Analysis Of Nick Riggle's 'High Five'

The goal of the usage of this fact is to show readers this common term does not reflect real traits of smart people and can be treated as an insult because of that. It is one of the few examples of Fridman’s appeals to readers’ logic. The essay is based on general data; the author mentioned schools and universities promote negative attitude to smart students: “Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized” (Fridman). But he did not use any statistical or science data to support his position. For example, Fridman could provide data about scholarships and other types of funding for sports and other activities.

Although he failed to support that main point, the rest of his arguments would be hard to dispute considering the amount of support he was able to gather. This analysis would be very useful to readers who are looking for a more in depth understanding of the piece. Also, this analysis was proved usefully in my American Literature class due to the fact it brought many great ideas for

Schulz’s first major argument is the lack of emotion in the novel. This dispute is declared false with evidence such as Nick Carraway’s relationship with Jordan Baker. There is a lot of affection that is displayed between these characters, that help prove Schulz wrong. Also, Schulz claims the book to be too unrealistic regarding “human struggles.” What Schulz did not understand is that Fitzgerald purposely wrote the book to emphasize the “Great” in The Great Gatsby. The achievements and luxuries of the book are to be depicted, more than the strife of characters.

Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 64. 4. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 64. making them think for themselves and question where their ideas are coming from. As well as this, it was his desire to also help men realize that they did not know everything and that they were not as wise as they believed themselves to be.5 Socrates himself realized that the only reason he could be considered "the wisest man on earth" was because he knew that he did not know everything. He says in his trial that neither he nor a man he spoke to "appears to know anything great and good" but that the other man acted as though he knew something, when in reality he did not.

The article was written very well but I do find some faults with it. He did not provide statistics for all of the examples, maybe because they didn 't support his claim or it didn 't make him look completely right. It also seems that he did not explain the examples about 401(k) and ¨no fault¨ insurance well enough. He also reference all of the examples more than once, except those two. I feel that he should have left out those examples, because it just confuses the reader.

This actually makes sense and it is a possibility because Twain did not talk about genes and when readers say that Huck’s nature is stronger than nurture, it is only an speculation they made from what they understand from the book and the excerpt. However, even though it that the argument “Huck’s nature side is more obvious than nurture” might be an speculation, it makes more sense because readers can see that Huck would rather go to hell and readers can make an educated guess that if Huck were to be properly nurtured, he would deem going to hell for a slave a crime and an unlawful act. No matter how much the Widow Douglas tries to conform Huck to society’s way, he disapproves of it and wants no part it in. It is too late for the Widow Douglas to change Huck into someone who follows the law and rules of society because Huck’s early “environmental influences” has lead him to deviate from society. It is Huck’s nurture side that makes him who he is-- someone who is willing to free a slave.

The force of the concentrate should be expanded by acquiring a bigger specimen size. The various potential dangers to internal authenticity should be tended to and minimized where possible. It would likewise be useful to be given information in regards to the legitimacy of positive psychology. Without these, it is difficult to assess the potential importance of this study. Acknowledging his comments as opinions or personal observations and then explaining his reasoning could have given a chance to influence a doubtful reader to agreement.

King states his books aren't “true literature(Birke)” King believes that “true literature” is a “construction that is governed by a particular social group's interests”, suggesting that there is” an elitist network of institutions that makes up and defends the rules of what counts as good quality.” (Birke) King's books have been criticized for being low quality, and he has also been critiqued for writing too much, both just to service popular / consumer culture . However, King is highly self-conscious about his use of consumer culture, and he is careful to show the extent to which it shapes his characters. King makes a point that he never wrote “true literature” or books only to be enjoyed by one social group. He writes for all to enjoy. Because of his profound success, King can be seen as representing the end of the typical Western literary tradition.

If the “slang” words are used by this important white figure, like a president or a motivational speaker then they are taken less seriously and often stereotyped as dumb or stupid. When a black figure code-switches this is a norm, so nobody pays attention to what everyone is expecting to happen. An example of this would be when Young expresses in his article about President Obamas wife, Michelle. He says that she used words like “ain’t” in her speech and nobody cared or thought lower of her for it. In the novel THUG, Starr’s boyfriend tries to talk like Starr and Seven, her brother, but gets [jokingly] made fun of by Starr.

Chappie faced many disappointments during his life, and yet he was still able to continue hoping that things would get better. This ability to hope for better redeems Chappie in the eyes of the reader. It is important to have this quality as Chappie starts off as a very unsympathetic character, but with his ability to continue moving forward, the reader is able to do the same with the character. The issue with categorizing Chappie as an anti-hero lies in the fact that he does not do anything that would make him a hero instead of the protagonist that he is. He isn't working for any goal or ideal at any point in the story.

If we knew everything that everyone in there did there could be some miniscule reason for each to be expelled, but they’re not. It is not the job of the Hall of fame to show the best people there was personality wise, but to show the players, this should be how it is, recognizing players for their skill and talent on the field, yet we are not letting a man perfectly talented enough join, for what, a few bets. No, I’m not trying to downplay the scandal, and I agree with the statement that what he did was morally wrong, but we should still recognize him. We should “lay out the fact and let people decide for themselves what was right and wrong” (Stark,

To Jack, it felt like a rehash. "It 's not like I haven 't tried." Jack defended, but felt that his response was too weak. he hadn 't tried that hard in the end. He wanted to admit his insecurities to the others.