Pick an op-ed piece by a regular New York Times columnist that interests you. For this post, you’ll analyze how the writer reasons through his or her argument.
First, examine the use of enthymeme in this article. In a sentence or two, state the piece’s conclusion (put another way, summarize its main argument). Then identify the major and minor premises that lead to the conclusion. What ideas or assumptions does the conclusion depend on for it to be persuasive? As you reconstruct the piece’s enthymeme, explain the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and discuss how effective you think the writer’s reasoning is.
Last, describe this piece’s use of an example, analogy, maxim or sign. Identify at least one instance of one of these strategies that the writer uses in his or her piece. Explain how it enhances or diminishes the writer’s main argument.
Please post your response as a comment to this post before class meets on Monday.
Questionable Quality
-
Found on the premises of Johnson-McFarlane and Centennial Halls are what
are supposed to be “convenience” stores. These convenience stores make
their busin...
16 years ago
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his article “Kids In Crisis (Behind Bars)” Nicholas Kristof utilizes the American ideology of human rights to support his claim that youth correctional facilities should be reformed for safer conditions. Kristof states that smaller boys are usually beaten and raped in prison. Throughout the article, Kristof refers to a boy by the name of Rodney Hulin Jr. who was convicted of arson when he was sixteen and sent to a men’s prison, “there, he was the smallest person around [and] within a week he was raped.” In order to sustain his enthymeme—that youth correction facilities need human rights reformation—Kristof asserts a major premise that smaller, often teenage, boys are raped and beaten by larger men and boys in prisons and juvenile correction facilities. Kristof then uses his minor premise—that Rodney Hulin Jr. who was five foot, two inches and 125 pounds was raped by older, bigger men in prison—to support his conclusion that young boys should not be sent to men’s prisons because they will be raped and beaten. Kristof then goes on to tell that sexual abuse also occurs between inmates and prison guards. The author cites Human Rights Watch member Jamie Fuller as she accounts an incident in a Virginia prison where “men were stripped naked and asked to spread their buttocks in front of a female officer.” When one inmate requested to be strip searched in front of a male guard instead of a female guard, he was Tasered. In this, the author introduces another major premise that abuse occurs between inmates and prison guards, with a minor premise that an inmate was Tasered out of asserting his own right to not be strip searched in front of a woman officer; this asserts a conclusion that prison guards abuse their authority over inmates.
ReplyDeleteIn order to be persuasive, both conclusions depend on the assumption that prisons ought to maintain human rights among criminals. Both these premises are effective to their conclusions in that they support generalizations about inhumane prisons. Kristof asserts that most Americans fail to recognize the atrocities that go on in American prisons. It the end of the article, the author enhances the enthymeme by analogy as he compares “abuses in our youth correctional facilities as to those [of] Guantanamo.” By comparing domestic prison facilities to a historically controversial prison—Guantanamo Bay—Kristof paints an image in his reader’s mind that American prisons are just as inhumane to its inmates as a prison that has been broadly accepted by the American people as inhumane. In this analogy, Kristof artistically uses pathos as a persuasive device: readers now identify American teenage inmates as American citizens who have rights as opposed to offshore terrorists (and even a good portion of Americans believe that terrorists have human rights). Kristof’s analogy continues to work as the reader assesses that an American citizen should not get the same abusive treatment as terrorists at Guantanamo, thus enhancing his main argument that American correctional facilities need more human rights regulation.
“Sixty-five years ago this week, the Soviets liberated Auschwitz” and consequently Samuel Pisar from the cruelty of racist dominance, the terror of gas chambers, and the depression of years spent doing slave labor and slowly starving to death. Pisar’s main argument in this piece is to not let the tragedy be forgotten and to use the horrors of history to remind the current generations of the hope that remains for a world of peace and harmony; it is not yet unachievable. The major premise of Pisar’s piece, “Out of Auschwitz” appeals to the common acceptance of World War II and the Nazi regime to be characteristic of pain and suffering, Jewish, non-Arian genocide, and a time of disturbing and horrific practices. This premise is further acknowledged by the use of gas chambers and the specification of Auschwitz itself as signs that highlight the situation the author was placed in so many years ago. The author uses his experience escaping from his guards as an example of the fear and futility that the enslaved of Auschwitz experiences to bring his main premise into a forceful and vivid reality. The minor premise is that the nations and its people do not tend to learn from the mistakes and disasters of history and use those lessons to enlist change. Thus, Pisar’s main arguments, when stripped of its voice and literary “fluff” is that the Nazi regime during World War II was a terrible event in history, people fail learn from bad/terrifying events in history and use those lessons to make changes, thus we should learn from World War II, not forget it, and use that knowledge to create change otherwise the horror of the Holocaust will be repeated in the near future. The writer’s reasoning in this instance is rather solid when initially read due to its effective use of sign, example and analogy. By providing such vivid imagery of the misdeeds and disagreeable situations that innocent people were put through compels the reader to agree with the major premise and want to fully embrace the minor premise, also commonly accepted as a slightly altered maxim of “history repeats itself”, appealing to a strong sense of pathos to compel the reader to rise above the vicious cycle of history and make the changes necessary for a world of peace and harmony.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "Orphaned, Raped, and Ignored," by Nicholas Krostof, discusses the barbaric civil war being waged in eastern Congo. Kristof states that The Democratic Republic of Congo is in far worse shape than Haiti, with 30 times more lives lost due to genocide killings. The article starts off with Kristof stating how he wishes Congo, a nation in great peril would suffer an earthquake or tsunami, as that would be the only way it would receive much needed media attention. The major premise of this article, the enthymeme, is the story of a young Congolese girl whose family was raped, tortured, and killed. This painfully emotional story paints an uncomfortably vivid picture of the young and the innocent being assaulted and orphaned. The story concludes with Kristof hoping his words will inspire readers to speak out to world leaders. He makes it clear that we must let them know of the slaughter in central Africa, and that Congo deserves the same compassion as Haiti is currently receiving.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the young girl, "Chance," strongly enhances the article. The op-ed piece transforms from a factorial piece written about a faraway country by an American, to a traumatic story that powerfully persuades people to speak up about an issue seeing very little media attention.
In the article "Never Heard Before", Thomas Friedman makes the case that the United States of America's largest stimulus is hiding in plain sight, that it's the termination of our political gridlock and the uncertainty it casts over the nation. He writes on how the "Washington Consensus" is slowly being eroded and replaced by the coming "Beijing Consensus", that the United States' complete gridlock comes at a perilous time. To help support his conclusion Friedman uses kairos by incorporating the Davos World Economic Forum to open up discussion about the state of the union. At the D.W.E.F. Friedman heard a term from non-Americans about the United States, the term being bantered about was "Political Instability". When he asked businessmen about the term they informed him that the U.S.A. has become unpredictable to the world. He backs up this assumption using evidence that Obama was sworn in with the largest Democratic Majority dating back to the Carter Administration yet he can't even get his top domestic priority passed. The points come together to make a persuasive conclusion that the USA is completely gridlocked and that solving it would cause a greater stimulus by alleviating international concerns over our instability. He uses a point of calling the Republican party the Party of No to show how gridlocked the system is, despite Obama meeting them on middle grounds (no public option, no medicare expansion, more nuclear power plants, more offshore drilling), the "Party of No" would rather keep the country gridlocked for political gain. The point enhances his argument since it shows how the system is at a complete stop, that nothing will be solved until a gain for the country eclipses the need for a short term political gain.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Good and Boring” by Paul Krugman is comparing the United State to Canada and simply wondering why is the united states falling behind and Canada isn’t, and he also trying to justify the economic crisis that the united states in while none of the consequences of the rescission affected Canada that has a similar background to the United states. Then he states that there is a good chance that the United States will do nothing to avoid future financial crisis, because we don’t know what to do, and then in a sarcastic way he blame congress leaders for not learning from Canada how to keep safe banking when he said “We don’t know what to do: we’ve got a clear example of how to keep banking safe sitting right next door”. Paul Krugman started supporting his opinion in the beginning of the article when he compared the interest rate policy in the U.S and in Canada. Many people blamed the financial crisis on the federal reserve because they kept the interest rates too low for too long, but on the other hand Canadian rates are quite similar to the U.S therefore the interest rate wasn’t the reason for the financial crisis that we’re in. another comparison Krugman point out is many people say that the financial crisis that we’re in happened because the banks were too big to fail but again Canada has only five banking groups that dominate the financial scene. Then Krugman insinuate that the U.S financial crisis goes way back to the Regan-era because that was when the banks took on risks, but Canada maintained the status quo. In other words Canada has much stricter in limiting bank’s leverages and the extent to which they can rely on borrowed funds while the U.S did the opposite. Krugman is using a very persuasive way to attract the reader to his opinion by comparing the U.S to Canada. In this comparison Krugman showing the similarities between the two countries, and eliminating reasons that was said to be the cause of our financial crisis by showing that these causes are the same in Canada but these reason didn’t cause the Canadian any financial crisis. Krugman used a very reasonable sign in the end of the article when he said “There’s a good a chance that we will do nothing to prevent future banking crisis. But it won’t be because we don’t know: we’ve got a clear example of how to keep banking safe sitting right next door”. Krugman is indicating nothing will change because we have Canada as a great example on how to keep the financial status safe but we never tried to learn from the Canadian who are just next door, therefore this is a sign that we will never learn from anyone else. This segment enhances Krugman’s opinion is valid because Canada is next door with economy similar to ours but we still managed to be in financial crisis and didn’t learn from the Canadian.
ReplyDeleteThe article I read was called “Out of Auschwitz”. It narrated a short story by a personal survivor who is now a United States citizen proud with freedom. He argues his worries of losing the storytelling and lessons learned from such a horrific experience, by time flying. The victims are nearly all dead and we now no longer have first hand stories/facts. The author fears that our society will soon stop caring and perhaps vanish the holocaust’s tragedies.
ReplyDelete“Today, the last living survivors of the Holocaust are disappearing one by one. Soon, history will speak about Auschwitz with the impersonal voice of researchers and novelists at best, and at worst in the malevolent register of revisionists and falsifiers who call the Nazi Final Solution a myth. This process has already begun.”
The major premise that leads to his argument is that those whom classify the horrifying holocaust as a myth. The minor premise leading to his argument is that history books will lessen the extremes, slowly facts will drizzle away and eventually may not even be correctly told, and will then not learn from lessons history has taught us. The conclusion assumes that children and grandchildren of the holocaust survivors will not continue their story for generations to come. Also it assumes that history books will still be teaching, yet maybe falsely doing so. I believe the writers reasoning is strong. I think that his passion towards the subject, especially being a victim is crucial and leads a lot of persuasion. The writer uses modern day comparisons to really evaluate his argument. He expresses how there is no comparison, and uses Haiti as the closest thing to do so.
“The fury of the Haitian earthquake, which has taken more than 200,000 lives, teaches us how cruel nature can be to man. The Holocaust, which destroyed a people, teaches us that nature, even in its cruelest moments, is benign in comparison with man when he loses his moral compass and his reason.”
I think this enhances the writer’s persuasion because it is something that those today can really grasp. Understanding how much death is had in Haiti or Hurricane Katrina, we all can visualize and relate to. Although not likewise with the holocaust, it was not during our time, and so much death occurred it is hard to fully grasp. By relating his tragedy to our modern day tragedy it makes an easier understanding.
In his article “More (Steve) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,” Thomas Friedman argue that President Obama should focus his attention to promoting innovation in America. He chose two very convincing premises on which to base his line of reasoning, especially to President Obama, his main and most important audience member. First of all, he claims an “Innovation Movement” would promote Democratic values and calm political opposition. This idea, that the President might gain political support through promoting invention and new ideas, is Friedman’s only assumption. Although I personally think that he is wrong in his assumption, it does not take away from the persuasiveness or the effectiveness of his argument. Lastly, and I think most convincingly, Friedman plays directly into President Obama’s agenda as he outlined in the recent State of the Union address. He states that by promoting innovation, it will stimulate the economy, creating new jobs and freeing capital to pay for health care and reducing the national deficit. In addition to his premises, Friedman also uses examples, namely historical examples, extensively. Several times he label’s President Obama’s push for innovation as his “moon shot,” implicitly comparing him to President Kennedy and his successful race to the moon. He also makes several allusions to Apple Inc. founder and executive Steve Jobs, a notoriously successful businessman and freethinker, connecting new ideas and technologies to economic growth. Overall, I think that Friedman makes a very compelling argument, supporting his idea with popular ideas and giving foundation with clear examples.
ReplyDeleteIn his article 'Sex Ed in Washington', Ross Douthat argues that sex education has no place in Washington and should be left up to local and state authorities to decide what type of education about sex is taught. One of his main claims is that MTV shows about teen pregnancy are probably more effective and much more entertaining than any sex ed curriculum. His premises for this are that people from certain parts of the country will want or not want sex ed to be taught in certain ways regardless of what the sex ed system offers. He states that "...-between parents in Berkeley, say, who don’t want their kids being taught that premarital intercourse is something to feel ashamed about and parents in Alabama who don’t want their kids being lectured about the health benefits of masturbation." He argues that it doesn't what you believe in specifically because it will always differ from what someone else believes. There is no point in trying to make a universal program for sexual education. He is relying on the reader to believe that not everyone has the same beliefs and that there is not one right way to teach sex ed. He believes that there is no way that, as a country, we will ever agree on how exactly sex ed should be taught in our schools. This leads up to his conclusion which is that Washington has no place in this matter and should not try to create or fund a program that becomes universalized about sex ed. His use of the example about the parents of children from different states enhances his argument and allows the reader to really see an example of how his argument is true. It is very well organized and each idea certainly affects and enhances the rest of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe article that I read from the New York Times was titled: “Sex Ed in Washington”. The author presents the problem with abstinence-based programs that President George W. Bush was invoking on high schools. Critics claim that since the number of teenagers practicing abstinence was declining during the end of Bush’s presidency that it was purely his fault. However, throughout Clinton’s presidency he was funneling money to abstinence-based education as well. The author shares his idea that pointing fingers at anyone is not going to help resolve the dilemma. Also, he suggests that having Washington discuss this problem and figure out a solution is the wrong way to go too. The author assumes that the reason that no solutions have been made apparent that the problem should be left with states to deal with individually. Therefore the people could have more of a say in what is done to facilitate the money used for abstinence-based programs. “A 2001 survey published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for instance, found that “most studies of school-based and school-linked health centers revealed no effect on student sexual behavior or contraceptive use.” This is a line stated by the author in the article. This line is important because it helps the author find a medium in the argument. The author tries to keep an impartial standpoint on the issue, and this helps guide the author in that direction.
ReplyDelete"Case Stokes Haiti's Fear for Children, and Itself" By Ginger Thompson
ReplyDeleteTen Americans have been detained by the Haitian government after being caught attempting to traffic Haitian orphans to the United States, with the claim that "God wanted us to come here to help children". However, during the aftermath of the deadly earthquake there has been fear of criminal organizations planning to exploit Haiti through trafficking. It is basically stated that even in their time of greif, Haiti has laws that still need to be abided by or "the Haitian state would cease to exist."
The primary concern for the Haitian's government in this predicament was the children's safety. With the given label of "kidnappers", the ten detained Americans did in fact break the law of the Haitian government. As mentioned in the conclusion of the article, Haiti has been a target for trafficking organizations and it cannot risk any chance of this occuring, and in this case an example can be set that these actions will not be tolerated for the sake of the children. This alone was a persuasive statement for even though I would like to think the group of ten made this attempt out of good intentions, we will truly never know what they were capable of during these hard times.
The premises correlate with the conclusion with the message of the jeopordized safety of the children from the ten American's action that broke a law. This method is affective for it puts into perspective of how severe of a crime this is regardless of what the purpose was behind this. The author places examples of how children have been taken advantage of after being victims to trafficking such as : "prostitution", "adoptions", or "organ donations and slavery". Such examples enhance the authors argument of the seriousness of the situation, for it is horrible to think of children being exploited in this manner and creates an ethos connection to the reader.
In Paul Krugman's article "Good and Boring," he discusses our national financial bank problem. He starts off by comparing the US and Canada and then leads into our recent pasts. Here he draws upon one of our few differences, our national banking systems. He states his idea that boring banking is good banking and then proceeds to tell us why. The US's banks have become "dangerously less boring" with government bailouts for huge fallen companies. Canada's banking system however, is very simple and consists of 5 banks that are "too big to fail" and stricter rules regulating the extent to which they can rely on borrowed funds. Towards the end, he seems to give up on most hope that the US can use Canada as an example to get back on the right path to financial stability. He thinks this because there has already been a bill proposed to fix this, but not a single Republican voted for it. Krugman does a good job in his work of making this seem so simple and easy and he also makes the government look stubborn and divided. He makes the government look stupid by drawing out Canada's simple and successful banking system and posing the question, why can't we do that?
ReplyDelete