I thoroughly enjoyed Thompson’s “Public Thinking” and thought it was incredibly eye opening. I was surprised by the mass amounts of texts, tweets, emails, Facebook comments, blog posts and so on that are written by the American public. I also was amazed that people are writing and expressing their ideas more than ever before in history, mainly due to the ease and accessibility of the Internet and modern computer. I agreed completely with Thompson’s claim that reading is much more important than writing in today’s society, which I believe should be altered. I understand the importance of reading and taking in knowledge and information from other, but similarly to what the author said, I believe writing is important in expressing and understanding one’s own thoughts. I also think that writing requires a much higher level of thinking and as well as a personal awareness of one’s own ideas. One of the examples in the text that I found the most interesting was the experiment at Vanderbilt University, where it was concluded that the children who talked to themselves or someone else about the puzzle that they were completing did far better than children who were silent. This finding makes complete sense to me as I am a big fan of talking aloud to myself or to peers while studying and am known to talk out loud during tests as well because it greatly helps me.

One of the author’s main claims that I agreed with was that writing is a necessary tool that aids in many parts of our everyday life as I mentioned prior. I also agree with his claim that writing helps to understand our own ideas and consolidate them to be straightforward and understandable as I utilize writing every single day, whether it be sending texts, posting on social media, or writing down my daily to do list. Another one of his claims is that individuals are writing and creating far more than ever before, and at first, I was surprised because I thought due to this new age of technology writing was diminishing, and I also did not think about social media as a collection of writing as the author views it. His last main claim is that writing to an audience who all already write makes one analyze and correct their work far more than if they were merely posting to Facebook. This claim has its negatives and positives as people are sharing thought provoking new work, but it is not geared to everyone, which means many individuals are missing out from learning new information.

I find Rifkin’s argument interesting and thought provoking as I have never seen an author write about this controversial topic. He brought up claims that I believe may go overlooked for many, such as the psychology and self-awareness of animals and what we as people should do to make a difference. He calls into question many common ideas and systems that the readers leaves second guessing the world around them and reviewing their own personal ideals. One of Rifkin’s main claims is that animals are not self-aware. Rifkin asserts that animals have a sense of individualism. According to Rifkin, new studies have showcased otherwise. For example, Rifkin states that, “at the Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies they can’t otherwise see, showing a sense of self. An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses. What he means by this is that some animals are aware of their own bodies and that it is their own, and therefore, they want to take care of it. In other words, some animals understand that when viewing themselves in a mirror, it is them, and they then can adjust their appearance. One of Rifkin’s main claims is that animals are aware of the death of other animals. Rifkin asserts that animals mourn the death of others. According to Rifkin, animals understand their morality and the concept of their own death. For example, Rifkin states that, “Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.” What he means by this is that animals understand loss of life and react to it similarly to humans.

The main kinds of evidence that was used above to support the claims were both examples. The author utilized a specific example regarding the orangutan to show that they are aware of themself and their body. The example involving the elephants mourning their dead relatives was a general example as this example was not from a specific place or animal as was done above. Two strategies Rifkin uses to persuade his audience are authorities or “big names” and his usage of pathos. Rifkin states in the article that scientists from Oxford University conducted a test that clearly showed the profound, conceptual abilities of birds. He also mentions Stephen M. Siviy, a behavioral scientist from Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, who has consistently noted the striking similarities between the brain anatomy and chemistry of humans and animals. The author also states that Harvard and many other law schools are now teaching animal rights classes to future lawyers. The name drops of these schools and the behavioral scientist makes the author’s stance appear more sound and knowledgeable. The author uses pathos as a way to pull the reader to their side by tugging on their heart strings. The author clearly uses pathos in the third to last paragraph when listing questions, such as so what does this mean for treating our fellow animals in the future such as those in slaughterhouses and those behind bars in zoos. It makes the audience think more about how they treat animals, especially with all the evidence provided that animals feel similarly to humans.

The overall argument in “The Art of Branding a Condition” is that marketers for healthcare have consistently been branding medical conditions as a way to market treatments for these conditions. This article was surprising and thought provoking because the majority of people including myself have never thought much about marketing in the medical field and healthcare system. A part I personally thought was interesting was that Listerine sales skyrocketed when it became marketed for a specific condition, halitosis, instead of being marketed for a variety of reasons as it was prior. This article made me ponder on other aspects of society where marketing and advertisements may have a stronger grip on the minds of individuals than previously believed. Parry’s overall argument hints at the idea that marketers will do and try anything in order to get more sales and brand awareness. Advertisers specify certain conditions and make them appear much more serious than they actually are as a way to create more demand for their product. One method I have heard about that marketers will utilize is to make a condition or need appear to require immediate attention. Therefore, the ones with the condition or need will feel required to buy the product in order to maintain or better their health.

 

 

In the article “Do We Have The Courage to Stop This?” on paragraph six, the author Kristof discusses how they grew up on a farm in Oregon where guns were common and how he was gifted one on his twelfth birthday. He even makes the claim that shooting is fun. This use of rebuttals shows that the author has considered other points of view and has perhaps at one point had the complete opposite view. This rebuttal allows the author to appear just and as well as confident in their position. This specific type of rebuttal is a strategic concession because the author is agreeing with a counter argument but also still rejecting the position as a whole. In paragraph nine, the author is completely rejecting the counter position’s belief that changing gun laws and regulations would not make a difference because even though we would be unable to eliminate gun deaths, we would still be able to save thousands of lives. In paragraph ten, he completely dismisses the argument that if people carried guns, these individuals could defend against the shooters. He states that most shooters kill themselves or are immediately caught, so there would be no effect to them if more people carried guns. There have also been very few instances where a civilian with a gun was able to stop a mass shooting. These two uses of rebuttals in paragraph nine and ten show that the author is aware of opposing viewpoints and is able to assess why they are wrong, showing the strength in their argument and in their logic. These two rebuttals are also both examples of refutation.

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals “ on paragraph nine, the author, Rifkin makes the statement that the making of tools and the learning and usage of complex languages are merely two of the attributes that scientists believed were only found in humans. Rifkin describes prior to these statements how a New Caledonian crow was able to make a tool multiple times in an experiment and how the famous gorilla Koko knows sign language, many English words, and scores high on the IQ test. This rebuttal showcases that Rifkin is knowledgeable about his stance and opposing viewpoints. This first statement is an example of refutation as it was quickly rejected. Another attribute that we believed was only found in our species was self-awareness, and it has been long argued by scientists. However, Rifkin addresses these claims directly by stating that orangutans in a zoo when given mirrors explore their entire self, analyzing their body parts. In this rebuttal and the rest of them, he utilizes the rebuttals as common objections to the opposing position as a way to prevent the reader from being persuaded in the future. This second statement is also an example of refutation for rebuttals. In the next rebuttal, he states that scientists have thought that the mourning of the dead was the real divide between humans and other species, but elephants are known to stay by the remains of their kin and touch the lifeless bodies with their trunk. In paragraph 14, Rifkin states that scientists have commonly believed that animals act on sheer instinct and do not learn. However, now, it is clear that geese teach their goslings migration routes, and animals engage in all kinds of learned activities. These last two rebuttals make it clear that the author fully knows his argument and his position, is fair-minded in regards to the argument, and continually, clarifies their own position on the topic to the reader. These last ones are also evident examples of refutation as seen before.

Questions for “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”

1. What seems to be the overall argument?

The overall argument of “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?” is to have better regulations for guns because guns have taken the lives of many Americans, which could have overall, been prevented.

2. What are some of Kristoff’s main claims?

One of Kristoff’s main claims is to regulate guns similarly to how we currently do so for cars, building codes, and even toy guns. Another claim is that deaths caused by guns have reached an all time high, due to the fact that guns are fairly easy to buy in the USA.

3.  What kinds of claim does he present? (see reader pages 15-16)

In the first sentence, he presents a claim about facts/existence that deaths are occurring due to gun violence as he mentions the Sandy Hook school shooting. Throughout the majority of the article, he uses a comparison claim to showcase the comparability between car safety and gun safety and that we can improve gun safety by using similar measures for car safety. At the very end, he uses a proposal claim, so the reader can understand that they need to take action for gun control as a way to protect public safety.

4.  List some of the main types of evidence presented (see reader 17 – 21) and discuss how persuasive they are.

Kristoff uses example evidence many times as a way to show that gun violence is occurring in our country as he first does in the beginning when he mentions Sandy Hook elementary school. He also uses statistical evidence to showcase that in the US, children are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns than children in other industrialized countries. He also utilizes expert authority because the data first mentioned was found by David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard. He continues to use statistical evidence from other countries and how they have limited the number of deaths by enacting laws. He also continues to use analogical evidence as a way to make it clear to the reader that guns should be regulated as much as cars. Kristoff also uses factual evidence throughout the entire article as a way to solidify his argument. All of the main types of evidence that he uses is extremely persuasive because it allows for their to be no holes in his arguments or any questions the readers may have, especially his use of factual, example, and statistical evidence from professionals because there is merely no way to rebuttal against these claims.

5. Identify two strategies Kristof uses to persuade his audience.

Kristoff utilized an authority strategy by providing data about gun control from a public health specialist at Harvard as was previously mentioned above. The author also uses comparison and contrast strategies in regards to gun and auto control as mentioned previously as well.

6. What is your response to the text (general thoughts or discussion of how effective you think it was).

I believe this text was extremely effective due to the amount of concrete evidence that was provided to support the author’s main claims and as well as the continuation of the analogy between car safety and gun safety throughout the whole article. In order for readers who may be less educated about current gun safety and laws to grasp all the ideas and information the author is providing by using a common object that is used by most people and whose laws are mostly understood by all that drive cars.

Questions for “Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals?”

1. What seems to be the overall argument?

The overall argument is for readers to analyze the factual evidence of both left and right sides of gun safety and not let emotions or biases affect the actual truth about what needs to occur for gun safety protect the lives of Americans.

2. What are some of Kristoff’s main claims?

Gun control laws, such as banning guns or creating a more strict set of laws, have not worked to lessen the number of deaths in America in the past. He also claims that these policies don’t work because liberals are condescending and judgemental of gun owners and have not taken the time to learn about guns themselves. However, he does agree that many recent deaths have been caused by guns, and as said in the past article, he claims guns should be regulated just as much as cars.

3. What kinds of claim does he present? (see reader pages 15-16)

Kristoff presents existence and factual claims at the very beginning of the articles that go against his main argument as a way to catch the attention of as much readers as possible. Then later on, he uses factual claims that are for his main argument. Kristoff again uses comparison claims but more briefly, in order for the readers to again see the similarities between gun safety and car safety. Near the end, Kristoff claims that he believes that keeping guns away from high-risk individuals will stop many deaths caused by guns, and this is a cause and consequence claim. He also uses a value and principle claim as a way to try to showcase to the readers that the fact that 13 million Americans have a concealed gun license may not actually be bad or even good as it has made no difference in the amount of deaths due to guns.

    4.   List some of the main types of evidence presented (see reader 17 – 21) and discuss how persuasive they are.

The main types of evidence that were presented were example evidence, which in the article can be seen when the author utilizes counter arguments, when the author discusses that the assault weapon ban did not clearly indicate a reduction in gun deaths. Kristoff uses factual examples and statistical examples as a way to solidify his arguments and counter arguments. Research result evidence was used as a way to showcase that evidence is reliable and supports the claim, which was done in the text by stating, “New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check.” Analogical evidence was used in this article as well as the first one because it mentions how comparable gun safety is to car safety.

    5.   Identify two strategies Kristof uses to persuade his audience.

One strategy that was used was the “big name” strategy as the author clearly mentioned Harvard as a way to have his statistics appear far more reliable, due to where they were researched. Kristoff also uses the compare and contrast strategy throughout the entirety of his article by comparing and contrasting right wing and left wing beliefs on gun safety and using evidence to prove what part of right ideals and left ideals may be right or better for lowering the amount of deaths caused by guns.

6. What is your response to the text (general thoughts or discussion of how effective you think it was).

Due to Kristoff’s use of counter arguments and counter evidence at the very beginning of his article, he was able to draw in a far larger and more intrigued number of readers. Also by providing the counter arguments and evidence first, it greatly neutralizes the audience and shades them away from their own personal beliefs that they may have had about gun violence prior, which makes his argument far more effective. His analytical approach of both sides allows readers to think of both sides without any prior judgement.