where the authors truly prove their argument. In the fourth paragraph, they justify their reaction and their own credibility on the matter, finally proving to the reader that their claim is just and persuades the reader to take action. In the final paragraph, the authors declare the action they plan to take and their reasons for this action, based on their previous arguments. However, this is mostly a formal declaration of their claim, which was mainly implied throughout the entire essay.
          The Declaration of Independence was a well-structured, strong essay. Since this essay was directly modeled after the Declaration, it is reasonable to say that the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions is also well-structured, strong essay.

Response to "One Side Can Be Wrong"

          When people argue, some like to think that there can be a compromise, a statement that proves both arguments correct. However, as this essay has shown, this is not the case. In this instance, one side proves itself to be the only correct argument.
          Dawkins and Coyne, the authors of One Side Can Be Wrong, do an excellent job at proving their side of the argument. For one, they do an excellent job on disproving the other side. They point out the fallacies and discontinuities of ID (Intelligent Design) education, as well as its comparison to the other, more mainstream form of education. According to the authors, ID education is a reactionary form of teaching that is based on the faults and discontinuities of mainstream, secular education. When something cannot be proven in normal education, ID education takes over and states that this situation was created by an ID, which means that it would be too complicated for mere people to understand. Since it is nearly impossible for one side of an argument, mainstream education, to prove something that cannot be proven by that one side, the other side of the argument, ID education, can prove themselves right by stating that the something is too complex and therefore is of an Intelligent Design. It is difficult to argue that something does not exist when it cannot be proven that the something does not exist.
          Score 1 for ID.
          However, the authors criticize ID education for its base argument: If something cannot be proven with mainstream science, then it must have been created by an ID. They point out how wrong is an argument based on the errors of another argument by using an analogy. For instance, ID education states that things such as bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved by natural selection, that is must have been created by an ID. However, if something such as bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, then it also must have been to complex to have been created. An ID, such as God, would have to be even more complex than bacterial flagellum to have created it, which is "statistically improbable" (73). By using an analogy and making an argument based on comparison, the authors succeed in logically proving their point.
         Score 1 for mainstream.
         The authors compare ID education to mainstream education. Since ID education is considered to be equal to mainstream education, it must also be subject to the same methods and techniques, one of which includes the scientific explanation. If it does not, then it  needs to be sent "back into the church, where it belongs" (73). People who support ID education state that it should bypass the normal scientific method. The authors disagree. If a claim was made and no argument was allowed to challenge the claim, then the claim is made without ever being proven true. This, alongside ID education's base argument, if ever truly integrated with the American education system and stated politically correct, "would be the end of science education in America" (74). Once again, the authors use simple, transitive logic to prove their point, which further strengthens their argument.
         Score 2 for mainstream.
         Dawkins and Coyne successfully disprove the opposing side of the argument. As they do so, they also prove their own side of the argument, tipping the scales in their favor in this literary battle.

I Want a Wife Response

I Want a Wife Response

I thought this was funny.

I Want a Wife is a social commentary of the feminist movement and the issues surrounding the movement in the 1970s, and it also happens to be entertaining at the same time. This was not implemented unnecessarily. In order to reach an audience who would otherwise have deaf ears for an essay promoting the feminist movement, Brady tries to relate to the audience using humor. She also makes excellent use of logos, pathos, and ethos. She first establishes herself as a wife, therefore making her a credible commentator of housewives of that time period. Brady states everything a housewife does for her husband, indirectly explaining the housewife’s plight and the husband’s superior position in the household. She also attempts to evoke sympathy within the reader by listing all of what a wife does. Brady establishes herself as a credible source, lists the numerous tasks a wife does for her husband and family, and satirizes her entire essay by constantly mentioning her supposed desire for a wife who would do everything for her. By doing so, she stands the best chance at winning over her readers, who otherwise might not even read a book or essay on a topic such as feminism.

It seems surprising now that a housewife would do all of those things for her husband and not expect anything in return, but forty years ago that was the norm for American society. It would be shocking, even scandalous that someone would challenge the ingrained image of a perfect family with a housewife, working husband and kids. The late 1960s and the early 1970s were times of change, when traditional values were being challenged. A topic as controversial as this essay would definitely evoke some sympathy, but also much disapproval. To remedy this, Brady had to craft an essay that could appeal to her readers without turning them off at the same time. Making her readers laugh would be the best way to capture her reader’s attention. She uses irony and satire to persuade her readers. She constantly says that she wants a wife throughout the essay, though we as the readers know that she doesn’t want a wife; she is simply using this as a ploy to explain to the reader all of a housewife’s duties.

Brady’s argument was balanced on logos, ethos, and pathos, and she did not use overly complex language. Since her target audience was middle-class white women, Brady mentioned situations and topics that someone of that class could relate to. However, her essay received a much wider audience than her intended audience. They, on the other hand, would not be as welcoming of this topic as the former. Overall, I think that Brady did a very good job at drawing her readers in and communicating an idea that would attract a lot of controversy. It is not easy to write something that would appeal to people who hate your topic.