Essay On Rhetorical Analysis

The novel stifles the opinions of black characters and keeps their voices blanketed, despite the major events in it being significant to their community, and it casually disregards racism when it appears in those the main character holds in high esteem, with said main character being treated as a savior, even though he never puts in a full effort to reduce bias in both Maycomb and the judicial system. Of course, Lee’s novel has made an indisputable impact on the country, but it cannot be considered the heart of the movement toward diversity and acceptance in modern literature-- rather, a starting point, progressive for its time but still lacking the wholehearted belief that “all men are created equal”, as is reflected by Atticus. Perhaps, through its shortcomings, To Kill a Mockingbird will remind others who have already concluded that they are not biased or racist to actually examine their own actions more closely and see what they still have yet to achieve, so they will avoid falling into the trap of thinking that they-- and those around them-- are already faultless, just as Jem Finch once made the mistake of thinking “‘Maycomb folks [are] the best folks in the

Thoreau defines a happy life in a multitude of ways although his main idea is that society is not necessary for happiness. He uses many examples of why society is bad or has used its resources needlessly. He states that the post office isn't necessary because he has only received mail that's important or “worthy” once or twice in his entire life (Thoreau, Where I Lived and What For). Thoreau does finds many things in traditional society useless or a waste of resources. He also believes universities cannot teach him because he is above them and that libraries cannot give him reading materials that will improve him because he is to advanced (Thoreau, Reading).

I received a less-than-desirable grade despite me believing this essay to be one of my best works. He had informed me in a private discussion that he didn't think I was being serious about the content and arguments I was making. He alluded to certain passages in my writing like “If there is a direct association between flagpole size and patriotism, then the Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate’s illegal 80 ft. American flagpole would surely be proof of Trump’s love for his country.” and “When it comes to paying taxes- Donald Trump has not.”. He cited these to be almost facetious, as if nobody who really supported Trump would make these arguments. I was actually blown aback by my teacher’s claims.

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.

Now that he has ring No. 2, there really shouldn’t be any debate.” I feel as though this is an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc since Manning won ring number 2 that makes him number 1. To end the entire article based off this simple statement without adding more statistics, or simply re-iterating some key notes, I found to be sloppy and not very hard hitting for a writer who is trying to convince me of who the best quarterback

He includes adjectives, such as “dumb” and “smart” because it is the simplest form of those terms. Kristof discusses the situation in its simplest form, so there is no room for misinterpretation. In Kristof’s January 16th article, he discusses how the government is passing laws on gun control and regulation, but he ultimately proves that those laws have no benefit to the people because they are not solving the problem. The diction he incorporates in this article parallels with the situation being discussed. Kristof conveys that the problem of gun control is greater than just one country, and is a widespread problem.

In Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death the author assert that the age of typography has been replaced by the age of television. I agree with this statement, but not entirely because nowadays there are still people who are not influenced by media. In this book, Postman tries to prove the fact that media has a powerful impact on people because makes them accept whatever it says, using persuasion, their emotions and the fact that they believe that whatever is been said must be true and right. Therefore, what the author tries to say is that too often people think nothing of what they see or read in the media and they simply accept everything. I think the main points about which Neil Postman speaks in this article are about the difficulty whereby we realize

‘I’m much obliged but I couldn’t take any more work.” (Fitzgerald 83). This use of dialogue is a prime example of how Fitzgerald generates a conversation between Nick and Gatsby to give importance to this specific part of the book. Without this use of dialogue the readers would perhaps feel seem to feel lost in the story because they would not understand what will be going on in the book at that specific time. This piece of dialogue is important because it proves that Nick is socially responsible due to him rejecting Gatsby's offer for a job based on the fact that it is illegal. Nick

He blatantly opposed war and argued that if a dispute should occur, war is not an option for a solution. King believed that war accomplishes nothing, that it is not as useful as many presume it to be (Lucks, 91). As can be seen throughout history, even to this day war does not solve problems, it only creates them. There have been wars in the past that were believed to end all wars, but as history shows, that belief was truly unsubstantiated. King thought that nonviolence is the answer to conflict.

First argument that Paine has made was about distinction between society and government. Paine made it clear that he mainly did not love government, whose individual value he thought lies in "restraining our vices" (Paine, 1776). For Paine, the natural state of man is to live without government, and government's existence is needed only to solve its problems created by this usual, revolutionary way of life. If a government is unsuccessful in improving society or, even worse, it is actively initiates other troubles so it is not essential to be ruled by that government.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a wonderful read, however there is one major flaw that is hard to look past. Science. Science is the Achilles heel of Stevenson’s writings, as it is probably something he himself does not fully understand. Though I am mostly sure Stevenson is logical enough to understand that it is entirely impossible to split a human into two separate beings, it is my thought that even his lack of science is a bit disappointing even for the average reader. The science of Jekyll and Hyde is minimally described, if at all.

I appreciated that Rose didn’t openly take a side and therefore wasn’t able to sway my opinion rather left it to my own judgment. In addition to Rose’s primary question “What would Jesus do?”, I appreciated that Rose presented other issues that in fact are the root of the issue amongst immigration. While reading both perspectives, I found myself torn between agreeing and disagreeing with both which leads me to acknowledge how difficult and extensive this issue truly is. I definitely recommend reading the textbook, in fact; I already recommended the book to my brother which supports Trump and his notion on immigrants. The truth is, this nation simply can’t kick 10 million people out without facing the morality issue and whether many Americans today may be considered “anchor babies”, it would mean breaking both moral law and federal las (constitution) to deport them.

The book “The Secret of Sarah Revere” is a very interesting book. I like the arguments that Grandmother and Rachel have because it make the book very interesting. I also like the fact that Paul, Sarah’s father, does not have a care in the world. He does not care about the arguments, he does not care about what people are saying about him, and he really does not care if Sarah thinks that Doctor Warren and Rachel are just friends. When he does not care it really means that he just doesn’t know or realize this is happening.

He is against abortion, but that can lead to loss of jobs. Trump is also not very well educated on politics, which is a good thing also since we do not need too much politics views. Starting off, with positive reasons, Trump is a believer of no abortion. He became a believer of no abortion when he was being a candidate for presidency. “[W]hat happened is friends of mine years

English 103, 10-16-16 journal # 7. I am neutral in most of the “Lorde’s Royals Isn’t Anti-Rap, It’s Anti-Imperialism” article. I do not like any rap (it makes my head tired) therefore, I do not know anything about rap. What I did not like of the song is the intense allusion to fantasy, we need to be realistic and try not to immerse ourselves in a fantasy world. I disagree with the part of the article that says “Americans are used to the rest of the world bending over backwards to blend in with their culture”, if foreign stars like Shakira sing in English is because their big success in their native language is not enough for their ambitions.