Nevertheless, I am proud of how the paper turned out. One of the assignments I am proud of is a mini essay about how to write an argumentative paper. The point of the assignment was to show that I know the steps to writing an argumentative paper. I feel like I clearly outlined all of the steps necessary. However, I could have improved the essay by not addressing the reader.
The diction used in the persuasive piece can be seen as too complex especially to readers who are of a lower level ability. An example of a term used in the text that can be of great challenge to readers is “post hog ergo propter hoc” which is a logical fallacy. There was no inherent biases to his argument as he gave recommendation at the end of the article stating that he would discourage those around him from Dutty winning, while at the same time opposing the decision to have a state ban on ‘Dutty Winning’; this made his argument balanced. There were valid assertions to his stance; this is seen evident in last paragraph where he says “I would need to know more about the real medical effects before supporting a state ban.” On the other hand there was inadequate evidence to support his claim. If there was more evidence to prove that ‘Dutty Winning’ is not a health risk then it would have been more effective in persuading the readers.
Discoveries and discovering can offer new understandings and renewed perceptions of ourselves, others and our world. Ladies and gentlemen of the HSC panel, thank you for providing this opportunity for me to speak to you on the concept of discovery, and share my thoughts on how this area of study can be explored through texts. The discovery process is a crucial way we can help people arrive at the truth and overcome confusions and uncertainties that have a negative impact on the quality of life. Michael Gow’s play Away and Les Murray’s poem “The Widower in the Country” are two texts that present personal experiences of conflict because of the difficulty of accepting reality, and discover the real problems and issues that they are either unaware of or simply choose to ignore. Both texts demonstrate the challenge of overcoming emotional obstacles, whether it is the death of a loved one or a dysfunctional relationship.
As I was reading Melissa Duffy’s “Inspiration, and Craig Vetter’s “Bonehead Writing,” I found myself connecting with Vetter’s paper more than Duffy’s. I found that the presentation in “Bonehead Writing” to capture my attention, and that Vetter’s feelings about writing was similar to my opinion on writing. Through his wording and humor, I think Craig Vetter wrote the best essay. I find that the wording and presentation of an article or essay influences my opinion of the writer, and it affects how I receive the idea they are trying to present to me. Craig Vetter uses a blunt approach to convey his idea that writing is nearly impossible to teach, and describes writing as “A blood sport, a walk in the garden of agony every time out.” He presents writing as an arduous task that no one can ever perfect, and he presents this view in a harsh light that makes you realize that what he says is a cold hard truth, that you suck at writing, and that there is next to nothing that you can do to change that.
If not, the of course there could never be any moral progress” (Lewis 21). The use of counter arguments shut down concerns readers have, to help Lewis execute his thoughts more clearly and this is why Lewis accomplished his goal set in the preface. Lewis wrote clearly with support and examples present throughout the text. Lewis acknowledged thoughts against his argument, he thought of what a reader would think while reading, and addressed it and proved how he was still
Scalzi uses this simple statement to provide a significant contribution to his argument by coupling pathos with an implied meaning. The implication in the sentence referenced above being, that one can only hope for an alleviation of pain as paying for treatment is simply not an option. Scalzi uses this writing technique to persuade the reader to sympathize with his subject. Through this persuasion, Scalzi addresses his main argument as the audience becomes persuaded to place themselves in the subject’s shoes. This method elicits a powerful sympathetic response as the reader can only imagine what the subject has to experience day after day.
In this Sedaris shows us his moxie. He writes, “I suppose I could have gotten by with less, but I was determined to create some sort of an identity for myself .” This and his reaction to the accusation of laziness indicates that the author may have been contemplating giving up on his goals. At this point, the audience is wondering why he is enduring this hardship. But, by writing this he is demonstrating his integrity and commitment to learning the language. It leaves the feeling that he is focusing more on his target than the obstacles that lie in front of him.
Everyone deserves to be heard, even people with “wrong” opinions. Americans need to learn how to combat bad ideas with a response rather than the people whom posses them. Lovett effectively helps his audience understand and trust his solution, to tune the ignorant rhetoric of society out. He then motivates readers to learn how to intelligently contribute to the national conversation. The reason Lovett’s article is so convincing is due to his use of common, understandable language.
In the Raymond Carver stories “Cathedral” and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” communication plays a major role in developing the story. In this essay I will analyze how the theme of communication plays both similar and different roles in developing the meaning of these two stories to further understand how communication effects the characters. Communication is an important part of the story to understand because it gives the reader a better understanding of the moral of the story as well as important life influences of the author. “Cathedral” and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” are excellent to stories to compare their theme of communication because communication gives each story a unique meaning, but both stories use communication in different ways to do so. By exploring the different types of communication in these two stories it will be easier to understand the moral meaning of the stories but also how different types of communication can be more effective than verbal communication.
Without one or the other, the novel would not have the same effect on the reader. The difference between the dialogue and the narrative is clear and important, but it also gives a message for the reader from McCarthy. What McCarthy is trying to tell all the readers with the contrasting dialogue and narration is that neither is a bad way to write. The dialogue which is simple and to the point is also very informative and the narration which is complex and elongated to extreme degrees is elegant and thought-provoking. McCarthy shows the reader that two writing styles that would be seen as bad at first can be made to work perfectly to fit the theme of a novel through The