Poverty Policy, 1960–2008,” on the other hand, is less centered around soul searching, and more focused on the presentation of facts, a strategy used to hook, inform, and persuade a scholarly audience. The biggest indication as to what audience the work is intended for is the words themselves. There’s a noticeable difference between the vocabulary in the Bell Hooks’s writing versus that of Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner. For example, Bell Hooks uses simplistic, yet emotionally heavy words such as “deprived,” “privileged,” and “humiliation” (Hooks). Contrastingly, Rose and Baumgartner mention politics, include graphs, and use the terms “poverty-threshold,” “GGI” and other technical jargon that would likely bore less-educated individuals (Rose and Baumgartner).
The most important idea that I extracted from “Major theories of Teaching Writing” was the concept of truth and that writing is learned. “One of the key features of the expressivist movement is the goal of quieting the unproductive influences that have castigated students when they have used their own unique voice.” (Collins, 2013). Truth is accessed during the writing process and this is a pure expression that for a suspended period of time needs to be arrested against assessment. “Truth, for the expressivist, is discovered through an internal apprehension, a private vision of a world that transcends the physical…[Truth] is conceived as the result of a private vision that must be constantly consulted in writing” (Berlin, 1982, pp.771-772). A.
His dedication to his opinion came across to this reader as extremely aggressive in tone. Had this not been required reading, I would not have read past the first few lines. Ms. Wheeler’s writing was more technical in nature. She uses US Standard English, to explain her work with student’s explaining how she decodes her students work looking for differences are in their first vernacular from the US Standard English, and discusses
Being ehtical and honest is also vital in argumentation. Again, if you are not aware of your audience and they don 't understand the context of the phrases and words, then you will not be able to use either perspective to persuade them. You may also becuase of their own undestanding, may come off as dishonest and unethical. Rybacki and Rybacki
The author gives an example of, “Yet she sees powerful advantages. ‘For a lot of people my age, it’s not like we meet online and only talk on line. The goal is to meet in person and to forgot the connection’”(ACI, 42). She challenges the audience’s belief at the middle of the passage; she is trying to show the audience that there are many other people who also believe her point. The author is convincing the readers that the point she is trying to make is not based on nothing, she provides example to refuse the belief system.
In addition, vague policy mandates can be a disadvantage to public administrators because vague policies can lead to different interpretations of a policy and allow room for confusion and tension to arise among people in achieving a desire goal. According to Feldman, the presence of ‘‘many possible ways of perceiving’’ means that there are ‘‘competing interpretations’’ ( Feldman,1989, 7). Therefore, an organizational goal loses clear understanding, and eventually becomes inconclusive and unproductive when it
This hinders scholars vision of writing and the two reasonings must be used to know the detials that are not stated. In lecture the professor highlighted an important argument of Postelwait that I found very interesting, which is the idea that one misinterpretation built upon each other over time eventaully the reality is obscere. I find this true in both history and theater because it is similar to the game of telephone where someone spreads the message down a group of friends. As certain stories of historical events is pass by from person to person the words tend to shift and eventaully can be different by the time it reaches to the end. This can easily happen to a play that has little to know facts about how it was once performed.
In the essay, Directions: Write, Read, Rewrite. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 as Needed, Susan Sontag emphasizes that reading can be used as motivation for writing. Granted she has talked to people that don't feel the same. That the act of reading and the writing must be separate, that it's best to do one or the other. Sontag believes this view is brought about by either fear of influencing one's unique voice or simply lack of time.
Other political scientists argue that greater inequality results in more political engagement (Brady). And in fact, the exclusionary practices that breed homogeneity in affluent areas also limit the range of social problems, thus depressing interest in politics (Oliver 95). Frederick Solt, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa, reviews these perspectives and examines their validity through cross-national data from multiple advanced industrial democracies. His findings indicate that higher levels of income inequality powerfully depress political participation. Solt’s work substantiates the assertion that issues advocated by the poor are unlikely to be considered and thus debated in the political process.
It is both unethical and immoral to “cheat the system” or “bend the rules.” In thinking of moral development, the first moral development theory that comes to mind regarding the academic dishonesty issue is James Rest’s neo-Kohlbergian approach. Kohlberg’s depiction of moral development was seen as too structured according to Rest and his associates, so I believe the newer approach relates better to implementing a campus plan around addressing academic dishonesty. Rest’s theory presents relationships as a broad, macro view of moral development which focuses on things such as society-wide cooperation (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). This focus is critical as it relates to this particular academic dishonesty issue since the student community at large seems to condone bending the