Gladwell makes the readers believe there is something more to success than it just happening, but rather many things falling into place. The book is very deep having very valid points in some cases, but as Kakutani points out, there are also wholes in his argument. Both Gladwell and Kakutani are right and wrong in my opinion. This is true in a way that Gladwell gives evidence necessary to prove his point, but in other cases gives information that could be
Stephen Vasciannie’s article ‘Dutty Wine’ is a controversy which is still debatable. The title of the article gives way to what the writer will talk about. There is ambivalence in his arguments, as it isn’t clear whether he is opposing or in agreement with the statement. His thoughts and opinion on the matter is well organized and argued, however he lacked sufficient evidence to sway the readers to take his side. The use of the anecdote is a good approach in beginning his argument.
Theodore claims that, while at the beginning he thought that “in the absence of the worst political deformations, widespread evil was impossible”, he soon found himself to be wrong. Dalrymple’s main claims are that “men commit evil within the scope available to them” and that perhaps the kind of evil he faces on a daily bases (he calls it a “low-level but endemic evil) is unforced and spontaneous. Is lesser words, he believes that evil is chosen freely. In stating his claims, the author finds the government and the intellectual elite to be one of the main cause of it asserting that, “ Intellectuals propounded the idea that man should be freed from the shackles of social convention and self-control and the government […] enacted laws to promote unrestrained behavior […] When the barriers of evil are brought downs, it flourishes.” The author brings his personal experience as an md in a prison and in a hospital ward as evidence of his claims. He admits that he is viewing this entire matter from the only
Claiming that bad influence towards education makes it resistant. Penrod’s argument may have several flaws, but overall it is effective because the reading he uses a few appeals throughout; however, not all of his appeals are trustworthy or objective at times, his appeals are still effective through the use of supporting sources, clear-cut thesis, and thought-provoking statements. Penrod claims that popular events are getting more recognition than needed compared to the intellectuals. From a personal perspective, this presents that there are still anti-intellectuals out there. According to a commentary by the screen name of “ArCaNe,” “Man how I hate nerds… if I ever had a tommygun with me… I would most probably blow each one of their… heads off.” In other words, the commentary has hatred towards intelligent individuals improving the point of anti-intellectualism.
He does, however, appeal to the reader’s potential past experiences-the negative ones in particular-by explaining how they could have been prevented, and further improved the experience the reader had. He also expresses slight empathy when referring to his opposition. This empathy, however, is brief, before he explains what went wrong, and how to fix it. Ross has a moderately useful logos appeal in his essay. He speaks logically, mentioning facts often, but not very strong facts that could sway the reader.
The Crucible Theme and Conflict The Crucible by Arthur Miller is filled with different themes and conflicts. Throughout the book you could pick up many different themes and conflicts, although I found many just one sticks out to me. If you tell the truth, good may come your way. When proctor is being accused and he confesses but the judge needed it in writing also, which he didn’t do. Following that theme in to the first conflict I have picked out, John Proctor doesn’t want his name to be ruined.
Although, instead of developing this idea, Alexie fought it, and showed how he was able to overcome this ideological barrier by harnessing the power of reading. On the other hand, Furedi decided to provide evidence towards the fact that reading was a health hazard for the majority of the article. He explored the evolving, negative mindset towards reading throughout history, before eventually making his point that reading is “good” because of its unparalleled power. However, Furedi consistently included evidence and counterarguments, including how reading was represented as an “‘insidious contagion’ [and] was often coupled with sightings of irrational destructive behavior” (Furedi 3). Furedi constructed his argument in a manner in which he scrutinized the opposing argument in order to provide evidence for his inevitable conclusion on the subject.
The essay that was most argued effectively is Jonathan Swift essay “The Modest Proposal”. Most people might disagree with the argument, but if you the reader would think about it Swift’s catches the reader’s attention with his fake thesis then later makes the reader feel bad once they read the real thesis. Hardin’s is effective but not as effective as Swift’s. Once you read “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” and “The Modest Proposal”. You’ll find interesting things about both sides of the arguments.
Dan Brown once said: “men go to far greater lengths to avoid what they fear than to obtain what they desire”, encapsulating the tragic events of E.Lockhart’s novel We Were Liars. Human nature, defined as characteristics that are central to humanity, is profoundly explored through the events which triggered and resulted from the accident that deformed Beechwood Island. Through the character of Harris Sinclair, the domineering ‘King’ of the Sinclair family, alongside his daughters who are intoxicated on greed, E.Lockhart eludes that this trait is capable of great destruction to human nature. In addition, selfish ambition is explored through the characterisation of the Liars and their oblivious actions. Ultimately, guilt is depicted through the
On the contrary, Thoreau’s idea of justice was more complicated, his idea of justice mainly came from the principle of reason, conscience, and humanity. He also supported his view with the law of natural, moral law, and other religious theologies. For example, he strengthened his view by quoting the Confucius master : “ if a state is governed by the principle of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame.” So instead of God-centered justice that Martin Luther defined, Thoreau’s interpretation of justice is more focus on individual and conscience. He believed that justice exists in the absence of government, where King’s justice exist after the government changes their legislation. He believes justice is to follow your conscience and reason, where king’s justice is to get equal
Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages” (57). He mentions other people similar experiences in his argument. To illustrate, he mentioned Bruce Friedman, a blogger, as he lost his ability to read and grasp the idea of the longish article. He treats opposing views fairly, by employing an appropriate tone. He also uses pathos by comparing the differences of the past and the present and how he feels not only himself, but others as well and the way they are able to focus due to the growing nature of the web.
The author gave good evidence that provided a human resource to find out the link between media coverage and “copycat” shootings. (Warren). The strengthens of this article is that Warren gave good evidence towards his argument. Also, his weaknesses is that Warren did not give the reader more detail towards his
The story constructed by Hewes has a deeply inspiring quality to it. However, it is my belief that although he does make efforts to disentangle the biographers and Hewes’ potential skewing of events, he does not go far enough at certain points. At times he seems to enable the old adage, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend” without due skepticism. The strength of Young’s article rests on how well he buttresses the more questionable parts of the story with well sourced and verifiable information. His use of such a wide array of evidence to substantiate his narrative when viewed holistically, make up for the shortcomings of his less reliable
This in turn causes “Big Problems” because the slogans lack detail and accuracy. He offers powerful support of his ideas in the form of real world examples, expert opinions, and a subtle counter argument; therefore, making his argument credible and
If the reader actually thinks about this statement and does not just skim over it, then they would notice how sad this statement actually is. The people only hear what their government wants them to hear. The United States is no different, but the media is not controlled to the same extent it is in North Korea. Zinser uses this statement to make the reader think about we can learn from media and how making it into a comedy show the audience does not take seriously. Another place Zinser uses emotional appeal is when he wrote, “Journalist, like Tom Fenton have blamed the media for failing to anticipate the pre-9/11 threat posed by terrorism” (Graff 364).