Everywhere we look there is some form of bullshit going around and according to Professor Frankhurt, bullshitting is a more serious threat than lying. In his essay he talks about the many concepts of bullshit from his own perspective and compares bullshit to other related topics such as “Humbug” and “Lying”, and then breaks the words down to a basic understanding to help find a true meaning of . His use of definitions and in depth analysis, makes his essay very effective in describing buullshit. It seems that his main concerns pertain to what bullshit is. In On Bullshit, to further convey his argument, he includes definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary itself to further prove that they are “pertinent to clarifying the nature of bullshit.”
With the aid of my textual evidence, I will prove why our opinions differ. In conjunction, I have researched several sources as well as tested their credibility to further my understanding of this chapter. Anders presents his points of view about McMahon’s seventh chapter. Ander first quotes, “[B]ecause he
For example, when citing Dr. Li’s words, she indicated that Dr.Li is “a professor who specialize in race, inequality, and immigration.” In fact, whenever the authors use anecdotes, or opinions from a person, she cleared indicated the identity of the person, which shows a lot credibility. In addition, the author appeals to intrinsic ethos by well organization of the content. She asked “ How does this Happen?” to arouse readers’ thoughts at the very beginning; she used plenty of transitional words, so as to make her idea arranged logically and easy to catch up. For example, the use of “ the issue starts with presentation”, “the topic of presentation always leads to a discussion of merit”, “ After hiring and promotion committees have dealt with the issue of merit” create a clear order in readers’ mind. Also, because one of the main purpose is to make people be aware of the existence of racism in academy, the author spend specially a great length on introduction part, talking about anecdotes, background, backlash, and the impact of racism so as to sketch a clear contour about what really happened in Canadian academy, which contribute to help readers understand the further discussion: issues and recommendations.
If you only present your side of the argument the reader with discredit your position with the notion that you did not consider any opposition. No one will be persuaded by a one-sided argument. It always an excellent idea to include more than one counterclaim in your essay. This I did not do in my essay because the topic I was discussing and the position I was taking in my essay titled, “Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?”, was the obvious position and not many opposed this view on the topic. Rebutting counterclaims in your argumentative essay gives the writer an opportunity to connect with the reader.
After all, the narrator “began to piece together this version of the story” through information given to him by Ethan Frome. Of course Zeena appears to be the epitome of the quintessential antagonist. It is only natural that bias was introduced, for Ethan would certainly not paint himself in a negative light, and due to his infatuation with Mattie, she too is spared from any condemnation. Through no fault of Ethan Frome or the narrator, the narrator’s “piecing together” of Ethan Frome’s life is incredibly unreliable and it is incredibly subjective. Unless a reader mulls over the effects of utilizing certain types of narration, Zeena will forever be seen as the villain of the story.
Technology is known for its quick adaption and the new devices made to quench human activity. That is by depending too much on technology and forsaking human contact, which results in censorship and control over human thoughts. In addition, book burning embodies an element of censorship since it usually triggers from cultural, religious, or political oppositions. And since it is the main idea of the novel we can deduce that when no books are present people tend to become ignorant which is exactly what censorship is about. The theme of censorship is very important because it strives to combine all the events happening in the novel.
Through this addition, Hughes proves the necessity of readers to be accustomed to these words when referencing his article; a marked contrast from his op-ed article, in which his choice of words are solely inserted for subtle humor, such as when describing the violent backlash that today’s ecologists would’ve stirred up during the adaptation of penicillin. “Deep ecologists warn
The anecdotes also provide ethos by establishing credibility. If she has faced the dangers of her own single story, then she has the authority to speak about the subject. Her life stories then become evidence that contributes to the logos of the speech and proves the genuine dangers of a single story. This danger is also made real through Adichie 's use of literary allusions. Adichie references authors from the 16th century all the way to present day.
At the binning of the novel, he makes a few cracks at the ‘perfect society’ with a few basic comments. These comments prove to us, even when they think everything is perfect, there will still be problems. The way he describes this ridiculous ‘equality’ is stated so simply and casually, as if saying something completely normal, gives us a lead in to how he feels about it. Along with the handicaps Vonnegut came up with, they’re spoken about so casually that its impossible to believe that it could possibly work to make everyone equal. While reading its easy to see how in the writing proves to us how impractical this version of equality is.
Seaver’s rhetorical strategies involved sarcasm and mockery to imply that Grove Press will continue using the phase and that, Herbert bringing it up in the first place is obnoxious. He doesn’t view it as a serious problem and implied that coca cola and the printing press are nothing alike and they have had a “far more direct and deadly threat” before with another book. Even thought, Seaver’s letter was full of sarcasm and insults he has a more persuasive argument. Ira C. Herbert and Richard Seaver used different rhetorical devices and strategies to argue the same subject. Herbert uses historical facts to strengthen his argument while Seaver relied on Sarcasm and mockery.