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.
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 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)