Caitlin’s Blog

Another excellent Edublogs.org weblog

This I Believe

January 19, 2009 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

I believe that people are the biggest factor in what shapes a person’s life. At least in my life, my role models and the people who inspire me have been the greatest motivator. These people consist of my grandma and my own parents.

I see my mother, Jeri Schille, as the epitome of what a person should strive to be. She grew up poor, at one point living with her parents and three sisters in a mini-camper in the bed of a truck. Through all of this, she stayed close with her family and with her religion, things she has taught me to be among the very most important things in life. Regardless of her situation, she earned good grades, was head cheerleader, worked on the school newspaper, and even participated in the “Miss Colville” pageant. After high school, she went to Brigham Young University, and because of her parent’s financial situation, had to juggle a job as well as a demanding academic schedule. In spite of this, she graduated after four years with a degree in Organizational Communications. Because of what she achieved not coming from the ideal situation, my mom has demonstrated to me that drive and motivation are keys to success. My mom is also the kindest and most thoughtful person I know, and through her example of these traits, has inspired me to endeavor to become the kind of person she is. My dad, Bill Schille, has a similar story. He too, grew up poor, and on the day he left for college, his father handed him a $50 bill and said “good luck”. Through his years at school, he worked jobs such as a 3 AM janitorial job and the graveyard shift at a gas station.  He graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelors degree in Sociology and a masters in Public Administration. He, like my mom, illustrated to me the importance of an education, and the importance of willingness to make sacrifices to gain that education.

My maternal grandmother, Claudia Michalke, was born in Idaho in 1940, the youngest of seven kids. Before she was born, her family had lost nearly everything during the Dust Bowl. Even though they had owned a farm in Idaho for several years, they were still very poor at the time my grandma was born. Because she lived on a huge farm, my grandma really learned the value of hard work from a very young age, and this value of hard work is a principle she has taught me. My grandma was the only one of her siblings to graduate high school, much less begin high school. Through this, my grandma demonstrated to me the importance of formal education. Furthermore, although she is not a college graduate, she is a smart woman, even serving on a National Organizational Committee.

Through their wonderful examples of important principles in life, these people have provided me with direction, and inspired me to make the most of my life.

Synthesis Essay Progress

December 9, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

 

Caitlin Schille

Mr. Giddings

11th AP Lang & Comp

December 12, 2008

 

 

Are DNA Testing, Human Cloning, and Pre-implantation Gender Diagnosis Ethical?

 

            Since the beginning of man’s reign upon the earth, human beings have always been curious about their world, and wondered how the different aspects of their world functioned. This innate human curiosity fostered study, and subsequently, advancement, in the fields of science. From Galileo to Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein, curiosity and scientific research have coupled to bring forth significant and superlative results in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and other scientific focuses. But has science been taken too far? In these days of pre-implantation gender diagnosis and DNA testing, arguments of the ethics and the morality of these practices are frequent. In some cases, DNA testing is ethical, as can be pre-implantation gender diagnosis, while the practice of human cloning is unethical and has no place in this society.

            Humans are fascinated and at the same time frightened by the concept of human cloning, as evidenced by films such as The Boys from Brazil, in which a group of Nazi doctors attempt to clone Hitler to build up the Fourth Reich, and more recently, Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, where a subservient clone army is created, as noted by Philip M. Boffey in his article “Fearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby”. This fear of human cloning is rooted in a fear of the unknown, and this fear of the unknown is prevalent because of the lack of answers to key questions concerning the practice. One such question is this: what would happen to a deformed human clone? Some may think that with the advanced scientific procedures of this day and age, this question would not be a concern. However, there are still glitches in animal cloning, which has been studied by research scientists for decades. Irving L. Weissman, professor of cancer biology and developmental biology at Stanford University, says, “Data on the reproductive cloning of animals demonstrate that only a small percentage of attempts are successful, many of the clones die during all stages of gestation, newborn clones often are abnormal or die, and the procedures may carry serious risks for the mother.” Because a mistake in human cloning would be of far greater consequence than the common errors in animal cloning, the process of animal cloning would have to be perfected before human cloning could even be considered a feasible possibility.

            Advocates of human cloning often choose to avoid the queries as to what would become of a deformed human clone, or a human clone that dies because of cloning error, because one can presume the public response to the unnecessary and legalized death of an innocent human being. In an interview with CNN, Dr. Arthur Caplan, the director for the Center for Bioethics and Trustee Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, and chairman of the Advisory Committee to the Department of Health and Human Services, commented on some researcher’s evasion to this critical question. He said, “[this question is] a question that the people who say they want to clone keep ignoring. But it is unethical to ignore that question. The people who say they’re going to clone now know that if they were to make one sick, dying or defective baby, the world would completely reject cloning. So, they don’t talk about that prospect.” Because of the absence of an answer to this momentous question, human cloning simply does not have a place in our society at this time.

            Not only must the physical well-being of a human clone be considered, but also the emotional well-being. Some advocates of cloning propose clones be created for blood and organ donor matches for the original. Imagine the feelings of a person whose primary purpose in life as perceived by many is to potentially give up his or her life to save the life of the original. Imagine how a human clone might perceive their self-worth if in such a situation. In addition, the emotional development of a human clone would be warped and damaged. Having no parents along with no semblance of a normal life would cause a human clone to feel deserted and alone. In his article “On Cloning a Human Being”, biologist Lewis Thomas explores what life would be like for a cloned human being. He says, “… [it is] harder still to think of one’s new, self-generated self as anything but an absolute, desolate orphan.” A human clone created for the health of a normal human would not only have an absence of parents, but also an absence of siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, teachers, neighbors, and friends. Thomas comments, “No matter what the genome says, these people [everyone who influences one’s life, and subsequently, development of oneself] have a lot to do with shaping a character.” These people with whom one associates form the many relationships that are central to one’s life. If a life is created that misses out on these essential social ties, it would not turn out as a perfect copy of the original, because the original lived a developmentally normal life. Boffey says, “In its report on human cloning last year, the President’s Council on Bioethics worried that cloning to produce children could disrupt the normal relationships between generations and within families…” If human cloning becomes a part of society, social and family dynamics will cease to be as they are today. It is wholly unethical to bring a human being into existence who would be vulnerable to such devastating consequences such as damaged self-image and poor and disrupted emotional development.

            The opposition to human cloning is not just evident in distinguished professors in the intellectual community. According to a CNN poll, 89% of Americans believe it is ethically intolerable to clone humans. America was founded on democratic ideals, and accordingly, many things in this country such as the governor of a state and laws such as gay marriage are decided upon by a majority vote. Likewise should a decision over a controversial issue like human cloning be heavily influenced by the opinion of the American people, especially considering that 89% is an overwhelming majority. Weissman said, “[the projected outlaw of human cloning should be rethought] only if new scientific review indicates that the procedures are likely to be safe and effective, and if a broad national dialogue on societal, religious, and ethical issues suggests that reconsideration is warranted,” (emphasis added). Since the present public national opposition to human cloning is so strong, human cloning should not even be considered at this time in American culture.

            While human cloning is unethical, there are areas of the genetic research field that are, for the most part, ethical, and beneficial for fixing pertinent world issues, like disease. Disease is the plague of the world. Because of it, innumerable innocent people have died, wars have been fought, millions of dollars have been spent for treatment, and lives have been pledged to developing medicines to heal. What if these people dedicated to curing disease knew that the cure lay in the genetic makeup of the human body? More and more advanced modern research is finding out that DNA plays a larger role than originally thought in determining the susceptibility of getting devastating diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s. Nowadays, a person can visit a biotechnology lab and be tested for the diseases for which they carry the DNA. Some may wonder, how is simply determining susceptibility of diseases any more effective than early detection?  David Ewing Duncan answers this question in his article “DNA as Destiny”. He says, “Physicians will forecast illnesses and prescribe preventive drugs custom-fitted to a patient’s DNA, rather than the one-size-fits-all pharmaceuticals that people take today.” Just like a tailor made dress fits better than one off a store rack, and medicine that is “tailor made” for a single person will be more effective than a medicine that is mass-produced for all people. Although DNA testing appears to be the miraculous cure of the future, there is a potential dark side to it.

            While most would think of DNA testing as good information, there exists a possibility that DNA information could be used in the wrong way, its entire purpose twisted and manipulated. Knowledge of a person’s defective genes could lead to the same kind of discrimination experienced in past American history by people of different races, ethnicities, or religions. Knowing the kind of cruelty Americans have been capable of bestowing upon people they perceive as “inferior”, giving them another chance for brutality is not in everyone’s best interest.  Duncan continues, “Gene cards might also be used to find the best-suited career, or a DNA-compatible mate, or, more darkly, to deny someone jobs, dates, and meds because their nucleotides don’t measure up.” Not only would discrimination from the general public be a possibility, but knowledge of a person’s DNA could then hold them back from opportunities that would otherwise have been plausible goals. This possibility of discrimination would take Americans backward in time instead of forward into a more ethical future.

            At this time in American society, it is legal to test the gender of an embryo. Since gender can determine susceptibility to genetic disorders, testing an embryo for gender may be an intelligent choice to choose not only for the life of the child after it is born, but also for the likelihood of the baby being carried to term and surviving  the pregnancy. However, more and more couples are now taking part in pre-implantation gender diagnosis simply out of vain motivations, as noted by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner in their article “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender.” The article continues, “A whopping 42 percent of clinics that offer PGD [pre-implantation gender diagnosis] said they had done so for non-medically related sex selection.” Testing an embryo for gender simply for personal preference is unethical because of the things it could lead to. Once testing embryos for gender for non-medical reasons becomes accepted by the vast majority, ethics will slowly degenerate until it is morally acceptable to select individual genes to create the ideal baby.

            Others theorize that DNA testing could be manipulated to create “super-babies”, infants who have had their genes individually selected to give them the most desirable traits. These parents of these babies would get to decide every tiny aspect of their child’s genetic makeup, from athletic ability to intelligence.  Some may wonder, why all the opposition to this? Is there anyone who would not wish his or her parents had created him or her with the best genes? There is someone who would not wish that, and that person is me.  Because of genes, I am short, overweight despite doing all the right things, and I have a genetic disorder that has no cure. Given the chance to change it all, I would most definitely not take the chance. I would not want to change my genes to make myself naturally tall and thin. If I were naturally thin, perhaps I would have not felt the need to eat right and exercise. Because I am biologically overweight, I am constantly reminded of my need for correct health habits. Ironically, I am healthier as an overweight person than I probably would have been as a thin person. If I looked different because of different genes, I just wouldn’t be me. I would not want to change my genetic disorder, because although it is not life-threatening, it has given me opportunity to learn and grow from the experience of living with it. My imperfect biological traits make me a truly genetically unique individual. But why is biodiversity so critical? In his article “The Future of Happiness”, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi says that biodiversity is pertinent to the survival of the human race; if we were all genetically identical, a key single change of the chemical make-up of a disease could potentially wipe out the human race because every person would be affected by it in the same way. Biodiversity would be difficult to achieve in a world of DNA testing because every parent would desire the same traits for the child. Csikszentmihalyi continues, “The pressure for uniformity is going to be great: Everybody will want to have children who are intelligent, good-looking (by standard conceptions of beauty), ambitious, and successful.” If there is the opportunity to create a perfect child, what parent would not willingly select an ideal gene for the child? Because of this, biodiversity would be near non-existent, and as a result, the safety of the continuation of the human race could be threatened. Since pre-implantation gender diagnosis and DNA testing have good and bad points, they need to be strictly monitored to ensure that they are not abused and used for the unethical wrong reasons.

            The debate continues over the ethics of human cloning, pre-implantation gender diagnosis, and DNA testing. Although there appear to be positive aspects of human cloning, they cannot, in reality, even be compared to the negative results human cloning would bring. Pre-implantation gender diagnosis and DNA testing are beneficial to society, but only if they are used in the right way for the right reasons. If used correctly, the advancements of biological science can continue to improve the lives of all people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Boffey, Philip M. “Fearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby.” The Language of Composition :        Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses. Boston, MA:    Bedford/Saint Martin’s, 2007. 681-82.

 

Chat Participant, and CNN. “Dr. Arthur Caplan: Ethics of Human Cloning.” Interview. CNN.com/community. 7        Aug. 2001. CNN. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://archives.cnn.com/2001/community/08/07/caplan.cnna/>.

 

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. “The Future of Happiness.” The Language of Composition : Reading, Writing, Rhetoric.   By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/Saint Martin’s,             2007. 626.

 

Duncan, David E. “DNA as Destiny.” The Language of Composition : Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. By Renee H.          Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/Saint Martin’s, 2007. 684.

 

Marchione, Marilynn, and Lindsey Tanner. “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender.” The Language of            Composition : Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses.            Boston, MA: Bedford/Saint Martin’s, 2007. 694.

 

Thomas, Lewis. “On Cloning a Human Being.” The Language of Composition : Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. By          Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/Saint Martin’s, 2007. 678-79.

 

Vines, Vanee, and Irving L. Weissman. “NEWS- The National Academies.” Http://www8.nationalacademies.org. 18                 Jan. 2002. National Academies. 2 Dec. 2008    <http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=10285>.

 

Nov. 25

November 25, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

1.      “Some think women are inferior because of the way nature makes them. If all women could only count to three, then maybe women’s intelligence could be treated scientifically.” Although it has been largely combated, there are some still today who believe girls are not as naturally smart as boys. It seems like a 100% majority will never agree on anything.

2.      “Women achieved gained intellectual achievements, but the scientific numbers contradicted that, and the numbers were taken more seriously, and people believed the numbers and were mean. Some asked if women had a soul, and some didn’t believe they had intelligence.” This quote is striking; saying that not only women unintelligent, but also questioning as to whether or not they have souls!

3.      “Perhaps women’s brains are so small because their bodies are small. Women are typically less intelligent than males, and that is true. The fact that women’s brains are smaller partly because she is physically inferior and partially because she is naturally not as smart.” It is astounding to me that someone would say, with such authority and surety, that women are less intelligent than men.

4.      “Since men do more, they must have more brains than women, who perform only elementary tasks.” How women of this time bore so many degrading remarks, I do not know.

5.      “Women are about as intelligent as gorillas, and it is plain to see. No one can argue it. People in all professions agree. Women have about the brains of children and savages, and are good at doing nothing. Some women are intelligent, but they are few and far between, so we can neglect them.” Degrading and humiliating are about the only words I can think of to describe what was said in this quotation.

6.      “If people want equal education, we would have to give equal goals for women, which is dangerous. If we try go against women’s natural intellectual inferiority, the concept of family will fall apart.” This has come to past, in a way. Since women began to enter the workforce strongly in the 1970s, it is now quite uncommon to have a truly stay-at-home mom.

7.      “There is so much opportunity for variety. Sometimes people are born as outcasts. Good people sometimes go unrecognized.” This is true. Sometimes talent in a minority was overlooked simply because that person was a minority.

8.      “We must incorporate faith into the progression of human intellect and combine it with truth.” I think faith is a concept that can be combined with the traditional definition of intellect to become a more well-rounded intelligence.  

9.      “Black men are only slightly smarter than white women.” Incredibly demeaning.

10.  “Men can become more moral and sentimental. Because of this, maybe women will soon be in charge, and the status quo will change. Women have always been more moral and honorable.” The status quo has begun to change. There is not a majority of women in all fields, but more women are now graduating from college than men.

 

All of these quotes, this article as a whole really, was very thought provoking, providing fascinating insight into how people thought in past times.

“Women’s Brains” Discussion: #1 Rhetoric & Style: #3, 6-7, 9

November 24, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

1.) Gould says that sometimes in scientific inquiry, one can be prejudiced to interpret the results in a certain manner, a sort of twisting of the facts. Gould says in paragraph fifteen, “One may affirm the validity of biological distinctions but argue that the data have been misinterpreted by prejudiced men with a stake in the outcome…” Although the facts may be perfectly correct and valid, the interpretation thereof may not be so.

 

3.) Gould questions Broca’s scientific method in paragraph nine. Gould says, “Brain weight decreases with age, and Broca’s women were, on average, considerably older than his men. Brain weight increases with height, and his average man was almost half a foot taller than his average woman.” Gould demonstrates that Broca was not completely fair in terms of the subjects he measured. Gould also questioned scientific method in paragraph fifteen, as mentioned before, that some scientists grossly misinterpreted their results. Gould weaves these sources together to make his point by stating the error in the method, and therefore refuting the incorrect interpretation.

 

6.) In these four paragraphs, Gould’s point is that he is completely refuting Broca’s theory that larger brain size means greater intelligence. He develops this point by pointing our errors in Broca’s scientific method, as mentioned in numbers one and two, and by fixing Broca’s math by using Gould’s data to show that there is very little if any difference between average male and female brain mass.

 

7.) Gould shows that misinterpretation of data was not only aimed at women, but also to other minorities, to illustrate that this theory of inferiority applied to women as well as others because this was the “…general theory that supported contemporary social distinctions as biologically ordained.” (paragraph thirteen).

 

9.) In the last paragraph, Gould brings together both of his arguments. He does this by saying that the entire business of incorrect scientific method and incorrect interpretation is “…irrelevant and highly injurious…” (paragraph sixteen). He also closes with an expert from Middlemarch that illustrates his point.

Postman Synthesis Essay

November 17, 2008 by · 1 Comment · Uncategorized

   

 

           

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entering the Conversation

November 9, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

*I”m not sure if I’m missing something very obvious, but I have gone through the entire chapter page by page multiple times now and cannot find an “Entering the Conversatin Question Number Three”.

Pg. 763 #1-7

November 6, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

  1. The text uses a different film genre to comment on the Harry Potter story by drawing a parallel between two seemingly different characters, Harry Potter and a baby elephant. Both lose parents in a horrific manner, and both are left to “fend for themselves” so to speak.
  2. Giovanni’s purpose in opening with the scene of drums and elephants is to draw in the reader. I was initially drawn in by the title, because I like Harry Potter, but I was even more intrigued when the article did not begin by talking about Harry Potter.
  3. The effect of the Gwendolyn Brooks quote is that it reminds people to take advantage of what they have now. It says “Live!”, which implores people to find happiness in whatever circumstances they may be living in at the present.
  4. I think by saying “Harry Potter is just a boy who lived”, Giovanni is, in a way, praising the novels. After the last quote she says, “Like all of us.” Giovanni is demonstrating that the Harry Potter books, and subsequently, their main character, are relatable to everyone. Every one of us is, in a sense, someone who “lived”. We have all come out triumphant to challenges and difficulties in life.
  5. I would characterize Giovanni’s work as a stream-of-consciousness commentary, because of the way all her thoughts seemed to be strewn out. I think she chose this form because her thoughts seem to mimic the syntax and diction of directions in a movie script.
  6. Giovanni’s interpretation did not really fit with mine, especially her interpretation of Harry Potter’s future. Readers and viewers of the Harry Potter books and movies could interpret it the way Giovanni did, the way I did, or other ways, such as honestly disliking the book, or thinking it they are boring.
  7. Using the word “sanctuary”, the title suggests that the essay will have multiple parts, because the word has multiple meanings. “Sanctuary” can mean a safe haven, or a wildlife sanctuary.

Pg. 68 #1-7

November 3, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

  1. Putnam’s credibility is established in the biography preceding the article. Putnam is not only a best-selling author, but also a Harvard professor.
  2. Comstock is not cited in the selection. Robinson and Godbey are mentioned, in paragraph one: “Time researchers John Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey…” Needham is mentioned in paragraph three: “… in the DDB Needham Life Style surveys from 1975 to 1999…” Kunstler is mentioned, in paragraph four: “Social critic James Howard Kunstler’s polemic is not far off target.”
  3. The additional information adds validity to the argument. All the author’s sources are reliable, so having more facts that are pertinent to the article added more legitimacy.
  4. The purpose of footnote fourteen is to keep with the citation trend of the rest of the article. If Putnam had cited all other facts but this one, the validity of this fact could have been doubted. It includes information that seems obvious to readers because an author always needs to be complete with sources.
  5. Putnam uses the source to support his claim about the relationship between TV watching and staying at home because he provides additional information about the statistics concerning TV watching being the primary form of entertainment.
  6. Citing Kunstler’s view affects Putnam’s argument by showing a more extreme view. This extreme view demonstrates that Putnam is not a one-sided extremist; that he is less opinionated than he may have seemed.
  7. Putnam’s notes suggest that his research was based on reliable sources.

Pg. 781, 782, 787 Article Questions

November 2, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

He Doesn’t Like to Watch

1.      The interview does address the threat that “culture jammers might be disrupting a sports bar near you.” The question answered in paragraph ten is “What do you think of someone going into a sports bar- where people have gone to watch a game- and turning the TV off there? Do you think that’s a justified use?” The interview also takes the reader in directions answering questions like “But when it is appropriate to turn off someone else’s TVs?” and “Do you anticipate a number of television vigilantes who will go into stores and bars, switching TVs off?”

2.      I believe that Scott has a negative bias toward the device. After introducing it relatively impartially, she ends the introduction with a series of questions that cast the TV-B-GONE in a negative light. This bias shows in Scott’s questions because the very negative questions from the introduction are the questions she uses for the rest of the interview.

3.      The tone of the interview seemed kind of contentious to me. The tone effects both the interviewer and the interviewee because it seemed like both of them were over-eager to discredit the other side.

4.      Some of Lasn’s responses addressed issues of a political nature. It reads in paragraph eleven, “What does media concentration really mean for a democracy? How can so many Americans still think there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?”

 

TV Turnoff Week

  1. The purpose of DiVivo’s poster is to encourage people to turn off the TV and go outside! The illustration addresses this purpose because it demonstrates the purpose in easy-to-see pictures.
  2. The poster creates a tone by mimicking the layout of instructions or directions. The words on the poster are not necessary because the pictures are so self-explanatory.
  3. The connection does add to the poster’s effectiveness. When I think of airplanes, I think cramped, lazy, and stuffy, also how I would feel after watching TV all day instead of doing something active.

 

Is Media Violence Free Speech?

  1. Gitlin and Gerbner agree that the problem goes beyond violence, ratings, or any single factor, to the heart of the system, as stated in paragraph twenty-five. They also agree that the irresponsibility of the broadcasters is the fundamental issue, as stated in paragraph twenty.
  2. Gitlin uses Japan as an example of the effects of media violence because they have more and violent media than the United States, but Japan also has a lower violent crime rate than the U.S. In paragraph eleven, Gerbner responds with, “It [the case of Japan] is the knee-jerk retort of apologists…the argument assumes that media violence is the only, or major and always decisive, influence on human social behavior.” (emphasis added).
  3. Gerbner sees the V-chip as “a sideshow and a diversion.” (Paragraph seventeen). Gitlin says concerning V-chips, “V-chips or the like are sure to come- they are perfectly tailored to the American can-do attitude that there is a technological fix for every social problem. Though I don’t regard them as pernicious…” (Paragraph twenty).
  4. According to Gitlin and Gerbner, the result of excessive TV violence is that the companies that produce it just keep making more and more money, because violence sells so well nationwide. Another result of watching excessive TV violence is that those who watch it become paranoid, and believe the crime rate is worse than it is.

Toulmin Analysis, Pg. 779 #1-6

October 30, 2008 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

Toulmin Analysis

 

Claim- “In all reality though, the omnipresent box sitting somewhere in our homes, workplaces, and just about everywhere else has a much greater hold on our lives than we think.”

 

Data- “The average American spends nine years of their life glued to the box.”

 

Warrant- “In the span of your nine-year affair with television, what do you think you’ve accomplished? Imagine spending nine years pursuing other activities… you could have earned a PhD, achieved master DJ status, or cultivated a garden that amazes you every spring.”

 

Qualifier- “Many of us…”

 

Pg. 779 #1-6

 

1.      In paragraph one, Trubey assumes that his audience prefers entertainment live, and also that his audience owns at least one television. He also assumes that his audience maybe does not realize just how much television they watch.

2.      Because he is writing for “TV Turnoff Week”, Trubey becomes more passionate about the subject. His enthusiasm for convincing people to turn off their televisions, especially for this occasion, shows in his writing.

3.      The rhetorical question at the end of paragraph one causes one to reconsider the hold television has on his life. Is he aware of the amount of television he watches, or not? I do agree with Trubey’s answer, because the statistic stating that the average American spends nine years of his life watching television was much, much higher than what I would have estimated.

4.      By using classification between passive and interpretive viewing in paragraph four, Trubey creates an effective counterargument. Some may argue with Trubey that some viewing of some things is beneficial. Because of his classification, Trubey refutes this claim.

5.      To me, this does lack of reliable citation does affect Trubey’s credibility. Whenever I see a fact of statistic, I like to see an astricks leading me to a credible source.

6.      These lists greatly strengthen Trubey’s argument. The juxtaposition of the facts grabs attention and lays out the contrasts in a way that is clear and easy to understand.