Is This Really a Good Arguement?

I chose an editorial piece from September 25 in the Chicago Tribune. The author argues that the law Mayor Daley is putting into effect around Wrigley Field saying that bars can’t sell alcohol past the 7th inning isn’t a good law. The law would just be enforced during the playoffs and is optional for the bars. But the editorial states, “Those who don't go along with the "voluntary" cutoff might have a little trouble when it's time to renew their liquor licenses, Daley hints”, implying that it isn’t optional. Although alcohol sales would be allowed again once the game ended, the author still disagrees with the law. He states that the reason why a fan would watch a game from a bar stand instead of inside the field is because that way they can but alcohol after the 7th inning. The author used many different strategies to argue his point. A few that stuck out to me, though, was his target of audience, use of ethos, and use of logos. The audience is obviously supposed to be Chicago natives or cubs fans, because he says, “Cubs fans have waited 100 years for a World Series title. Come October, they’re going to need a beer to celebrate”. This targets the Cubs fans because it uses emotion (pathos) to make them agree that once they win, they should be allowed to celebrate with alcohol. Other fans from other cities wouldn’t know the pain cubs fans have endured in recent years and the excitement taking place this year. The author also uses ethos, which is apparent when he states both sides of the argument. Although the author is against the new law by the mayor, he still uses statements like, “We understand where the mayor is coming from” to create a sense of trust with the reader. The last tool the author uses is logos; in the beginning of the editorial, the side the author is taking is a little unclear. He doesn’t use a clean cut thesis in the beginning, and starts the editorial being able to go either way on the issue. As the piece goes on, his argument becomes clearer and clearer, then, at the end where he clearly states, “they’re going to need a beer to celebrate…they shouldn’t have to leave Wrigleyville to find one”. This makes the claim very plausible because nothing is too farfetched. He gains your trust in the beginning by not choosing an immediate side, and then brings you in with his thesis at the end. I thought this was a very well written editorial.

What is the Correct Response?

While on my home page today, I saw an interesting article from the New York Times. It reminded me of the driving question of the unit we’re currently studying: How does someone deal with perilous times? This article is about the hotel bombings that took place yesterday in Pakistan. At the time of the article, the death toll was at 53, but expected to rise because there are still people who are unaccounted for. This is obviously a perilous time in Pakistan because the bombing spreads fear through the Pakistani people of future attacks. The attacks are thought to be an attack on the new democratic government. It will be interesting how Asif Ali Zardari, the new president of Pakistan responds to these attacks and leads his nation through this period of perilous times. One of the tough decisions he faces is he has promised to continue fighting militants, but it is believed that when you do this, they retaliate by bombing civilians, as seen in the attack yesterday. But if he lets the attacks go unnoticed, he will almost certainly be criticized. Another decision Zardari has to be careful with is how similar he makes the Pakistan democracy to the American because of the strong Pakistan opposition to American policies. This could be a deciding factor in the amount of support he receives from the people of his country.
This relates to our new unit because the driving question is: How does someone deal with perilous times? We are looking at real examples of when this happened with the Puritans. That wasn’t the only example of how people deal with perilous times, though. There was 9/11 when all of the USA looked to President Bush to lead us through that period of fear and suspicion. It has been seen countless other times in the world, but each time the group of people responds a little differently. I believe the question is still looking to be answered, though: what is the perfect way to deal with perilous times?

How Can One Be So Opinioinated?

With the presidential race running at full strength, you hear political arguments and opinions constantly. This makes me wonder, how can someone be so supportive of one candidate or party? It seems impossible that a person can agree with every aspect of one presidential candidate and disagree with every view of the opposite party. This makes me wonder, do people know each candidate’s position on every topic and just choose to ignore the views of topics they agree with of the candidate’s they don’t support and vice versa. Or if it’s just the fact they don’t know all the positions that the candidate they support takes. If that’s the case, everything comes down to how much you know about the topic. You could completely agree with the main positions a candidate stands on an issue, but completely disagree with their position on some of the less popular issues, which may be important to you. Therefore, because you know a little about the candidate, you would support him because of the position he takes on the bigger issues, even though you disagree with the candidate’s position on the smaller, but more meaningful to you issues.
While attempting to come up with ideas for my in class essay I wrote on Wednesday, I started to think; in order for a reader to assess the truth of a narrative, they need to know a decent amount of information about what the narrative is about. If you are reading about a topic you are clueless on, then you won’t know what the author is writing about is true or not. Therefore, your whole perception on the issue that the narrative is about could be based solely off whether or not you knew about the issue.
These two topics connect because whether your view is on a presidential candidate or how truthful a narrative is, it is all based off your knowledge of the topic you’re judging.

lawlerlogan.blogspot.com

first post