September 19 2018
“Public Thinking” Analysis Essay
Some say that the advancement of technology has led to people becoming more lazy and ineffective in their writing, while others say that technology has only aided in the advancement and complexity of the writing people put out online for the world to see. In the piece titled “Public Thinking” by Clive Thompson, the author argues that not only have writers in this generation improved their writing, but the technological revolution in the last 20 years has led not only to writers holding themselves to a higher standard, but they are writing more in quantity due to the fact that they are aware their work is being read by a larger audience. Thompson is correct in his claims that technology has helped individuals improve their writing, not only with an increase in the quantity that is being put out into the world, but also with the complexity and skill with which they are writing.
Many argue that with the technological revolution “generation z” is growing up in has made them lazy, unproductive, and unwilling to produce works of writing of high quality and effort, claiming the technology has enabled them to get away with cutting corners on their own writing, and will make them ill-prepared for their future in the “real world.” According to a study done at Stanford University by English Professor Andrea Lunsford, the professor “tracked down studies of how often first-year college students made grammatical errors in freshman composition essays, going back nearly a century. She found that their error rate has barely risen at all. More astonishingly, today’s freshman-comp essays are over six times longer than they were back then, and also generally more complex”. (Thompson 66). This study, done at arguably the most prestigious universities in the nation, disproves the claim many make that the advancements made in technology have made students lazier and less likely to produce quality work, when in fact in recent years students, as well as other members of “generation Z” have increased the standard to which they hold not only themselves, but their writing as well.
What did you think of Rifkin’s argument, or find most interesting about it?Read the “starter template for discussing claims” on page 73 (reader). Use this template to write about two of Rifkin’s main claims.
- Rifkin utilizes making strategic choices in order to give the audience a look at both sides of the issue, he paints the picture of the knowledge only recently obtained that animals do in fact experiment many of the same emotions as people, and then poses the question, what do we do with this information? should we reevaluate how we treat animals in scientific testing and meat industries? should animals be treated the same as humans in every situation due to the fact that it is proven that they have self-awareness? he poses these and other questions to prompt the audience to think and reflect on his claims about the research done proving animals experiment many of the same emotions as us humans do.
In a separate paragraph describe some of the main kinds of evidence used to support these claims. Discuss two strategies Rifkin uses to persuade his audience.
- Rifkin uses scientifically backed evidence to support his claims, citing experiments and their results. he uses experimental results such as “the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from fighting. ” (Rifkin). He utilizes these scientific experiments and their results in order to create a solid and irrefutable argument regarding the topic being discussed in his article.
Read Parry’s “Branding a Condition.” What is Parry’s overall argument?
- Parry’s overall argument is that you can more effectively market a medicine if you change the name of certain conditions, either to sound less emasculation with afflictions such as erectile dysfunction, or other diseases in order to reach a bigger market of people and therefore sell more of the product.
What did you find most interesting/useful about this text?
That Parry was able to bridge the connection between how certain diseases “sound” and whether or not people will buy them simply based on the name of the condition, and what a large effect this has on the pharmaceutical industry.
What does Parry’s argument suggest about the way advertisers and marketers try to persuade audiences?
Parry suggests that advertisers use language and diction, as well as word association in order to market certain products to a wider audience. for instance, men feel is emasculates them to hear the term “erectile dysfunction” and they may not want to walk into a pharmacy and purchase a product with the name “erectile dysfunction” in the title. but changing the name of the same medicine to “Viagra” with word association such as “vigor” and “vitality”, makes men more likely to being open to buying the product.
Have you seen or heard of any similar methods of persuading people?
I have read articles where the word choice and association has had a large impact on how the reader perceives the article, such as “casualties” and “collateral damage” in news stories can greatly sway the way a reader interprets the story, and gives the story a bias due to the word choice and how the author wants the audience to perceive his/her writing.
Review of Kristof’s “Do We Have The Courage?”:
In the op-ed titled “Do We Have The Courage?”, Kristof utilizes the strategy of rebuttals in order to strengthen his argument and to persuade the audience to see his side of the issue of gun control in America. The topic of gun control is hotly debated, especially in the past 6 years, with the Sandy Hook school shooting leaving 27 teachers and children dead, it is unlikely you will meet a person that has yet to form some sort of opinion on the issue. Kristof uses the strategy of rebuttals due to the fact that he is aware that so many people have already formed opinions on the subject, and it adds to his credibility and knowledge that he is willing to look at the issue from another stance, as he is hoping some of the members of his audience that may be opposed to gun control would be willing to do while reading his article.
Review of Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart About Animals“:
In Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart About Animals”, he addresses a very new and controversial topic in todays scientific community; the idea that animals experience many of the same emotions such as happiness, sadness, and fear as us humans. Rifkin uses rebuttal strategies such as the strategic concession in order to make it clear to the audience that he is open to the benefits of the other side as well, but he manages to acknowledge the other side while still promoting his side of the argument. He brings up a study done that proves that when pigs are isolated, they are lonely and it is detrimental to their health (Rifkin.) and that in Germany, they have made laws in order to prevent this from happening. The author looks at both sides of the argument regarding animals emotional well being and weather or not laws should be passed in order to ensure their emotional safety, and through the strategy of rebuttal, he not only acknowledges the other side, but he uses this to strengthen his own argument, and create a sound opinion on the issue for the audience to reflect on.
Hi, my name is Emily Richards, I am from Coronado California. I have a younger brother named Dean who is 13. I also have a two dogs named Nina and Brandy, who are sisters. I love skiing and going to the beach, and I love to travel. I have never made a blog to write before, but English is one of my favorite subjects, so I am excited to write more!