Using the sources effectively in a persuasive piece, Kingwell demonstrates, through examples and science researches, the difficulty in defining happiness, which can result in unhappiness. In this article, Kingwell first relates happiness as a dubious concept and paradox that can hardly be defined in a single sentence. He continues to discuss unhappiness as a result of the insatiable pursuit of happiness. And finally, Kingwell demonstrates how scientists try to reduce happiness to a genetic factor. The science assumption makes happiness a biological pattern that can
Jurassic Park is a classic science fiction film about the problems one may run into when cloning dinosaurs and creating a Jurassic environment. However, the meaning behind the film may not be so obvious. A viewing of the film makes us question the future for paleontology, cloning technology, and human relationships. Why would the park open with dangers like velociraptors, tyrannosaurus rexes, and other carnivorous, strong, fast, and practically unstoppable dinosaurs present? How do the characters in the film treat death?
In Steven Salzberg, “Get Football out our Universities”, he makes the argument that football in universities are holding the United States back in the race of science. He believes if the United States eliminates football all together in universities we would focus more on what universities were originally made for, which is science and math. Throughout the argument Salzberg uses different types of rhetorical strategies to compel his audience to sway in his direction. Although, he used strong rhetorical appeals, it was hard to agree with Salzberg due to multiple logical fallacies Salzberg committed. To begin with, Salzberg makes a seemly unresearched claim, he claims that “Our universities are providing a free training ground for the super-wealthy owners of professional football teams, while getting little in return”(Salzberg 1).
“The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”- Thomas Hobbes. This quote represents how humans, in their natural state, fight for their own benefit. It addresses the philosophical debate of nature versus nurture, and in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, his views of this debate are expressed. The characters are stripped from civilization, forced to act for themselves, and place their needs above all. People are shaped by society, but when deprived of this structure they are forced to adapt, and as Golding argues, peoples learned behavior is quickly overcome when placed in a difficult environment In the book many of the characters started to detach from civilization, and descend into savagery.
This dialogue focuses on answering Meg’s question about the Oracle of Delphi’s form, not only to explain to Meg, but to also explain and aid the reader’s understanding that the Oracle is both a person and a place. In addition, when Apollo, Meg, Chiron, and Rachel are discussing the whereabouts of Triumvirate Holdings and their involvement in the previous wars, Meg, confused, asks them for some more background information. Rachel patiently explains, “’Basically, the Roman demigods attacked this camp with giant catapultry things called onagers. It was all a big misunderstanding. Anyway, the weapons were paid by Triumvirate Holdings.’” (Riordan 197).
I think Mr. steward said a lot of words that made him seem Suspicious, and also it really seemed like he was trying to Persuade Mr. and Mrs. Lewis into pressing the button like almost if he wanted them and them to be the ones to press the button. Like on pg. 104 when Norma asked, “ Whom do you represent?” Mr. steward looked embarrassed, and said, “I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to tell you that.” (Matheson 104) I think this foreshadowed that something was a little bit weird because he was embarrassed when she asked that. Now on page 105, Mr. Steward said a lot of little words to try to persuade Mrs. Lewis, he said things like, “Are you sure you wouldn 't care to think about it for a day or so?” and, “I’ll leave my card.” (Matheson 105) This is how I think Mr. steward foreshadowed the ending.
Loewen explores many topics in which U.S. History textbooks mislead students, hide information, fail to discuss the topics at all, or flat-out give false information to their readers. He discusses some reasons and effects of this problem as well. In the first chapter, “herofication” is described as distorting a figure to become a “hero.” For instance, most people depict Helen Keller as an inspiration to everyone, but she was also a radical socialist and supported the Soviets’ cause. In the next ten chapters, Loewen takes the reader chronologically through history (and thus through history textbooks also), getting into the heart of the faults in these teaching and learning resources. From Christopher Columbus to the Pilgrims and Native Americans to the Civil War and slavery, all the way to the present, the author picks apart twelve textbooks, compares them, and shows they are racially and socially biased, and are written by similar authors.
Rosemary adds ‘the narrative gestures more specifically toward popular debate about science by arguing that it is their very reliance on scientific rationality that makes the English so vulnerable to Dracula's threat’ (274). Count Dracula, who has powerful hypnotic and telepathic abilities and defies the normal laws of life and death, is proof of occult forces beyond the reach of contemporary science. The Count is able to go unnoticed in Whitby as modern
Crisp goes on to explain many incorrect facts he had found in documents which had been inaccurate, biased, or censored. Spending a lot of time focusing on the truths, he first studies new information based on the text in front of him, and his previous opinion and knowledge on the matter. Once he asses the information, if he does not agree Crisp will search for proof and other facts to supplement why his beliefs are this way. For example, on page 39 Crisp offers his opinion on Houston’s speech which supported the argument for Texas’s independence from Mexico. Crisp says “I was stunned and disbelieving.
Don Marquis establishes a philosophical argument for his view that abortion is morally impermissible in his journal, “Why Abortion is Immoral”. In this paper, I will argue that Marquis’ argument is unsound by showing that some of his supporting premises are false and that by correcting them, the argument becomes invalid because the conclusion no longer logically follows the premises. I will start off by outlining Marquis’ argument against abortion. In his first premise, he states that “Killing me (or you, reader) is prima facia seriously wrong” (Marquis 190). His second premise is “For any killing where the victim did have a valuable future like ours, having that future itself is sufficient to create the strong presumption that killing is seriously wrong” (Marquis 195).
When talking about war, there are many books with few answers to what war truly is. Barbara Ehrenreich brings forth not only the possibilities towards understanding war but also the passion people from history have had towards it. One key issue she brings to light is humanities love for war, so much so that people would use excuses like holy wars to justify their need to fight in a war. She declares that war is as muddled as the issue of diseases and where diseases came from around 200 years ago. More so than that she even goes further on to state that these rituals that date back to prehistoric times are the cause of human nature during times of war rather than human instinct.