Sunday, February 28, 2016
TOW #19 - Text
In “All About Adam,” the author, discusses the everlasting debate over evolution and creationism. They address how recent scientific evidence for evolution, particularly new evidence that shows that humans are not all descended from two individuals, is stirring up some problems for creationists. Scientific evidence is pushing the creationist envelopes and forcing some to turn to imperative ways to ensure faith in the Christian religion. Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts school obliged their faculty members to sign faith statements declaring that God directly created Adam and Eve. The author noted that old-time religion has always been strong in America but the generation of the millennials, (those born between the early 1980s and 2000s), are drifting away from their stern and strict denominations. For example, this generation is more accepting of the LGBT community. The author’s purpose is to address the ongoing debate of evolution and creationism and to show how creationists are struggling with growing evidence of evolution and skeptical youth. The audience is Americans on both sides of the issue: creationists, perhaps to inflict some concern, and those who believe in evolution, to show a growth in that belief. This article is also for an international audience to learn about the pressing religious debate in America. One of the most effective rhetorical devices is a comparison between the trial that Galileo had for insisting that the Earth circled the sun and this current debate of evolutionism and creationism. When referring back to the history of Galileo’s trial, most people feel that the church was wrong because Galileo and science turned out to be right. By comparing this to modern day, the author challenges readers to consider whether creationism is similarly wrong. The author did achieve the article’s purpose by describing the conflict among creationists and by using statistics to illustrate the changes. Although it is not clear who wrote the article, The Economist is an internationally respected magazine. The use of statistics and quotes from religious scholars lends credibility to the article.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
TOW #18 - Visual
A very prevalent issue in today's society is our attachment to our smartphones and electronic devices. We, including me, hold to them so dearly and can find ourselves on them longer than not. Teenagers and young adults especially are constantly stuck to their phones, checking their Snapchat or making sure they get likes on their latest Instagram upload. On top of that, they're texting each other nonstop. In a cartoon by political cartoonist Steve Nease, a teenage boy is shown asking his father, "What's 'handwriting'?" The father, who is holding a newspaper that a has a headline that says, "National Handwriting Day - Jan. 23," is looking at his son, who appears to be in the midst of texting on his phone, in amazement. Nease juxtaposes the teenager with the teenager's father through the clothes that they are wearing and the thing in their hands. This creates a distinct difference between the teenager's generation and the father's generation by using stereotypes of how they act. He also uses the teenager's confusion to represent the majority of the current generation's lack of understanding of what it means to write by hand, instead of by phone. I find this cartoon effective on a personal level, because I too am guilty of using my phone and computer a lot. Although I don't really expect to change my habits and use my phone or computer less, it is a reminder of the direction our generation has already set a course for: a digital era. In some aspects, it's impossible to give up some electronics because of the way our global society, government, and economy are set up. They depend on our use of digital devices and wouldn't function otherwise.
Monday, February 15, 2016
TOW #17 - Text
In her article about the position of women in today's economy, Stephanie Coontz, an author, historian, and faculty member of Evergreen State College, argues that rather than first looking to help women shatter the glass ceiling (the forces keeping women from entering the higher rungs of the corporate ladder despite their accomplishments) the nation should focus on "the sinking floor", which is the growing problem of both men and women struggling with poverty. She says that female-based models to address this will be more effective, rather than the former masculine-based model constructed around the idea of a male breadwinner. In the past, it was mostly women who have worked the lower-wage jobs, but now, an increasing number of men are facing the same problems. By helping reduce the wage gap through implementing a "livable" minimum wage, establishing a wider safety net, and prioritizing child care, both men and women can be helped.
Coontz appeals to logos and uses repetition to further her argument. She says, " 2009, one in every four American workers earned less than two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, the highest proportion of low-wage work in 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, according to the economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research." Coontz also establishes that the highest proportion of stay-at-home moms are married to men in the bottom 25% of wage earners. These statistics show that by helping the lower wage earners, men and women can both be helped. Towards the end she repeats the phrase "putting women first", which means that these policies are directly linked to putting women first but will greatly benefit men at the same time.
Coontz does not fully achieve her purpose because her "although" type thesis spends too much time on the "although" part and therefore slightly confuses her reader as to whether or not we should continue to pursue female-oriented policies even though women seem to be clearly doing better despite after the recession while men are still struggling. Her audience is probably policy-makers but also the general public.
Coontz appeals to logos and uses repetition to further her argument. She says, " 2009, one in every four American workers earned less than two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, the highest proportion of low-wage work in 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, according to the economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research." Coontz also establishes that the highest proportion of stay-at-home moms are married to men in the bottom 25% of wage earners. These statistics show that by helping the lower wage earners, men and women can both be helped. Towards the end she repeats the phrase "putting women first", which means that these policies are directly linked to putting women first but will greatly benefit men at the same time.
Coontz does not fully achieve her purpose because her "although" type thesis spends too much time on the "although" part and therefore slightly confuses her reader as to whether or not we should continue to pursue female-oriented policies even though women seem to be clearly doing better despite after the recession while men are still struggling. Her audience is probably policy-makers but also the general public.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

