Zakaria begins the chapter with a paradox, a statement that appears to be self-contradictory or opposed to common sense but close inspection contains some degree of truth or validity. He uses paradox to state how the economy and politics is after the cold war in 1991 and how it affected the Americans and the market during that time period. He states that the economy is moving forward but the politics is troubling. Zakaria also uses diction, word choice, to bring out his point about the Americans and others on how the politics has been troubling on the violence and civil strife that is happening around the world. The audience is mostly educated middle class Americans, who is worrying about their future.
Shortly after ending her job at ABC she began working at CNN as a producer and filled in as an on air reporter when she could. After seven years, she took a reporter job in Washington at a NBC affiliated station (“Work”). Here, at NBC she really started to make her mark on the reporting world. She was hired as the number two reporter at the Pentagon and over a three-year span she covered the Untied States invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf War. In 1991, she starting to fill in as a co-anchor on NBC’s morning show, Today, which most people know Couric from.
Logos, or logical appeals, imply the use of reasoning, and, moreover, it may be the most powerful strategy in the pocket of the author as his audience is more likely to believe in facts. In the article “People Like Us”, written by David Brooks, an American author and conservative political and cultural commentator for the New York Times, justifies that the United States is a fairly more homogeneous country, rather than diverse, by providing facts and approaching to his audience emotions, even though his ethos appeals are not the best. According to David Brooks, in “People Like Us”, Americans describe diversity today as racial integration, which is proven when an analysis is done on a 2000 census showing that both upper and middle class African Americans decided to live in their generally black neighborhoods” (63). The author uses a strong logos appeal by providing the results of the census:
By including the source from which he derived these statistics, Gilbert could create a more trustworthy evidence and help convince the audience. As the argument progresses, the author uses articles from the New York Times as well as another Daily Beast article when discussing the background of the topic. These evidences are not very authoritative because they come from articles that might have bias. Both the New York Times, and the Daily Beast can be opinionated, so taking sources from less biased and more firsthand sources would be more reliable. The author also employs quotes from the protestors to support his opinion.
My opinion or what I think about James Brook’s title in his essay “People Like Us” is a good and understandable title for his essay. He puts People Like Us as his title which makes you think a lot about why he chooses that title. It matches really well with the essay because in his essay he explained that America is diverse as a whole, but as individuals we are not. We are diverse in many ways like culture and ethnicity, but when it comes down to individuals were not. James Brooks argued that when it comes down to neighborhood, community, and country we show little sign of diversity.
if there is anything many people are against is these election times,“ Identity Politics ” a phase that covers a mulititude of sins. The author Stanley Fish American literary theorist, legal scholar, author and public intellectual.he has taught almost everywhere but he seems to think people have different outcomes of who they think should be in office .Just reading the title of the essay “When Identity politics is Rational” pretty easy to tell whats its going tot be about having equal rights to something or being fair . The purpose for the author writing this essay was to let the audience know that it does not matter what the skin tone of a person is nor how they look if they are male, female or if they are black and white . the people should
Montaigne’s essays are very detailed and very intriguing, even though he is the “creator” of essays. Once you get into the essays its hard to put them down and that’s how most of modern day essays are intended on being. The titles like “On the cannibals”, “On the Custom of Wearing Clothes”, and “That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by our own Capacity”, are very hard to follow. Looking at these you may not be very interested, but if you took the chance to read them, you’d understand that in his era, people lived a fairly standard life. These people were called savages and did things people today would be ashamed of.
“The case for torture” happens to be a notable work of Michael Levin, a philosophy professor of City University of New York. In many of his works, Levin has emphasized on philosophical aspects associated with science, logic and language. In the essay “The case for torture” the author tried to examine various circumstances to come to a conclusion that would indicate whether torture can be perceived as “just” in certain cases. In this essay, the author suggested that it is not quite black and white to determine if torture is right and wrong. There is space for arguments to determine to what extent torture can be accepted as the right choice of action and to what extent this is not applicable.
In my opinion, I think that Plato’s The Symposium conforms to the conceptualization of critical thinking proposed by Scriven and Paul but it also deviates from idea that critical reasoning is largely self-generated and self-centered as proposed by Scriven and Paul. From the perspective of the methodology of how to incorporate critical thinking into the analysis of a certain subjects, both Plato’s The Symposium and Scriven and Paul’s Defining Critical Thinking emphasize on the intellectually and systematically process of careful evaluation of information collected from personal experiences, observations and individual beliefs. An author from the New York Magazine suggested that a strange fact of human nature is that two people can experience
“By assuming other people should be treated the way I want to be treated, it imposes my preferences and values on those around me”(Does The Golden). Essayist and writer for the New York Times Magazine, Chuck Klosterman, explains in his article Does The Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society why the “Golden Rule” may actually be not so golden after all. Klosterman explains why assuming that people want the same things and think that the same actions are moral is simply irrational. He states, “Well, I certainly want to be treated in a manner that accounts for the possibility that other people can’t predict what I want”(Does The Golden). I interpret this to mean that he wants to be treated as a unique person who has his own morals and values.
The book was written to determine the reasoning behind each. The book was written in an articulated economical way that provides academic knowledge for both scholarly and personal audiences. As mentioned earlier, indirectness is the main reason behind communication misconceptions. Americans often associate dishonesty and uncompleted stories with indirectness. Tannen stresses that this view is not fair and unrealistic.