07 TUE FEB 07

Class 07 TUE FEB 07

Riddle: Transporter 3

What’s wrong with the buoyancy solution?

Counterintuitive Questions

Can we Democratize Water? Will we be Allowed to?

Update: Government intervention in collecting rainwater?
Color-coded map to rainwater collection restrictions
A book about Water privatization: Water Wars by Vandana Shiva
PBS Documentary California’s Latest Water War
Book: Manual for Water Harvesting

The Failed Ransom Note

What can a ransom note teach us about making bold, clear, persuasive claims?

Click to launch the full Ransom Note Illustration

Let’s Argue

Click here to launch the “Panhandler Argument

In-Text Citation Workshop

Link to a breakdown of some common punctuation and grammar errors, PLUS, an invitation to correct yours before you receive feedback.

Hypothesis Illustrated:
Self-Directed Lecture (with Task)

  • Brief Introduction
  • USAID tested the theory that direct aid to the poor would improve childhood nutrition more than trying to engineer nutrition programs for them, on the theory that the poor know what to do; they simply lack the resources.

Hypothesis Hint

101 Responses to 07 TUE FEB 07

  1. tmjj4345 says:

    – Riddle shows a clip from “Transporter 3”
    – The riddle is that no more air is put in the tire, so why would less air from two tires take the car out of the water because you aren’t getting any more air then what’s already in the tires to begin with
    – Discussion revolved around the question “can we democratize water?”
    – People won’t be made that they aren’t allowed to collect their own rain water until they’re not allowed to
    – Relation between “owning” or “claiming” property and following government rules
    – You can do what you want because you own the land, but also need to follow the government’s demand that you can’t catch rain water?
    – Can you only collect your own rainwater if it’s from the rain landing on your property?
    – Colorado is one of the most restrictive states regarding harvesting rainwater
    – The failed ransom note has no clear premise, follows no logic, lacks details, and doesn’t communicate consequences (would make a horrible argument)


    • davidbdale says:

      Very thorough and (along with your panhandler comments elsewhere) thoughtful daily Notes, tmjj.


      • jasrielle2 says:

        07 Feb Comp Notes
        We began class with the quote “ there are two rules in life. 1 never give out all the information” by Richard Feynman.
        We used a ransom note as an example of what making bold persuasive statements could do. It gets the point across as well as gives a clear understanding of the side the writer is on and gets their statement to be a strong persuasive one.
        We then spoke about arguments, the panhandler argument was used on this topic. We were asked if we participated in giving panhandlers money. And asked which type if there is any, every detail was added into the decision of the question/argument.


  2. gobirds115 says:

    Class Notes 2/7:

    – “There are 2 rules in life: 1) Never give out all the information.” -Richard Feynman; Very cool quote, one of my favorites I’ve heard in class so far.

    – Transporter 3: What’s wrong with the buoyancy solution? He used air from 2 tires to lift the car out of the water when the car originally had air in all 4 tires and was sinking like that.

    -Counterintuitive Questions: Government intervention in collecting rainwater? 23 states don’t have restrictions on collecting rainwater, 16 States offer incentives for collecting it, and 11 states have restrictions.; The class discussion on collecting rainwater was quite interesting, some states have bizarre restrictions. A good point was made on how we claim we own land but in some places we can’t even claim the rain water.

    -The Failed Ransom Note: The ransom note is horrible. I has no path and the details don’t build up any sort of threat; The second version of the note makes clear claims and gives clear instructions for what’s going to happen if she does not follow through.

    -Panhandlers: A good portion of class was spent discussing the ethics of panhandlers and methods on how we deal with panhandlers. Quite the interesting conversation and led to a lot of different perspectives coming out, very useful and informative.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. doglover846 says:

    – Transformer 3: What’s wrong with the buoyancy? Taking the air out of the tires and filling up big bags with that air won’t work because the car would’ve already have been rising back to the top.
    – A bad ransom note: no clear premise, no logic, very little details and not very clear and fail to follow instructions
    – Second ransom: straight to the point, giving clear instructions and helpful directions, while also giving bold claims.
    – We talked about “Panhandler Argument” and what would do, what you wish you could do and what you know you should do.
    – Giving food to panhandlers is better than giving money because you don’t know what they would do with the money.
    – “Do you know if the sign that the panhandler is true” coincides with, is the site credible or not?
    – Update My Hypothesis Conference meeting
    – Check “Hypothesis Feedback”


  4. Shazammm says:

    Riddle: “There are two rules in life: 1. Never give out all the information.” This quote is from Richard Feynman. Richard Feynman is a Nobel-Prize winning Physicist. Q: Why did he say there are two rules in life when he only gave us one?

    Transporter 3: There is a problem with the buoyancy solution. Main character in film figures out how to breathe underwater by using a bag he had in the back of his car. BIG PROBLEM: The car’s tires are already full of air, making the car heavy. So it would be impossible for the car to float up even with air bags.

    My best guess on how the riddle connects with Transporter 3 is that giving out all the information, such as the realistic facts about a car being submerged in water, may spoil/destroy things for us. If the professor did not tell us the truth about the drowning car, we would not think anything wrong about the movie. Now that we know the truth, however, our perception of the film is tainted.

    Can we democratize water?: It depends on the state you live in. Some states place restrictions on water, others do not. Some rules are absolutely ridiculous. We have the right to own land, but we cannot own our own water {which literally falls from the sky and onto our land involuntarily}.

    The failed ransom note: What can a ransom note teach us about making bold, clear, persuasive claims? A ransom note is supposed to make a clear, straight-to-the-point claim about something. It is supposed to strike fear into the receiver’s heart. If a ransom note is poorly written {confusing, wordy, has no logic whatsoever}, its message does not come across well. These examples can be applied to our papers: we must write clearly and straight-to-the-point so we can deliver our message successfully. Do not beat around the bush, per say.

    Panhandlers discussion: You have no idea what a panhandler’s intensions are. Most people in class do not give money to panhandlers because of this reason. This discussion was basically an exercise to help us write clearly/straight to the point. The discussions we have everyday are meant to prepare us for our papers.

    Stone Money: There is a one-hour you must watch on Thursday.

    You can look at the hypothesis feedback page.


    • davidbdale says:

      Fascinating Notes, Shazammmmmm. 🙂
      I certainly did intend to ruin the movie scene by pointing out the problem, but it never occurred to me that the lesson might apply to composition writing in OTHER ways. Congratulations on taking the Riddle seriously.


  5. sunflower0311 says:

    Agenda Notes:
    – Riddle: The car was sinking with the air in the tires originally, switching the air out of your tires into a bag would not cause the car to float to the surface.
    – In certain states collection of rainwater is restricted.
    – The first ransom note was a very bad one because they do not give any instructions or talk about any consequences. It did not have a clear argument.
    – The second ransom note told her straight up that they have her husband and boldly say exactly what needs to be done and what will happen if it does not happen.
    – If you ever lose the blog, you can go back to canvas and fin the link under the first announcement
    – Take a look at hypothesis feedback.


  6. miliwawa says:

    -“There are two rules in life: Never give out all the information:” by Richard Feynman
    I’ve been reading a book, and one of the rules is not to say too much, so I really enjoyed seeing this quote in class.
    -Riddle Transporter 3, there was air already in the tires when the car sunk, so it shouldn’t make it float by releasing the air into a balloon when it wasn’t enough in the first place.
    -We discussed regulations on collecting rainwater and how ridiculous it is that for you to collect rainwater, it must fall on your roof and touch your property first before collecting
    -Failed Ransom note: it has no logic, is short on details and has no instructions. It also doesn’t say that police involvement will have a negative or positive outcome. The second one has more of a persuasive argument; it has instructions and clear premise


  7. g00dsoup says:

    “There are two rules in life:
    1) Never give out all the information.” -Richard Feynman
    What can a ransom note teach us about making bold, clear, persuasive claims?

    Counterintuitive Question: Can we democratize water?
    That all depends on where you live. Some states place restrictions on water while others don’t.

    Ransom notes: They can be a successful argument or a failed argument (it doesn’t make good, clear claims).
    A proper ransom note is supposed to make a clear point towards what you want. If I were to tell someone I kidnapped their pet fish, I would tell them “I want two million dollars in cash put into locker 100 at the abandoned high school. You have two days to fulfill this task or your fish will be thrown into the ocean…never to be seen again.” (I could be a little more ominous in this… but the point has been made)
    An improper ransom note has no premise. What are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to be threatening? The overall message does not get delivered well. We can use this example when writing papers of our own.

    Panhandlers: What are a panhandler’s intentions? Most people don’t give panhandlers money simply because they don’t know if they’d use it to buy food or clothing, or to use it for bad intentions. Are the signs panhandlers hold true? Is a single mother really struggling? Is a person really homeless? Or are they just trying to obtain money?


  8. chickennugget246 says:

    What is wrong with the buoyancy solution? – The car in the movie is sinking in water and the 4 tires are already filled up with air which would make it sink more, so there is no way that only two bags of air could work to bring the car up to the surface.
    Non-potable means non-drinkable.
    Can we democratize water? – it depends where you live.
    There were laws in Colorado saying people cannot collect rainwater. Eventually, there was a law that was passed stating that people could collect rainwater from a catchment system on their rooftop into two rain barrels. But, the collected rain must only be used on the property where it is collected and may only be used for outdoor purposes.
    What can a ransom note teach us about making bold, clear persuasive claims? – it is either a good first draft or a bad first draft of an argument.
    To write a good ransom note, you need a good argument. We have to have a bold, clear thesis, step by step poof, and specific details to emphasize our reasoning.
    The first ransom note that was shown in class was a bad note and had a horrible argument. It had no clear premise and was not logical and did not have many details within it.
    A ransom note should have bold, clear claims and be a persuasive argument.
    The second ransom note that was shown was way better since it had a clear thesis and was full of specific details and claims.
    Panhandlers: we do not always know what their intentions are based on the signs they hold up or the people they are with.
    When I walk by panhandlers, I try to just keep to myself and avoid eye contact because in the world we live in we cannot always trust people and we do not know their intentions behind certain things. I wish I could stop and give money or food to the panhandlers if I knew that they were really in need and struggling everyday to survive. I know that I should acknowledge panhandlers and give to them when I see or walk past them.


  9. rowanstudent6 says:

    -Do not eat questionable shrimp or you will get food poisoning
    -The morning quote tells us to reveal the information that is necessary
    -The issue with the buoyancy of the Transporter scene is that the car would not float in that circumstance. That balloon would not be able to lift the car and keep it afloat.
    -The ransom assignments displays the importance of keeping writing short and concise
    -The in-text citation workshop provides me with a resource to help to proofread my work


  10. inspireangels says:

    Riddle: If the air in the of a car with 4 tires couldn’t float the car on its own, there’s no way two huge airbags will that filled with the same amount of air from the air tires could lift and float the car to the surface.

    Counterintuitive Questions: Collecting rainwater is restricted in some areas such as Colorado. It’s illegal to collect rainwater. That’s crazy to me. Water can’t be owned yet in some parts of the world there are restrictions on what you can and can’t collect in terms of water.

    The Failed Ransom Note: What can a ransom note teach us about making bold, clear, persuasive claims? The ransom note has no clear premise, and no logic and the details don’t clearly explain the consequences if the directions aren’t followed. Another example of a ransom note was given to us which had a more clear and more direct message of the directions. Furthermore, have a clear thesis and specific details that don’t lose the reader along the way of your essay.

    Panhandler Argument: Would you give money to homeless people if you saw them passing by? If so, which ones? Why them and not the others? Whether we give food or money to anyone homeless, depending on the situation they are in varies whether or not we give money or not to that person. However, how do we as individuals know if they are being truthful or if they’re just deceiving us and have other motives for asking for money? It depends on everyone’s ethical values.


  11. fatjoe000 says:

    -A good argument has:
    ~ a bold, clear premise
    ~Has logical proof
    ~Specific details to illustrate the reasoning
    -The first ransom note was bad because it lacked details, had no logic and failed to say what consequences there would be
    -The second ransom note was good and better because it was very clear on the premise, it didn’t shy away from the claims and it made its purpose known
    -Double quotes are always used unless they’re inside another set of double quotes, then single quotes are used
    -Periods and commas always always always always go inside of quotation marks
    -Can Democratize water? It just depends on where you live


  12. sinatraman17 says:

    Panhandler argument-
    What I actually do: Pretend I do not see or hear panhandlers.
    What I wish I could do: Give to panhandlers if they keep their distance
    What I know I should do: Have brief conversations with panhandlers
    -As a person who frequents cities for work, Panhandlers are a fact of urban life that many train themselves to ignore. The fact is, you can never truly know the intentions of these people, and regardless of how cynical and “Scrooge-like” it may sound, there are resources these people could pursue from the City. Irrevlaent to that though is the fact that a pleasant conversation costs nothing, and to brighten someone’s life through attitude could even do more good than a couple of quarters from your back pocket.

    Can we democratize water:
    It seems counterintuitive that any government should place restrictions on private landowners’ rainwater privileges. This seems to be a direct violation of our rights as citizens in the free United States. The inevitable countertintuitivity is that in order to save our planet from a water crisis, we would need to give up many valued freedoms we have. Conserve Freedom or Conserve Water?


  13. clevelandbrown03 says:

    Riddle: the car should have never been able to float because the air pressure in the tire never changed so when he filled the bag with the same amount of air the car floated back to the top and it shouldn’t have.

    The Government doesn’t allow people to drink rainwater.

    Good arguments are clear and direct, they have proof and can explain their reasoning

    The first ransom note was not good because it was not clear had errors and was not direct about what they wanted.

    The second ransom note was clear and direct and seemed more assertive in their request.


  14. jasrielle2 says:

    07 Feb Comp Notes
    We began class with the quote “ there are two rules in life. 1 never give out all the information” by Richard Feynman.
    We used a ransom note as an example of what making bold persuasive statements could do. It gets the point across as well as gives a clear understanding of the side the writer is on and gets their statement to be a strong persuasive one.
    We then spoke about arguments; the panhandler argument was used on this topic. We were asked if we participated in giving panhandlers money. And asked which type if there is any, every detail was added into the decision of the question/argument.


  15. music0392 says:

    In today’s class we started off with a riddle/problem about a scene in Transporter 3 where the main character used the air in the tires to fill bags while underwater so he could breathe, and the bags would make the car float. We figured this wouldn’t work because the air was already in the tires so bags wouldn’t make the car float more than it already does. Next we discussed the question about whether or not water should be democratized, specifically collecting rainwater. We discussed about how the owner of the land determines who can collect rainwater on that land in certain states, which is weird and interesting to think about it. Next we read two different versions of a ransom note, the first being vague claims, and the second being bold claims.

    The first ransom note makes very vague claims and doesn’t communicate and argument or point, similar to how a vague claim in a paper about a certain topic wouldn’t argue anything. The second ransom note makes bold, clear claims though, and makes the argument known and exactly what you’re saying. The second one is the one to follow for a paper, as it communicates your point or argument clearly and keeps readers interested.
    Next we discussed an argument about panhandlers, and whether it not to give them money. The question “should we give to panhandlers?” is too broad of a question and needs more specificity. We looked at different signs made by panhandlers to see which one is most persuasive to get people to give them money. We looked at a number of different arguments or claims about which panhandlers to give to, which goes along with making a bolder specific claim rather than mentioning a broad topic with no clear point.

    When it comes to panhandlers, I would spare a $1 or so as it is easiest to do. I wish that I could know who are scamming and who genuinely needs help and money. I should buy a meal for panhandlers as it would guarantee that they wouldn’t use the money for drugs, or I should give even just a little bit, such as $1 just to know it’s helping or making a difference.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s