Wendy AP Language

Sharon Begley, a scientific writer for Newsweek, successfully makes her argument about the future of germ-line gene therapy, by backing it up with scientific facts and logic.  Building on top of that, she appeals to the younger generation by explaining the possibilities of our future and the drastic changes that could occur if it is not kept under control.

Sharon Begley successfully makes her argument by stating her ideas of what could come of the future if we pursue germ-line gene therapy, and uses scientific facts to back up her ideas.  The topic she chose especially appears to young readers, in which case gene therapy may even apply to our children.  She explains the method that may simply be used to stop a disease in an unborn child, but builds on top of that to make an entire scenario about how human kind may change drastically if there is not a way to keep it under control.  Begley makes her scenario believable, because she is a scientist, and she presents her argument in a logical manner to make it very believable.

Sharon Begley currently works for Newsweek where she writes essays and columns usually “breaking down complex scientific theories and putting them into prose.”  She was a senior editor for twenty-five years and has also been the science editor for The Wall Street Journal.  The multiple awards she has been given in the past for her writing definitely raise her credentials. 

Newsweek is a very popular weekly magazine that publishes a wide range of subjects and types of articles, but sometimes leans in the liberal direction.  ”Designer Babies” was puplished when information and controversies about cloning and gene therapy were starting to spread in 1998, and I think it is still an issue today.  However, I could see how Begley could produce her argument from a slight liberal viewpoint because that is the tendency of the magazine she works for. 

After researching gene therapy, the scientific evidence that Begley states agrees with most other scientific articles.  I think it is still a hot topic, seeing as we are getting closer to the day in which gene therapy becomes a reality.  Scientists are still in the process of researching gene therapy and the positive and negative effects that could come out of it, mainly just figuring out what each gene does and the effects it may have on an unborn baby.  Along with covering this, Begley also ties in a larger moral issue, and goes even further to say that humans could “take control of our own revolution.”

The essay that I have now chosen for my rhetorical analysis “Designer Babies” by Sharon Begley.  This essay sparked my interest beginning with its odd title which made me want to read more.  The topic is something of substance because it is speaking of an issue that is current and controversial.  Her text is analyzable because it is difficult to see what her stance is until her conclusion, which brings the essay together as a whole.  She asks the question of whether the risk is greater than the good that would come out of the germ-line engineering, which makes one think.  She gives you time throughout her essay to think about what our opinion about gene therapy and other things, and then gives her ideas at the very end.  This let me do some thinking on my own which enhanced the impact of her essay.  I found the whole topic interesting in itself, and I found her argument valuable.

For my rhetorical analysis, I will do “The Art of Failure,” an essay written by Malcom Gladwell.

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_08_21_a_choking.htm

Throughout the chapter, I found multiple examples used that leaned toward certain tendencies or were biased on certain subjects.  However, to make a convincing argument I think you must be bias at least to a certain extent.  Overall, the most prominent tendency I found in the examples used made a comparison of something in the present to something of the past whether it be about ghetto neighborhoods, news divisions, knowledge, baseball bats, Environmentalism, or gas stations.  All have different appeals and are comparing them in different ways, but many of these examples talk about the present and how something of the past was affected the present or if it was worse, better, or similar.  However, seeing that the title of this chapter is “Arguments Based on Facts and Reason,” I can see why this is a common tendency because they are using facts of the past to argue something that needs to be changed or why it is different. 

I also found a tendency of racial/cultural bias in a few of the examples used.  More than one example that was used was arguing something about minorities.  In the except from John J. Dilulio Jr., the subject he is writing about is a book about “ghetto blacks being worse off than ever” (84).  Although this is not his argument, it is the author’s of the book, the topic is still brought up.  Again, there is a racial bias in the graph arguing that fewer girls engage in exercise the older they get.  The girls in the picture are all African American, so it makes the argument a bit vague.  It makes it very unclear to the reader if the survey applies to girls of any race.  The third cultural bias I observed in my reading was that of Linda Chavez’ “Towards a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation.”  She argues that Hispanics are stereotyped and therefore cannot live up to their full potential.  She makes it seem like every person with Hispanic background is discrimintated against and that they worked harder than the people that were already here.  I am not saying that this is not true, but I find major bias in her argument standing up for Hispanics. 

I also found a tendency in the arguments that leaned towards current events.  Of course, arguments made recently or about modern-day ideas are more appealing than history we may already know.  To me, seeing pictures of events that are happening right now or people that are imprtant in our history at this time draws me into the text better than a dated picture or drawing you would find in a history book.  This tendency works in the book’s favor and makes it more interesting to the teenagers and young adults who would typically be reading this, or any adult who is interested in modern events and issues.

Anna Quidlen has complained multiple times about the amount of hate mail she recieves concerning her political views.  Being a comlumnist, however, these sort of things are not uncommon.  If one is going to write in a newspaper, for people all over to see his or her political standings, one should expect others to have a problem with their opinions.  Most writers have to put up with this, whether it is only occasional and light, or as extreme as death threats coming through the mail every day.  The point trying to be made is that yes, you are going to get hate mail, but so does everyone else.  The difference is simply that others put up with it because they know that it is expected.  It is neither attractive nor mature to try to glorify yourself to make it seem like you are strong and determined, because every other person who writes with opinion has to deal with something along the lines of “hate mail” to a certain degree.  To be blunt, if you are going to complain about people disagreeing with your opinions, it is not a very good idea to be a writer at all.  Every person is different; therefore, each of us has a different opinon.  People are going to clash, and as a writer, one must put up with that and realize it only makes you stronger.  If being a columnist is something you truly love, it is worth every piece of hatred you recieve to do something that is meaningful to you.  Instead of complaining about people who disagree with your opinions, try to argue and reason with them rather than complaining about how hateful they are.  Coming from experience, that is “the price you (must) pay” if writing is something you really want to do.

This episode of South Park is ridiculing those who play World of Warcraft.  For those of  you that have not seen this episode, the boys live in their basment for weeks playing the game non-stop, becoming grotesquely obese.  They do this in order to stop one character who is killing players left and right and doing things that were not thought to be possible.  We come to find out that is outstanding player is a lazy man in his 40s living in his mother’s basement.  I think this particular episode could appeal to many people, mainly South Park fans, but I found it especially funny because I know a few people who have been obsessed with the game and I think it is true how addicting it is.  People who play the game itself may also have found it funny because it shows graphics from the game and they could probably relate to a lot of terms used.  I know I find it funny when a comedian or television show humorously makes fun of something I like or can relate to, so I think even people who enjoy the game World of Warcraft would find it funny.

Sarah Palin begins her speech in front of a beautiful backdrop showing photographs of cities across the United States, the country that she promises to fight and stand up for.  She is running alongside John McCain as a hopeful Vice President.  She begins by telling about herself, her experience, and what she is capable of doing and goes on to support McCain and tells about the type of person he is and the experience he has had, and what he is willing to do for our country.  By using stories about her past, humor, and speaking to the American people as a whole, Palin makes an argument about why she and McCain would make a good team in the Presidential office, and how together they are more qualified than their opponents.  Sarah Palin makes her point well and I think she was successful in convincing many American people that she is capable of doing a lot for our country.

Palin shows her confidence from the beginning, as she calls John McCain our “next president” with pride.  I noticed that she talked a lot about her family and their importance to her at the beginning, and I think that has an appeal to many people.  When she speaks about her son in the Army, and her role as a mother, she reaches out to many family members of troops and all mothers in general.  She responds to the many comments about her being “unqualified”  by pointing out the responsibilities she had as mayor of her town, and as governer of Alaska.  She proves her credibilty by explaining the duties she had to fulfill as a member of PTA, as mayor, and as governer, and the hardwork and true effort and dedication it took to do those things.  Her voice even gets sharper as she defends herself and explains that “being mayor comes with responsibility.”  She even goes as far to say that she has a different mindset and spirit as her opponent, that being in office goes farther than simply the competition, and I think she got through to many people who were still unsure about her.  I think people who were watching may have realized that she is better suited for the job than they might have thought.  She also appeals to all the cynicals out there by not making huge promises that seem unrealistic.

Something that surprised me, however, is that Palin used humor multiple times to get a point across.  Although humor sometimes can be sticky when dealing with big matters, I think it worked in her favor.  She spoke directly to “hockey moms” when she cracked a joke about them.  She showed that she was a down-to-earth woman when joking about how she sold her private jet on Ebay.  She also appealed to anyone who thought the Greek columns in the backdrop of Obama’s speech were over the top by making a joke about them.  Through humor, she was able to speak to many different types of people, and appealing to the humorous side of people has a different effect.  She did not joke around so much to the point where she was not taken seriously, I think she just wanted to show that she was just like any regular American human being. 

Another thing that I think Palin does very well is speaking to the American population as a whole.  She speaks to the working class, the hockey moms, and the special needs families all with the same voice.  Palin wanted to make it clear that she, and McCain, would hold true to their opinions and words no matter where they were or who they were speaking to.  By saying that she is here not only to serve her party, but her country, she draws interest from people everywhere.  Palin aims her speech to an audience of all American people.

I find something unique in Palin as a politician because she is not afraid to use sarcasm and wit when dealing with her opponent and his ideals.  Throughout her speech, I think the main goal of Palin is to prove that she is real.  She explains that she believes that Obama has many good qualities about himself that make him appealing to many people, but she asks us to look behind his “cloud of rhetoric” and his promises of change.  She parallels his version of change, with the way that she and McCain see it very successfully.  I found it very effective when Palin made a point about some people “using change to promote careers” and others using “careers to promote change.”  Through this she is obviously alluding to Obama’s promise for change without actually saying his name, and simply the way the words are laid out are very effective.  By paralleling the two, she is showing the American audience the choice they have.  Putting them side by side, we are able to see which one seems more appealing, an idea leading to making huge decisions and running a country, or a lifetime of experience that goes on to make our country a better place.  Through her words, ideas, rhetorical strategies, and tremendous amount of applause she recieved, I think Palin made an good speech that was effective on American people everywhere.

On Saturday was the first Georgia football game of the season.  I sported red and black UGA attire simply to inform those around me that I was a Georgia fan.  I would consider my attire to be an argument because I was just showing those around me that I was there to support my team, not to try to recruit more Georgia fans.  If I had been wearing a t-shirt that said something negative about an opposing team, however, it may also be a persuasion, but since I was just sporting the colors it is an argument meant to inform.

The most recent argument I have made to convince someone was a text message I sent to my mother letting her know the time at which I had dance and that she needed to come pick me up.  The purpose of this argument was simply to inform her about my schedule so that she was aware of it and on top of that, plan accordingly and come pick me up.  This message could be considered a persuasion on top of an argument, because I was informing her the time at which I had dance but also persuading her to take action and come pick me up.     

The last argument of exploration I have made was writing my paper on the life of Chris McCandless.  Throughout the essay, I was addressing certain aspects of his personality and issues of his life, and then making my own conclusion about his life.  My paper was not meant to be a persuasive paper, but rather just a collection of my thoughts to argue my opinions.  The reason for it not being persuasive is the fact that what I said was just my opinion, and when you persuade someone it is typically something you want them to also believe. 

A few days ago, a friend and I had to make a decision about where we wanted to go eat dinner.  We had to decide how much money we wanted to spend, what kind of food we had a taste for, and how far we were willing to drive to get there.  After weighing all of our options, we finally were able to choose a resturaunt at which we would eat.  I would consider this an arguement because after seeing what options we had to choose from we were able to make an adequate decision according to those.  

Almost every Sunday, I make arguments of prayer while singing hymns and praying in Church.  Most hymns make an argument about the glory of God or events in the Bible and if you are singing them, you are proving a point that you are a believer.  I would say that singing a hymn or reciting a prayer would just be an argument that you agree with whatever the song or prayer is saying.  The purpose of a person singing may not be to persuade someone to also believe, but sometimes the words or lyrics may appeal to a person and inspire them to believe in God.