Michael Jackson’s classic music video “Thriller” examines the consequences of buying the artist’s album on customer satisfaction. The enthymeme is, “Thriller is a must-have album... because Thriller features Michael Jackson.” The implicit assumption is that Michael Jackson’s records are must-haves.
The goal of this music video is to get the audience to buy Michael Jackson’s music. The audience is made up of music lovers, including Jackson’s fans. The argument, explained in the enthymeme, is made largely with ethos. The titles at the beginning identify it as “Michael Jackson’s Thriller.” When this music video was made (1982), Jackson was near the height of his career, and this would have lent immense credibility to the video that followed said titles.
Moreover, in the middle of the video, there is a large break in the music for a minutes-long dance routine featuring Jackson (who has become a zombie) and several other undead who have crawled out of their graves. This routine and the break for it, of course, are not in the original song, but allow Jackson to show off his dance moves. At this point, the ethos blends into pathos as Jackson sells the video with his singing and dancing. The audience knows Jackson is credible, and they like him (which is reinforced by his performance); therefore, his performance compels them to want the album.
The argument is more than sufficient; Thriller was a tremendous success, and more than 25 years after its debut, both the song and the music video are classics. It sells Michael Jackson and his music--a fan of music or of Jackson would recognize this latest song and album would not disappoint, and they would likely buy it. The argument is timely and relevant as well; if Jackson was not at the apex of his career, he was certainly close. It was accurate, as well, at least to the audience, in that it confirmed their image of Jackson as a talented performer.
Here's the link, if anyone wants to watch all 13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyJbIOZjS8
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Paper A
Paper A explores the consequences of voting for someone whose platform you don’t entirely agree with on your ability to feel good about your vote. The enthymeme is, “Voting for one of America’s two major parties, even when you don’t agree fully with either candidate, allows you to defend most of your beliefs, because voting for one of America’s two major parties gives you a greater chance of being represented and heard in the government.” The implicit assumption is that having a greater chance of being represented and heard in the government allows you to defend most of your beliefs.
The goal of Paper A is to get new teenage voters to vote in an election, rather than abstaining from casting a ballot. The audience is teens who are old enough to vote and will be participating in their first election. The argument is made largely using logos.
The author (myself) reasons (uses logos) that by voting for one of the two major parties, the audience makes themselves players in the election. They have a say, and if they can find a candidate that supports the majority of their ideals, they can ensure that the majority of their ideals are represented if said candidate is elected. There are also numbers and figures used; the author uses the example of Ross Perot to illustrate why it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to be elected as president. There is a little bit of pathos as the teens are called to action, but as shown, the bulk of this argument resides in logos.
The argument is fairly sufficient; it gives some good reasons to vote either Democrat or Republican, but the reasons are not as well-suited to teenagers as they could be. The argument would be more timely in October (before the presidential election) though there are elections every year the teenagers could participate in. It is also an accurate argument; though there are certainly drawbacks to voting for someone you do not completely endorse, experts would tell you more of a difference can be made through the two main parties. Lastly, especially with the attention politics and the economy are getting today, arguments like this one are especially relevant.
The goal of Paper A is to get new teenage voters to vote in an election, rather than abstaining from casting a ballot. The audience is teens who are old enough to vote and will be participating in their first election. The argument is made largely using logos.
The author (myself) reasons (uses logos) that by voting for one of the two major parties, the audience makes themselves players in the election. They have a say, and if they can find a candidate that supports the majority of their ideals, they can ensure that the majority of their ideals are represented if said candidate is elected. There are also numbers and figures used; the author uses the example of Ross Perot to illustrate why it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to be elected as president. There is a little bit of pathos as the teens are called to action, but as shown, the bulk of this argument resides in logos.
The argument is fairly sufficient; it gives some good reasons to vote either Democrat or Republican, but the reasons are not as well-suited to teenagers as they could be. The argument would be more timely in October (before the presidential election) though there are elections every year the teenagers could participate in. It is also an accurate argument; though there are certainly drawbacks to voting for someone you do not completely endorse, experts would tell you more of a difference can be made through the two main parties. Lastly, especially with the attention politics and the economy are getting today, arguments like this one are especially relevant.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Angels and Demons
“Angels and Demons” is the sequel to the film “The DaVinci Code,” and will be coming to theaters in May 2009. The trailer examines the consequences of watching the film on moviegoers’ level of enjoyment. The enthymeme the trailer puts forward is, “‘Angels and Demons’ is a great movie...because ‘Angels and Demons’ leaves you sitting at the edge of your seat.” The implicit assumption here is that exciting movies leave you on the edge of your seat.
The goal of the trailer’s creators is to get people to watch the film, and their argument is that the movie is one people should see. The audience is moviegoers (since they will definitely be the ones watching the trailer in theaters) and also fans of the first film, “The DaVinci Code,” and the Dan Brown books the films are based off of. The argument is made using ethos and pathos.
Credibility is given to the film by the fact that it is directed by Ron Howard, a well-known, award-winning filmmaker; stars Tom Hanks, one of the largest names in Hollywood; and is based on the bestselling novel of the same title by the author of “The DaVinci Code” (Dan Brown). People who enjoy Ron Howard’s work, Tom Hanks’ acting, or Dan Brown’s books will be encouraged by this, as Hanks and Howard have been involved in suspenseful films, and Brown writes page-turners.
Pathos is used through the powerful musical score, the short cuts from shot to shot, and the dramatic pieces of the film shown in the trailer (for example, Tom Hanks/Robert Langdon exclaiming, “You’re talking about the very moment of creation,” something exploding, someone diving into water, etc.) These give the audience the impression that the film is fast-paced, compelling, and exciting. There are also shots of buildings in the Vatican, priests, and statues, which, when combined with the score, give the trailer a mysterious feel. There are no long clips used in the trailer, a fact which, when combined with the music and editing, excites the viewer, and leaves them on the edge of their seat. It would be easy to assume is that if the trailer leaves the audience on the edge of their seats, surely the film will, too.
The argument is sufficient; it shows moviegoers in general what they want to see: action, drama, intrigue, suspense, and excitement. Fans of the book or of the previous film will notice it seems to follow after its predecessor in this regard, and should be satisfied (at least, with the trailer). The argument is also timely; the film will be released in May. It should also be accurate; most likely the scenes shown in the trailer will also be in the film, and the ethos points (Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown) participate in the roles the trailer has attributed them to. This is an argument that would be extremely relevant to moviegoers and fans of Dan Brown’s book, since it features some of film’s heavyweights and is an adaptation of the novel.
The goal of the trailer’s creators is to get people to watch the film, and their argument is that the movie is one people should see. The audience is moviegoers (since they will definitely be the ones watching the trailer in theaters) and also fans of the first film, “The DaVinci Code,” and the Dan Brown books the films are based off of. The argument is made using ethos and pathos.
Credibility is given to the film by the fact that it is directed by Ron Howard, a well-known, award-winning filmmaker; stars Tom Hanks, one of the largest names in Hollywood; and is based on the bestselling novel of the same title by the author of “The DaVinci Code” (Dan Brown). People who enjoy Ron Howard’s work, Tom Hanks’ acting, or Dan Brown’s books will be encouraged by this, as Hanks and Howard have been involved in suspenseful films, and Brown writes page-turners.
Pathos is used through the powerful musical score, the short cuts from shot to shot, and the dramatic pieces of the film shown in the trailer (for example, Tom Hanks/Robert Langdon exclaiming, “You’re talking about the very moment of creation,” something exploding, someone diving into water, etc.) These give the audience the impression that the film is fast-paced, compelling, and exciting. There are also shots of buildings in the Vatican, priests, and statues, which, when combined with the score, give the trailer a mysterious feel. There are no long clips used in the trailer, a fact which, when combined with the music and editing, excites the viewer, and leaves them on the edge of their seat. It would be easy to assume is that if the trailer leaves the audience on the edge of their seats, surely the film will, too.
The argument is sufficient; it shows moviegoers in general what they want to see: action, drama, intrigue, suspense, and excitement. Fans of the book or of the previous film will notice it seems to follow after its predecessor in this regard, and should be satisfied (at least, with the trailer). The argument is also timely; the film will be released in May. It should also be accurate; most likely the scenes shown in the trailer will also be in the film, and the ethos points (Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown) participate in the roles the trailer has attributed them to. This is an argument that would be extremely relevant to moviegoers and fans of Dan Brown’s book, since it features some of film’s heavyweights and is an adaptation of the novel.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Public Transportation
Link to the text (it’s a PDF):
www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf
“Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” is a paper written by Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin A. Hassett, who belong to think tanks, and Frank S. Arnold, president of Applied Microeconomics, Inc., in 2002. Among other things discussed in the paper, Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold examine the consequences of using public transportation on the environment. The enthymeme is, “Using public transportation in large cities is the pragmatic and patriotic thing to do...because using public transportation reduces emissions.” The implicit assumption here is that reducing emissions is patriotic and pragmatic.
The three authors make the argument that by making public transit a key element of the United States’ long-term transportation, energy, and environmental policies, the country can be environmentally strengthened. Their audience is likely a group of political movers and shakers––policy makers in Washington, D.C. This paper was commissioned by the American Public Transportation Association, and could have been written in an attempt to lobby for more public transportation.
The writers’ goal is to get the United States to use more public transportation. For most of the argument, this is accomplished by logos, specifically through the results of tests and mathematical equations––several pages’ worth. The logical argument ends with an assertion that using public transit is the “pragmatic” thing to do. There is also an element of ethos; the writers are experts in their fields, and the beginning of the paper details their credentials in lengthy paragraphs. Lastly, there is pathos––the appeal that reducing emissions is a “patriotic” thing to do. This would especially play to their audience of lawmakers.
The argument, at least the ethos side, works and is sufficient. They form a powerful argument with the statistics they have compiled, and one finishes the paper thinking that given the facts, using public transit in a large city would be a logical thing to do. It feels accurate. The conclusion is where the pathos comes into play (far too late; it's almost like it was tacked on), and the appeal to the audience that using public transportation is patriotic seems misplaced and leaves the reader feeling like the writers are trying to manipulate them. There is not enough discussion about patriotism earlier to warrant the logical leap the writers are asking the audience to take, and that argument––that taking public transportation is patriotic––does not work, and thus does not feel entirely accurate. It is a timely argument; though the paper was written in 2002, it still holds today, and is perhaps even more relevant, though it would be interesting to see today’s statistics and find out if they have improved or worsened.
www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf
“Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” is a paper written by Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin A. Hassett, who belong to think tanks, and Frank S. Arnold, president of Applied Microeconomics, Inc., in 2002. Among other things discussed in the paper, Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold examine the consequences of using public transportation on the environment. The enthymeme is, “Using public transportation in large cities is the pragmatic and patriotic thing to do...because using public transportation reduces emissions.” The implicit assumption here is that reducing emissions is patriotic and pragmatic.
The three authors make the argument that by making public transit a key element of the United States’ long-term transportation, energy, and environmental policies, the country can be environmentally strengthened. Their audience is likely a group of political movers and shakers––policy makers in Washington, D.C. This paper was commissioned by the American Public Transportation Association, and could have been written in an attempt to lobby for more public transportation.
The writers’ goal is to get the United States to use more public transportation. For most of the argument, this is accomplished by logos, specifically through the results of tests and mathematical equations––several pages’ worth. The logical argument ends with an assertion that using public transit is the “pragmatic” thing to do. There is also an element of ethos; the writers are experts in their fields, and the beginning of the paper details their credentials in lengthy paragraphs. Lastly, there is pathos––the appeal that reducing emissions is a “patriotic” thing to do. This would especially play to their audience of lawmakers.
The argument, at least the ethos side, works and is sufficient. They form a powerful argument with the statistics they have compiled, and one finishes the paper thinking that given the facts, using public transit in a large city would be a logical thing to do. It feels accurate. The conclusion is where the pathos comes into play (far too late; it's almost like it was tacked on), and the appeal to the audience that using public transportation is patriotic seems misplaced and leaves the reader feeling like the writers are trying to manipulate them. There is not enough discussion about patriotism earlier to warrant the logical leap the writers are asking the audience to take, and that argument––that taking public transportation is patriotic––does not work, and thus does not feel entirely accurate. It is a timely argument; though the paper was written in 2002, it still holds today, and is perhaps even more relevant, though it would be interesting to see today’s statistics and find out if they have improved or worsened.
Public Transportation
Link to the text (it’s a PDF):
www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf
“Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” is a paper written by Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin A. Hassett, who belong to think tanks, and Frank S. Arnold, president of Applied Microeconomics, Inc., in 2002. Among other things discussed in the paper, Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold examine the consequences of using public transportation on the environment. The enthymeme is, “Using public transportation in large cities is the pragmatic and patriotic thing to do...because using public transportation reduces emissions.” The implicit assumption here is that reducing emissions is patriotic and pragmatic.
The three authors make the argument that by making public transit a key element of the United States’ long-term transportation, energy, and environmental policies, the country can be environmentally strengthened. Their audience is likely a group of political movers and shakers––policy makers in Washington, D.C. This paper was published through the American Public Transportation Association, and could have been written in an attempt to lobby for more public transportation.
The writers’ goal is to get the United States to use more public transportation. For most of the argument, this is accomplished by logos, specifically through the results of tests and mathematical equations––several pages’ worth. The logical argument ends with an assertion that using public transit is the “pragmatic” thing to do. There is also an element of ethos; the writers are experts in their fields, and the beginning of the paper details their credentials in lengthy paragraphs. Lastly, there is pathos––the appeal that reducing emissions is a “patriotic” thing to do. This would especially play to their audience of lawmakers.
The argument, at least the ethos side, works and is sufficient. They form a powerful argument with the statistics they have compiled, and one finishes the paper thinking that given the facts, using public transit in a large city would be a logical thing to do. It feels accurate. The conclusion is where the pathos comes into play (far too late; it's almost like it was tacked on), and the appeal to the audience that using public transportation is patriotic seems misplaced and leaves the reader feeling like the writers are trying to manipulate them. There is not enough discussion about patriotism earlier to warrant the logical leap the writers are asking the audience to take, and that argument––that taking public transportation is patriotic––does not work, and thus does not feel entirely accurate. It is a timely argument; though the paper was written in 2002, it still holds today, and is perhaps even more relevant, though it would be interesting to see today’s statistics and find out if they have improved or worsened.
www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf
“Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” is a paper written by Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin A. Hassett, who belong to think tanks, and Frank S. Arnold, president of Applied Microeconomics, Inc., in 2002. Among other things discussed in the paper, Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold examine the consequences of using public transportation on the environment. The enthymeme is, “Using public transportation in large cities is the pragmatic and patriotic thing to do...because using public transportation reduces emissions.” The implicit assumption here is that reducing emissions is patriotic and pragmatic.
The three authors make the argument that by making public transit a key element of the United States’ long-term transportation, energy, and environmental policies, the country can be environmentally strengthened. Their audience is likely a group of political movers and shakers––policy makers in Washington, D.C. This paper was published through the American Public Transportation Association, and could have been written in an attempt to lobby for more public transportation.
The writers’ goal is to get the United States to use more public transportation. For most of the argument, this is accomplished by logos, specifically through the results of tests and mathematical equations––several pages’ worth. The logical argument ends with an assertion that using public transit is the “pragmatic” thing to do. There is also an element of ethos; the writers are experts in their fields, and the beginning of the paper details their credentials in lengthy paragraphs. Lastly, there is pathos––the appeal that reducing emissions is a “patriotic” thing to do. This would especially play to their audience of lawmakers.
The argument, at least the ethos side, works and is sufficient. They form a powerful argument with the statistics they have compiled, and one finishes the paper thinking that given the facts, using public transit in a large city would be a logical thing to do. It feels accurate. The conclusion is where the pathos comes into play (far too late; it's almost like it was tacked on), and the appeal to the audience that using public transportation is patriotic seems misplaced and leaves the reader feeling like the writers are trying to manipulate them. There is not enough discussion about patriotism earlier to warrant the logical leap the writers are asking the audience to take, and that argument––that taking public transportation is patriotic––does not work, and thus does not feel entirely accurate. It is a timely argument; though the paper was written in 2002, it still holds today, and is perhaps even more relevant, though it would be interesting to see today’s statistics and find out if they have improved or worsened.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Abinadi Before King Noah
Arnold Friberg’s painting of Abinadi before King Noah is a well-known piece of LDS artwork. In the painting, Friberg explores the consequences of trying to kill Abinadi on King Noah’s efforts. His enthymeme is, “Abinadi cannot be killed...because Abinadi has not yet fulfilled his mission.” The implicit assumption here is that a prophet cannot be killed without fulfilling his mission.
Friberg makes the argument that the wicked cannot overpower those who have the power of God with them. His audience is probably largely members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are familiar with the story of Abinadi and will readily recognize the setting and circumstances surrounding the painting.
Friberg’s goal is to convey the power of the Lord, and he makes it with a little logos and a lot of pathos. The painting depicts a scene directly after Noah’s guards tried to “lay their hands” on Abinadi. Behind Abinadi, the guards stagger backwards from the prophet. In the bottom left corner, a sword lays on the floor in pieces; one can assume one of the guards attempted to use it on Abinadi. King Noah recoils and drops his cup of wine. A priest (is it Alma?) stands up in surprise. Something has happened, but Abinadi remains bound, so whatever it was, was done by the Lord––a logical conclusion. As mentioned, there are also heavy elements of pathos. King Noah’s girth and elaborate robes betray his gluttonous, and therefore wicked, lifestyle. Abinadi, though old, is muscular, suggesting spiritual strength, and wears ragged clothing, which alludes to the simplicity of the power of God. He stands in an elaborately-decorated room, his simplicity signifying that he lives in the world, but not of it. The wicked priests sit in shadow, while Abinidi’s head is bathed in light––obvious allusions to good and evil.
The argument is sufficient. Through his portrayals of the characters––namely, in his use of color, lighting, placement, and body structure––he shows that Noah’s wealth and power are no match for the power of the Lord, even when it is bestowed upon an elderly man. It is a relevant argument for its audience; Latter-day Saints believe in the argument Friberg is making––and I believe it is accurate. If one believes it is accurate, then it is certainly timely, as one can always lean from Abinadi’s example.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Resource for Paper A
The resource for Paper A I am writing about comes from an essay by John F. Bibby in “Multiparty Politics in America” (ed. Paul Herrnson and John C. Green). In his essay, Bibby essentially asks the question, what are the consequences of the two-party system on American politics? His enthymeme is, “using the two-party system makes American politics stable... because using the two-party system leads to legitimacy and moderation.” The implicit assumption is that moderation and legitimacy lead to political stability.
Bibby makes the argument that the two-party system is good for America because it forces politicians to take the relative middle ground and provides them with the support of many, if not most, Americans.
Bibby’s audience are critics of the two-party system. The title of Bibby’s essay, “In Defense of the Two-Party System,” makes this clear. These critics are likely not political scientists, since the tone in which he refers to the ideas of different political scientists suggests they are a separate group. Most likely, they are politically-astute people who would favor a multiparty system in American government.
Bibby’s goal is to convince people that the two-party system should be preserved in U.S. politics, along with its contributions. He makes the argument largely with logos, explaining what perpetuates the two-party system (the Electoral College and the FEC) and elaborating on the benefits it has. He also uses ethos, quoting other political scientists, but the argument is practically void of pathos as he makes no attempt to appeal to the emotions of his audience.
The argument is effective; Bibby does a good job of defending his position, making concessions, and backing himself up with other sources. For an audience that is sitting on the fence, this could be a very sufficient argument. It also seems to be an accurate argument; both his argument and the one before it, which contradicted his position, were accurate, though the spin each author used differed. It is also relevant; while there is not a huge push right now to move to a parliamentary system of government, there are some who wonder about the two-party system and want to know its benefits and drawbacks.
Bibby makes the argument that the two-party system is good for America because it forces politicians to take the relative middle ground and provides them with the support of many, if not most, Americans.
Bibby’s audience are critics of the two-party system. The title of Bibby’s essay, “In Defense of the Two-Party System,” makes this clear. These critics are likely not political scientists, since the tone in which he refers to the ideas of different political scientists suggests they are a separate group. Most likely, they are politically-astute people who would favor a multiparty system in American government.
Bibby’s goal is to convince people that the two-party system should be preserved in U.S. politics, along with its contributions. He makes the argument largely with logos, explaining what perpetuates the two-party system (the Electoral College and the FEC) and elaborating on the benefits it has. He also uses ethos, quoting other political scientists, but the argument is practically void of pathos as he makes no attempt to appeal to the emotions of his audience.
The argument is effective; Bibby does a good job of defending his position, making concessions, and backing himself up with other sources. For an audience that is sitting on the fence, this could be a very sufficient argument. It also seems to be an accurate argument; both his argument and the one before it, which contradicted his position, were accurate, though the spin each author used differed. It is also relevant; while there is not a huge push right now to move to a parliamentary system of government, there are some who wonder about the two-party system and want to know its benefits and drawbacks.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Tevye's Rhetoric
The song is below, followed by the analysis:
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.
I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.
I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
(Insert)Squawking just as noisily as they can. (End Insert)
With each loud "cheep" "swaqwk" "honk" "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."
Chorus
I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin.
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in.
Screaming at the servants, day and night.
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!
If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
Chorus
Lord who mad the lion and the lamb,
You decreed I should be what I am.
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man.
*****************
The song I chose comes from the timeless musical, “Fiddler on the Roof.” The WATCO in the song is, "WATCO Tevye being rich on his lifestyle?" The enthymeme was, "Giving Tevye the ‘small fortune’ he wants will make his life better... because giving Tevye a small fortune would let him be able to do whatever he wanted." The implicit assumption is that being able to do whatever you want will bring improvement to your life.
The wishful argument Tevye makes in his song is that there would be no harm in God making him rich, because then he would be able to do what he wanted to do (he then lists off what he would do if he were rich and did not have to work). This includes fulfilling worldly desires, but also includes worshipping in the synagogue every day and having a seat by its eastern wall.
God is Tevye’s audience. Throughout the musical, Tevye is constantly talking to God, and in this instance, he is singing to Him.
Tevye’s goal is to persuade God to make him rich. There is a sense as he sings that this is mainly a fantasy, and that he wishfully telling God what he would do if he were indeed rich. He makes the argument largely through pathos. His love and devotion to God, and his longing for a better life can be heard in the mournful strains of his voice as he sings in a minor key. Any attempt at logos is not working in Tevye’s favor; he tells God that if he was rich, he would build a huge house with “one long staircase just going up, and one even longer coming down, and one more leading nowhere, just for show,” and says that when asked questions by important townspeople, “it won’t make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong; when you’re rich, they think you really know!”
The argument is not effective. Tevye established his love for God and that he would worship him more often in the synagogue if he was rich, but in the Hasidic brand of Judaism Tevye believed in, having a desire to have the opportunity to worship more often was on par with actually worshipping. In that light, Tevye did not present any compelling reasons for God to make him rich. As I mentioned before, Tevye’s imaginitive song was more a fantasy than an actual plea for wealth. The argument is not sufficient for these same reasons. It is, however, relevant; Tevye is indeed poor. It is also an accurate argument, as I do not doubt for a minute that Tevye would make good on everything he said he would do if he were a rich man (from the staircases to the added worship).
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.
I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.
I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
(Insert)Squawking just as noisily as they can. (End Insert)
With each loud "cheep" "swaqwk" "honk" "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."
Chorus
I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin.
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in.
Screaming at the servants, day and night.
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!
If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
Chorus
Lord who mad the lion and the lamb,
You decreed I should be what I am.
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man.
*****************
The song I chose comes from the timeless musical, “Fiddler on the Roof.” The WATCO in the song is, "WATCO Tevye being rich on his lifestyle?" The enthymeme was, "Giving Tevye the ‘small fortune’ he wants will make his life better... because giving Tevye a small fortune would let him be able to do whatever he wanted." The implicit assumption is that being able to do whatever you want will bring improvement to your life.
The wishful argument Tevye makes in his song is that there would be no harm in God making him rich, because then he would be able to do what he wanted to do (he then lists off what he would do if he were rich and did not have to work). This includes fulfilling worldly desires, but also includes worshipping in the synagogue every day and having a seat by its eastern wall.
God is Tevye’s audience. Throughout the musical, Tevye is constantly talking to God, and in this instance, he is singing to Him.
Tevye’s goal is to persuade God to make him rich. There is a sense as he sings that this is mainly a fantasy, and that he wishfully telling God what he would do if he were indeed rich. He makes the argument largely through pathos. His love and devotion to God, and his longing for a better life can be heard in the mournful strains of his voice as he sings in a minor key. Any attempt at logos is not working in Tevye’s favor; he tells God that if he was rich, he would build a huge house with “one long staircase just going up, and one even longer coming down, and one more leading nowhere, just for show,” and says that when asked questions by important townspeople, “it won’t make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong; when you’re rich, they think you really know!”
The argument is not effective. Tevye established his love for God and that he would worship him more often in the synagogue if he was rich, but in the Hasidic brand of Judaism Tevye believed in, having a desire to have the opportunity to worship more often was on par with actually worshipping. In that light, Tevye did not present any compelling reasons for God to make him rich. As I mentioned before, Tevye’s imaginitive song was more a fantasy than an actual plea for wealth. The argument is not sufficient for these same reasons. It is, however, relevant; Tevye is indeed poor. It is also an accurate argument, as I do not doubt for a minute that Tevye would make good on everything he said he would do if he were a rich man (from the staircases to the added worship).
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Encounter
For my encounter, I went to a cell phone kiosk at Provo Towne Centre. There I talked with salesman John Smith under the premise that my parents were downgrading their service and my plan with their provider expired in a couple of months. He tried to convince me to switch my service to Verizon.
The WATCO was, "WATCO switching to Verizon on your ability to connect with others?" The enthymeme was, "Switching to Verizon will improve your ability to connect with others... because switching to Verizon gives you better service and coverage." The implicit assumption was that better service and coverage make it easier to connect with people you know.
The argument John made was that Verizon will serve me better than any other phone company and that because of this, I should switch my service to Verizon when the contract is up on my phone a couple months down the road.
The audience being targeted was me––someone who was looking to switch my phone service from T-Mobile to something else if I could find a plan that was better than my parents’ family plan, which I’m currently on.
John’s goal was to persuade me to switch my phone service to Verizon. He made his argument mostly through ethos, building the company’s credibility. He told me Verizon has three times the number of cell phone towers of any other cell phone company, and that it has the largest network of users. (If it has that many cell phone towers, one can trust that his or her calls won’t be dropped, and if the company has a network that large, their service must be superb.) Bringing the argument down to a personal level, John told me he himself is a Verizon customer and described his experiences having service through the company. He said his phone had never dropped a call while he has been with Verizon, and related the experience of one of his friends, who had a problem with his phone; Verizon sent him a brand-new phone.
The argument was effective. John did make concessions, noting that if most of the people I call are on T-Mobile (my current provider) then it would probably be wise to stay with them so I wouldn’t be charged for my calls. He also told me his commission worked differently than that of the salesmen at the other kiosks. This made me less distrustful of him and made me feel more like he had my best interest at heart.
The argument was sufficient; in fact, if I was thinking of changing my provider, I would probably seriously consider Verizon. I also felt the argument was relevant; John asked what I primarily use my phone for, how many minutes I use every month, how many texts I send in a month, etc. and tried to aim me toward a plan that would accomodate my usage.
The WATCO was, "WATCO switching to Verizon on your ability to connect with others?" The enthymeme was, "Switching to Verizon will improve your ability to connect with others... because switching to Verizon gives you better service and coverage." The implicit assumption was that better service and coverage make it easier to connect with people you know.
The argument John made was that Verizon will serve me better than any other phone company and that because of this, I should switch my service to Verizon when the contract is up on my phone a couple months down the road.
The audience being targeted was me––someone who was looking to switch my phone service from T-Mobile to something else if I could find a plan that was better than my parents’ family plan, which I’m currently on.
John’s goal was to persuade me to switch my phone service to Verizon. He made his argument mostly through ethos, building the company’s credibility. He told me Verizon has three times the number of cell phone towers of any other cell phone company, and that it has the largest network of users. (If it has that many cell phone towers, one can trust that his or her calls won’t be dropped, and if the company has a network that large, their service must be superb.) Bringing the argument down to a personal level, John told me he himself is a Verizon customer and described his experiences having service through the company. He said his phone had never dropped a call while he has been with Verizon, and related the experience of one of his friends, who had a problem with his phone; Verizon sent him a brand-new phone.
The argument was effective. John did make concessions, noting that if most of the people I call are on T-Mobile (my current provider) then it would probably be wise to stay with them so I wouldn’t be charged for my calls. He also told me his commission worked differently than that of the salesmen at the other kiosks. This made me less distrustful of him and made me feel more like he had my best interest at heart.
The argument was sufficient; in fact, if I was thinking of changing my provider, I would probably seriously consider Verizon. I also felt the argument was relevant; John asked what I primarily use my phone for, how many minutes I use every month, how many texts I send in a month, etc. and tried to aim me toward a plan that would accomodate my usage.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"Home Invasion" advertisement
Please view the ad here:
"Home Invasion" advertisement
The goal of this advertisement is to get California residents to vote “no” on Proposition 8. The argument made in is that the LDS Church is trying to take over California’s government through its members’ support of the proposition. The enthymeme runs something like this: “What are the consequences of the LDS Church’s involvement in Proposition 8 on gay marriage? Because the LDS Church’s involvement will means it wants to take over the government.” The implicit assumption is that the LDS Church wants to take away people’s rights. The ad is targeting California residents, as they were the ones who would ultimately vote on the proposition––specificially, I would venture to guess, those who hadn’t made up their minds about how they were going to vote.
The argument is being made with pathos and logos. The eerie music and quick cuts, the analogy of missionaries unlawfully entering someone’s home, removing the couple’s rings, digging through their personal belongings, and tearing up their marriage certificate all evoke fear. The gay couple depicted in the ad (two aesthetically-pleasing, conservatively dressed women) is far from the stereotypical pair of flamboyant, feminine men. This draws the audience closer to the couple; these could be the people next door who are having their lives destroyed.
As far as logos is concerned, the people who created the ad tried to draw a logical connection between the LDS Church is taking away marriage rights and taking away subsequent rights thereafter. The poor dialogue at the end (“What should we ban next?”) makes this too much of a stretch. Ethos is another area where this advertisement really hurts. The commercial looks like it was filmed on a low budget, the dialogue is poor, and the men playing the missionaries are not even wearing the telltale nametags. It looks like something a Proposition 8 opponent filmed on his handheld camera.
The argument is certainly relevant for California residents, who voted on the issue in November 2008, but is far from accurate. It could be seen as being a typical argument, with the conflicts between church and state coming into the spotlight, and so, at least to some, it could be a sufficient argument (if the church is trying to take away rights and take over the government, what other reason do we need to vote no?)
Ultimately this advertisement is ineffective. Rhetorical arguments are supposed to target the fence-sitters and those in the immediate vicinity of the fence. This ad is far too over-the-top for fence-sitters. People who strongly oppose Proposition 8 and/or Mormons would identify with this ad, but a lack of concessions and an evident attempt to evoke fear and paranoia would probably be a turn off for most people undecided on the issue.
"Home Invasion" advertisement
The goal of this advertisement is to get California residents to vote “no” on Proposition 8. The argument made in is that the LDS Church is trying to take over California’s government through its members’ support of the proposition. The enthymeme runs something like this: “What are the consequences of the LDS Church’s involvement in Proposition 8 on gay marriage? Because the LDS Church’s involvement will means it wants to take over the government.” The implicit assumption is that the LDS Church wants to take away people’s rights. The ad is targeting California residents, as they were the ones who would ultimately vote on the proposition––specificially, I would venture to guess, those who hadn’t made up their minds about how they were going to vote.
The argument is being made with pathos and logos. The eerie music and quick cuts, the analogy of missionaries unlawfully entering someone’s home, removing the couple’s rings, digging through their personal belongings, and tearing up their marriage certificate all evoke fear. The gay couple depicted in the ad (two aesthetically-pleasing, conservatively dressed women) is far from the stereotypical pair of flamboyant, feminine men. This draws the audience closer to the couple; these could be the people next door who are having their lives destroyed.
As far as logos is concerned, the people who created the ad tried to draw a logical connection between the LDS Church is taking away marriage rights and taking away subsequent rights thereafter. The poor dialogue at the end (“What should we ban next?”) makes this too much of a stretch. Ethos is another area where this advertisement really hurts. The commercial looks like it was filmed on a low budget, the dialogue is poor, and the men playing the missionaries are not even wearing the telltale nametags. It looks like something a Proposition 8 opponent filmed on his handheld camera.
The argument is certainly relevant for California residents, who voted on the issue in November 2008, but is far from accurate. It could be seen as being a typical argument, with the conflicts between church and state coming into the spotlight, and so, at least to some, it could be a sufficient argument (if the church is trying to take away rights and take over the government, what other reason do we need to vote no?)
Ultimately this advertisement is ineffective. Rhetorical arguments are supposed to target the fence-sitters and those in the immediate vicinity of the fence. This ad is far too over-the-top for fence-sitters. People who strongly oppose Proposition 8 and/or Mormons would identify with this ad, but a lack of concessions and an evident attempt to evoke fear and paranoia would probably be a turn off for most people undecided on the issue.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Not Your Grandfather's Old Spice Advertisement
This advertisement argues that using Old Spice deodorant will make a man more desireable, enhancing his social life and putting him on the same plane as a model. It targets an audience of younger men interested in attracting women; the advertisement depicts a man in his late teens or early twenties engaged in a flirtatious conversative with a girl (he is, in fact, getting her number). Young men who envision themselves doing something like this are in the crosshairs of this Old Spice ad.
The goal of the advertisement is to persuade the audience (young men interested in young women) they should use Old Spice, because it will “add spice” to their lives and help them meet and date women.
The argument that he should buy it is made largely with a blend of pathos and logos. The girl tells the young man, “Well, I don’t usually date models, but okay, here’s my number.” The audience may or may not be male models, but that doesn’t matter. According to this advertisement, if you wear Old Spice you’ll be on par with one and will be assured the same success achieved by the young man in the ad. This is poor logic, however (it requires a lot of imagination to take it from an A to an A1 argument), and needs a little pathos to push it along. This comes in the form of the tag line, which is, “Add some Spice to your life.” The red background, while the trademark color of Old Spice deodorant sticks, is also the color of passion, playing into the idea of the pursuit depicted in the advertisement.
These both appeal to the emotions, and could probably net the audience (girl-crazy teenagers and twentysomethings). This renders the advertisement effective, though when one thinks about the logic behind the argument, it is a ridiculous concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)