Documentation Quiz

1) We are using MLA (modern language association) format.
2) There are in-text citations and a works cited page at the end of the paper.
3) For a web source you must include:
-author and/or editors
-name of database
-date of version, revision, posting
-publisher info
-date accessed
-the word "web"

Prewriting Essay 2

- I am going to rebut the argument made by Amy Chua in her article, "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior."
- Questioning all of her assumptions.
- She claims that there is a definite right and wrong way to parenting, when it is obvious that everyone has a strategy that works for them.
- She writes with an untouchable tone, touting her methods as being superior and unmatchable by anyone. She gloats at her success and shines a spotlight on herself. The epitome of a "soap box" article.
- Amy Chua doesn't offer advice, she puts down "Western parents" and prides herself on her own success.
- Analyze the positive response article from her eldest daughter to determine the outcome of her parenting skills.
- What do people get for being the best? Is it worth it to be good at absolutely everything. There's only one place to go from the top.
- I personally feel that I learn from failure.
- There's more to being successful that just excelling at academics
- She may have the ultimate control over her children now, but what will happen when they get older and experience college?
- In the article she places emphasis on Chinese children owing everything to their parents who would do anything for them. I'm not Chinese, and I still have great respect for the efforts of my parents.
- Is success measurable or quantifiable?
- She makes major assumptions in generalizing that anyone other than the parents who share her views are inadequate parents or do not push their children hard enough.
- Her title is condescending. Are all Chinese mothers parenting the same way? Are they superior or is she?
- I'm not enraged by the article, but I do feel that Chua made some ignorant claims
- How does her husband feel about her method of parenting? I wonder if he had any say in how his daughters were raised.
- What's wrong with encouraging children's desires? People have gut-feelings for a reason.
- By pushing her children in one direction, she may have prevented them from discovering something that they are truly meant to do.

Reflection 1.2

Success! My first paper of the semester is complete, and I'm very satisfied with my work.  Looking back on the process of creating this essay, I don't feel like I have changed my writing process at all. Personally, I didn't feel that the pre-writing in class helped me get a head start on my first essay. Once grade school teachers stopped requiring prewriting and brainstorming, I was all too anxious to avoid doing it. I never pre-write or outline because I work best when my writing is spontaneous. I'll never intentionally procrastinate on a paper, but if I don't have any ideas until the night before a paper is due, that's when I'll begin to write. Fortunately, that happens to be my best and most successful work. Even for the revision process, I honestly never revise my paper much. For essay 1.2 I made some brief adjustments, citations and re-wording before the final product was completed to my satisfaction.

Essay 1.2: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: A Rhetorical Analysis of “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws” by Megan Weintraut

Americans pride ourselves on our revolutionary spirit, tireless pursuit to maintain justice, and above all else, a militant history. We have always been defined by our eagerness to uphold our freedom and defend our rights at the highest price one can possibly pay. When the Bill of Rights was established in the early 1700’s, the Second Amendment granted Americans the right to bear arms for that specific reason: to uphold our way of life if ever it was threatened. But Megan Weintraut, a senior at Ithaca College, argues that America's way of life has changed dramatically since the establishment of the Second Amendment. She argues that this right is no longer a necessity, as it was when the Bill of Rights was first drafted. In fact, many argue that the right to bear arms is the most dangerous right granted to American citizens, and it has proven to be more threatening to our nation than our forefathers ever imagined it could be. In her article to The Ithacan, Ithaca College’s student newspaper, Weintraut undertakes a difficult task in arguing for stricter gun control laws in the United States.

Unfortunately, many people have become desensitized to the debate over gun control due to its unremitting encore appearance in almost every major newspaper, evening report, and Miss America Competition. The arguments have been stated, the defendants have spoken, and the issue of strict gun control regulations still remains ambivalent. So what has changed? Why should anyone take note of Weintraut’s argument here and now? Without a compelling argument and a proper occasion, her work would be passed off as nothing more than rhetorical gymnastics, beleaguering a moot point without substantial grounds. Her success in creating an effective argument is generated from careful planning based on her reasons and evidence, the audience she wishes to reach, her use of rhetorical appeals, and finally, an appropriate alternative to the current problem.

To begin, the author successfully provides her readers with logical background information regarding her occasion for writing this article. She begins by discussing the origin and intent of the Second Amendment, including its vital purpose in protecting our fragile nation shortly after we won our independence. This information is provided to build up to Weintraut’s purpose: times have changed, and the individual right to bear arms is no longer vital to our national security.  With a solid foundation of facts mortared together with indisputable historical data, Weintraut has built the perfect launching pad for the remainder of her argument. It is difficult for anyone to dispute an argument that is largely based on facts that everyone has learned during their childhood school years. The need for personal firearms was apparent during a time when Americans had to ward off vengeful British soldiers in the middle of the night. In comparison, modern America has established a military and law enforcement to protect our country. It cannot be argued that this responsibility continues to lie with individuals in brigades of minutemen. Thus, the necessity of personal firearms has been eliminated, proving these dangerous weapons to be superfluous, further validating Weintraut’s argument.

In addition, her rhetorical appeals are explored full-circle when she utilizes pathos by referencing national tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre, the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, and the most recent disaster in Arizona (par. 6). She explores current events involving gun use that brought our Second Amendment front and center on the stage of morality. Nobody can reasonably argue against something, unless there is a propagating event that calls for major adjustments to be made. By referencing current events across the nation that everyone feels affected by, Weintraut reaches into the soul of every American who sympathizes with the innocent victims and persuades them to demand changes to our way of life. While it would be more effective to be proactive in preventing devastating events such as school shootings, our society is extremely reactive when dealing with these issues, therefore we require a spark to propagate changes in our country's normal method of operation. Weintraut successfully uses these current events to recycle the hackneyed topic of gun control in America.

Another positive aspect of providing the reader with several facts is that the author instantly builds credibility. She appears well-versed and educated in her dissertation by using evidence to support her claims. To do this effectively, she uses many facts from several prevalent sources that reinforce the argument she is trying to make. For example, her statistics regarding the percentage of firearm owners in the United States are provided by The American Journal of Health. In addition, the National Institute of Justice reports chilling facts that quantify the prevalence of guns involved in the majority of our country’s homicides. Without data and other examples to support her claims, no reader could fully understand the gravity of her argument.

Finally, no disparate opinion can be complete without a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal to improve the problem at hand. Careful research of a topic provides further insight into the root of a problem, which sheds light on a feasible solution to correct it. For this article, Weintraut highlights bullets as the real murderers in this situation, stating that guns are not the items that physically kill others. Unlike many of the gun control pioneers that came before her, she does not suggest that guns are to be limited or completely outlawed. In her article she states, "Perhaps Americans should be allowed to bear all the arms they desire, but they should do without the ammunition" (par. 6). This is a revolutionary proposal that has been seldom suggested, and yet it makes more sense than outlawing firearms completely, a solution that has little to no chance of success given America’s trigger-happy history.

Overall, Weintraut does a phenomenal job of supporting her claims on the sensitive topic of gun control in America, but a major flaw in her argument is that she does not acknowledge her audience’s alternative point of view. It is only natural that every well-thought-out argument fails to win approval by all who read it. Any argument relating to the Second Amendment will be under extreme scrutiny of organizations such as the National Rifle Association or Women Against Gun Control. Unfortunately, Weintraut says nothing in her article that directly addresses the concerns of anyone who is pro-weaponry. This is a major shortfall of her argument because in refusing to acknowledge that her point of view is not the only one that exists, she cannot refute opposing statements and further enhance her credibility.

In conclusion, Weintraut is able to transform a worn-out opinion into a substantial argument by using solid facts and feasible compromises to solve the problems caused by firearms in the United States. She is able to connect to her audience emotionally and mentally, winning their trust early on in her argument. The success of her article was only likely if she had the ability to appeal to an already hostile audience, and she completed that difficult task with precision and accuracy. In the end, Weintraut developed an effective argument that commands attention from all who read it, and she does justice to her point of view on the daunting and sensitive subject of gun control in America.

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2011.

College Prewrite

Rick Perlstein should create a blog if he plans to relentlessly rant about how life changes as time goes on. In his own best interest, he should keep this blog privatized so that the world cannot see how ignorant he is. When I picture Rick Perlstein, I see a tie dye shirt, thick wool socks under Birkenstocks, and a sweatband holding back his hair. If I could guess where he lives, I'd say it's the state of delusion. In his argument about college, Perlstein states that college nowadays does disjustice to students. Why? His answer is simple: college is not what it was back when he attended.

(out of time...)

Reflection 1.1

Overall, I am thrilled with my first draft. I'm confident in my language, use of literary terms, and my examples. I made the paper my own by including personal feelings, and writing with a tone that accurately reflects my analysis of the article. For my second draft I plan to cite the text more often when I use examples from Weintraut's piece. After careful review, I also realized that some of my examples and personal feelings did not appropriately fit where I placed them in the text, and if I cannot find a proper place for them they will have to be cut for the final draft.

My outlook on the assignment is very positive, and I have no convictions about making the necessary changes to make my paper even better the second time around.

Essay 1.1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: Flirting with Gun Control in America

Americans pride ourselves on our revolutionary spirit, tireless pursuit to maintain justice, and above all else, a militant history. We have always been defined by our eagerness to uphold our freedom and defend our rights at the highest price one can possibly pay. If ever our way of life was threatened by malevolent outsiders, we are prepared to respond accordingly, most often with a brigade of armed soldiers. Oftentimes, we are fighting to retain our basic human rights that grant us the freedom to make decisions for ourselves, and, when necessary, defend ourselves. These freedoms are provided to every citizen in the form of Amendments, thanks to the discretion of our founding fathers almost 235 years ago. Throughout history we have seen several Amendments added to the Constitution, and others removed completely, but rarely are they revisited and revised to keep pace with modern times.

Megan Weintraut, a senior at Ithaca College, argues that America's way of life has changed dramatically since the establishment of the Bill of Rights. More specifically, the Second Amendment, which grants Americans the right to bear arms. She argues that this right is no longer a necessity, as it was when the Bill of Rights was first drafted in the late 1700’s. Many argue that the right to bear arms is the most dangerous rights granted to American citizens, and it has proven to be more threatening to our nation than our forefathers ever imagined it could be. This claim importunes our Government to make a ruling that minimizes access to firearms, therefore making our nation a safer place to live.

Unfortunately, many people have become desensitized to the debate over gun control due to its unremitting encore appearance in almost every major newspaper, evening report, and Miss America Competition. The arguments have been stated, the defendants have spoken, and the issue of strict gun control regulations remains ambivalent. So what has changed? Why should anyone take note of Weintraut’s argument here and now? In her article to The Ithacan, Ithaca College’s student newspaper, Weintraut undertakes a difficult task in arguing for stricter gun control laws in the United States. Without a compelling argument and a proper occasion, the failure of her rhetoric would be imminent. Her success in creating an effective argument is generated from careful planning, based on her reasons and evidence, the audience she wishes to reach, her use of rhetorical appeals, and finally, an appropriate alternative to the current problem.

First, the author successfully provides her readers with excellent background information regarding her occasion for writing this article. She begins by discussing the origin and intent of the Second Amendment, including their vital purpose in protecting our fragile nation shortly after we won our independence. This information is provided to build up to Weintraut’s purpose: times have changed, and the individual right to bear arms is no longer vital to our lifestyle or our national security.  With a solid foundation of facts mortared together with indisputable historical data, Weintraut has built the perfect launching pad for the remainder of her argument. It is difficult for anyone to dispute an argument that is largely based on facts that everyone has learned during their childhood school years. The need for personal firearms was apparent during a time when Americans had to hunt and kill their food for sustenance, or ward off vengeful British soldiers. In comparison, it would be comical to picture a modern American lurking around the Mercedes in his driveway, attempting to hunt for this week's dinner.

Another positive aspect of providing the reader with several facts is that Weintraut instantly builds credibility. She appears well-versed and educated in her dissertation by using evidence to support her claims. To do this effectively, she uses many facts from several prevalent sources that reinforce the argument she is trying to make. For example, her statistics regarding the percentage of firearm owners in the United States are provided by The American Journal of Health. In addition, the National Institute of Justice reports chilling facts that quantify the prevalence of guns involved in the majority of our country’s homicides. Without data and other examples to support her claims, no reader could fully understand the gravity of her argument.

In addition, her rhetorical appeals are explored full-circle when she utilizes pathos by referencing national tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre, the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, and the most recent disaster in Arizona. She explores current events involving gun use that brought our Second Amendment front and center on the stage of morality. Nobody can reasonably argue against something, unless there is a propagating event that calls for major adjustments to be made. By referencing current events across the nation that everyone feels affected by, Weintraut reaches into the soul of every American who sympathizes with the innocent victims and persuades them to demand changes to our way of life. While it would be more effective to be proactive in preventing devastating events such as school shootings, our society is extremely reactive when dealing with these issues, therefore we require a spark to propagate changes in our country's normal method of operation.

Finally, no disparate opinion can be complete without a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal to improve the problem at hand. Careful research of a topic provides further insight into the root of a problem, which sheds light on a feasible solution to correct it. For this article, Weintraut highlights bullets as the real murderers in this situation, stating that guns are not the items that physically kill others. Unlike many of the gun control pioneers that came before her, she does not suggest that guns are to be limited or completely outlawed. In her article she states, "Perhaps Americans should be allowed to bear all the arms they desire, but they should do without the ammunition." This is a revolutionary proposal that has been seldom suggested, and yet it makes more sense than outlawing firearms completely, a solution that has little to no chance of success.

Overall, Weintraut does a phenomenal job of supporting her claims on the sensitive topic of gun control in America. She produces new arguments, solid facts, and feasible compromises to solve the growing problems caused by the Second Amendment in the United States. She connects to her audience emotionally and mentally, winning their trust early on in her argument. The success of her article was only probable if she had the ability to appeal to an already hostile audience, and she completed that difficult task with precision and accuracy, developing an effective argument that commands attention from all who read it.

Prewriting Essay 1

Americans pride ourselves on our revolutionary spirit, tireless quest to maintain justice, and above all else, a militant history. We have always been defined by our eagerness to sustain our freedom and defend our rights at the highest price one can possibly pay.

Throughout history we have seen several Amendments added to the Constitution, and othrers removed completely, but rarely are they revisited and revised to keep pace with modern times.

Megan Weintraut, a student at Ithaca College, argues that America's way of life has changed dramatically since the (instituition) of the Second Amendment which grants Americans the right to bear arms. She argues that this right must be _______ due to the (harm) it has caused our country.

Rhetorical Analysis Quiz

Textual analysis is a thorough investigation of what lies within the text itself. Using information supplied to you through language, voice, style, structure, and rhetorical appeals, one can discover who the author is attempting to reach, and what he or she uses within the text to reach that audience.

In comparison, contextual analysis provides background information to the reader that is not directly within the text being analyzed. This often provokes more research into the who, what, when where, why of the passage. It places an argument within a larger conversation.