Argument and Rhetoric are inseparable
Despite my pretense that they can be graded as separate categories, Argument and Rhetoric are as inseparable as fist and fingers. Just as I can’t describe a fist without speaking of tightly curled fingers, I can’t describe Rhetoric without explaining how it persuades readers to accept an argument. Even so, I try to grade the fingers and the fist.
The Style Aspect of Rhetoric
Example 1
Uncorrected Drafts suffer from imprecise language that inhibits interpretation.
[When read aloud, the following paragraph sounds like mostly comprehensible conversational speech, but viewed on paper, it is peppered with grammar trouble and peculiar phrasing that make comprehension very difficult.]
The NPR broadcast was very interesting and what surprised me is how the claims were accurately correct in my opinion. I would have never thought of how money can change so drastically in time. In the past, we were exposed to using gold as a currency, then to paper bills and now an electronic transaction. In today’s world, society does claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, but at the same time we already progressed, using digital cash. A prime example, paying bills, in which society pays bills using a computer and that consist only information it’s seems surprising to know now how easily any amount of a transaction can be paid off or transferred. There is no physical money being involved. The closest idea that I can think of using paper would be is sending checks through the mail, but that’s highly rare nowadays.
[The highlights indicate every phrase that needs to be corrected. Red and purple are not particularly significant, but two colors are needed to call out individual phrases.]
Corrected Drafts make clearer statements that are easier to interpret.
The NPR broadcast was very interesting, and what surprised me was that the claims were correct in my opinion. I never realized that money had changed so drastically over time. In the past, we used gold as a currency, then paper bills, and now electronic transactions. Today, although we claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, we have already progressed to digital cash. We pay our bills by computer; those transactions consist of information only. At any time, all or part of a bill can be paid off or transferred without any money being involved. The only way we use paper now is to send checks through the mail, but that’s highly rare nowadays.
Rhetorically Effective Drafts persuade readers to accept a premise.
The NPR broadcast told the story of money correctly. I was surprised to learn that money had changed so drastically over time. In the past, we used gold as a currency, then paper bills, and now electronic transactions, each time using a more abstract version of barter. Today, although we claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, we have mostly eliminated those last physical objects in favor or digital cash. We pay our bills by computer using information only, nothing physical. At any time, all or part of a bill can be paid off or transferred without any paper or metal currency at all. The only way we use paper now is to send checks through the mail, but that’s increasingly rare.
Rhetorically Effective Arguments prove more complex theses.
The NPR broadcast told the story of money correctly. It illustrated that money, already an abstraction, has grown increasingly more abstract, as have our lives in general. Before money, we traded cows for corn, but transactions were limited to what one trader had that another trader wanted. With the advent of gold as a currency, trade flourished because the gold could represent cows or corn or any other valuable commodity. It was an abstraction, a symbol of needs fulfilled. Next paper bills, with no inherent value, represented gold. Now electronic entries in a bank branch database represent dollars, each step more abstract than the previous. Today, we don’t trade, use gold, or for the most part use currency: we pay our bills by computer using information only, nothing physical at all. Like the work we do (which increasingly is not physical labor but mental exertion) it’s no coincidence that our cows are also now abstractions. The closest we get to the animal is the shrink-wrapped meat ground and extruded so that it no longer looks like anything that lived.
Example 2
Uncorrected Drafts suffer from imprecise language that inhibits interpretation.
Money, money, money. The extremely complex and arguably fictional foundation of our economy. I always wondered growing up how did a piece of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images become the social fabric of our world? When you put a U.S dollar bill side by side to monopoly money you understand that one is worth something and the other isn’t. Although, monopoly money like “real” money is simply paper from our trees. Therefore, we must question, why is money valuable? Pre Colonial era we traded among each other valuables in which each person needed. We valued precious and rare metals or jewels such as diamond, gold and silver. We valued goods as currency and only cared about items which every colony needed. If a man had a pig but needed a cow he would search for that person that needed a pig and had a cow. This exchange of goods made perfect sense and never involved a paper bill and a complex system of valuing that bill. Money in its self has no real value to it, it isn’t rare and its not pretty. We the people make money valuable, we make the value “real”, but should we?
Corrected Drafts make clearer statements that are easier to interpret.
Money, money, money: it’s the extremely complex and arguably fictional foundation of our economy. I always wondered growing up how a piece of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images became the social fabric of our world. Even a child who puts a U.S dollar bill side by side to Monopoly money can understand that one is worth something and the other isn’t, even though “real” money—like Monopoly money—is simply paper from our trees. Is it because one is issued by the US government and the other by the Parker Brothers Company that makes one of them valuable? In pre-colonial times, we traded among each other valuables which every person needed. We valued precious and rare metals or jewels such as diamonds, gold, and silver. We valued goods as currency and only cared about items which every colonist needed. If a man had a pig but needed a cow, he would search for the person who needed a pig and had a cow. This exchange of goods made perfect sense and never involved a paper bill or a complex system of valuing that bill. Money in itself has no real value to it; it isn’t rare, and it’s not pretty. We the people make money valuable. We make the value “real”; but should we?
Rhetorically Effective Drafts persuade readers to accept a premise.
Despite its importance to all our lives, we have to admit money is a fiction. Children are right to wonder how pieces of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images run our world. They know but can’t grasp why one dollar bill can be traded for candy at the corner store while the other is worth nothing, except in Monopoly. What they do understand is that the houses in Monopoly aren’t real, but the money doesn’t seem so different from the bills we use for groceries.
In our early history, we traded valuable things directly. If a man had a pig but needed a cow, he would search for the person who had a cow and needed a pig. This exchange of goods made perfect sense but was clumsy and sometimes impossible to manage. Substituting precious and rare metals or jewels for cows and pigs, we were able to trade with everyone, whether they had cows or not. Money in itself has no real value to it, but we agree to make it valuable for convenience. While it no longer represents gold, the money we use today has value only because it is issued by the US government and not the Parker Brothers Corporation.
The Argument Value of Rhetoric
Rhetoric Can Reveal or Hide Arguments
The fact that there is a giant ball of limestone sitting in the middle of the ocean somewhere still being claimed by someone who is deceased is unsettling to me. That is like me having 500 dollars and throwing it in the ocean. When the money washes up onto shore and someone picks it up, it would now be theirs. Nobody can just go pick up the giant ball of limestone and claim it.
This paragraph may contain a valid argument, but the language obscures it. The analogy misses the point of the story of the sunken fei. Nobody will ever retrieve that “money,” but its physical presence or absence is of no longer of consequence to its owner.
Let’s try a different analogy for the limestone disc at the bottom of the ocean. Donald Trump has created a value for his name. Unlike banks that pay huge naming fees to have NFL stadiums named for them, Trump can get developers to pay him millions to attach his name to a project. His name is not an object like the sunken fei. Its insubstantiality doesn’t matter at all. And neither could anybody steal it and be richer. If he’s a billionaire, it’s because he can sell his name for a billion dollars whenever he wants to.
Brevity and Clarity
Don’t Give Readers Time to Disagree
A first draft may contain many capable sentences that make reasonable individual points, but if they don’t transition well from one idea to the next, and if the goal of the argument is not identified in advance, readers are free to follow any path that distracts them and never arrive at the summit you want to guide them to.
- The value of money is the mental reassurance of wealth.
- One might question what mental reassurance of wealth has to do with money.
- Simply it is the way we track value.
- We are reassured that the money we have can purchase a curtain amount of things.
- We place a value on money to keep track of things it can purchase.
- The psychological or economic value of money may change with currency variations, but the money will always be worth something.
- Over time, America’s relationship with the value of the dollar has evolved.
- In the early 20th century, it granted a request from the French to convert their dollar assets into gold.
- Granting that request gave the impression that the US dollar was weak.
- The French believed that their money was worth more than the U.S. dollar.
- The French wanted something they thought was worth having, so they asked for gold.
- Even though the gold was worth no more than the equivalent value in US dollars, the French were not convinced that the dollars were “worth their weight in gold.”
First, combine the sentences for better effectiveness.
[1-6] Money reassures us of our economic wealth. While the volume of goods and services it can buy will change from time to time, knowing that we have enough to meet our needs is reassuring.
Then, provide the needed transition between the sections.
But even money can vary in value compared to other currencies.
Then, combine the conclusion sentences.
[7-12] When the French began to doubt the stability of the value of American dollars, they demanded the US convert their dollar holdings into gold.
Most of your individual claims can be made in a word or two so that the sentences provide their own internal transitions.
Sufficient Scholarship
Example 1
Over-reliance on Personal Perspective
So what makes these pieces of paper we call dollars have value? well because people in society decided to make it have value. This method of currency was created to make the trade of goods easier and faster to manage. After reading “The Island Of Stone Money” one can notice that the inhabitants of Uap had a similar system to the one we use today. Today technology has advanced so much that we can now digitally manage, distribute and hold our money through mobile apps and online websites. whether one prefers using credit cards, Pay Pal or bank apps a physical dollar is a place holder for that digital number on any of those digital outlets. Now comparing Uap’s method to our current method the people of Uap used the stones as their physical placeholder to replace their word. Essentially creating a word for product system. Whilst currently people are using a pixel for product system.
Rhetoric and Scholarship are inseparable in your case, MyStudent. You’re trying to thrive on observation and speculation alone, without bringing any evidence or support from the rich material at your disposal. You cite only the Yap, and you do so in a way that assumes your readers are all familiar with Milton Friedman’s article. They’re not. They haven’t listened to the NPR podcast. They have no idea what you’re talking about. They know only what you tell them. So tell them what you learned and help them understand.
Rhetoric Task
In the Reply field below, cut and paste one of your own paragraphs we can use for a future Rhetoric Workshop.
Workshop Exercise TUE APR 04
As you read the following paragraph, ask the important questions about Rhetoric.
Answer the Questions in the Reply field below.
- Does the paragraph use precise language to emphasize its ideas?
- Does it make clear claims?
- Does the paragraph ask readers to accept a specific premise?
- Does the paragraph reveal (or does it hide) its arguments?
- Does the paragraph present a complex thesis?
- Does the paragraph employ its Scholarship effectively?
- Does the paragraph give readers time to disagree?
Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased. There many effects and consequences, however. The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time. In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach. The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence. There are many negative consequences to this however. These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.” It is almost unfair. They are working illegally to get their money. Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.
Let’s Break it Down
Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased.
We don’t use Second Person language in academic writing, so we’ll have to scrub the “your” from this sentence. It doesn’t indicate how money laundering works except to increase funds, but that’s not accurate. Money laundering hides the origin of illegally-obtained money before it’s used for legitimate purposes, so it doesn’t “increase funds”; it just makes them more useful.
There many effects and consequences, however.
Any sentence, however brief, that doesn’t advance the argument, should be eliminated. This one is completely contained in the one that follows, which identifies “the biggest consequence,” a claim that includes the idea that there are many consequences.
The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time.
We’re three sentences in, so this will probably be the focus of the paragraph: the threat of jail time for money laundering.
In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.”
But apparently, the scholarship cited will be used to prove something else: the global costs of laundering, not the threat to the individual launderer.
When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach.
So instead of making a point about the costs to the launderer, we’re asked to consider that the launderer makes out well.
The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence.
Again, we’re offered the image of the arrogant money launderer who apparently cannot be caught and who scoffs at authority.
There are many negative consequences to this however.
We’re wasting another sentence.
These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.”
Since we’re uncertain what money laundering is, how and why it works, it’s hard for us to see how laundering results in any of these consequences. The sentence appears to prove NOT THAT MONEY LAUNDERING results in more crime, but that the LACK OF PROSECUTION for crime in general results in smug disregard for the supposed risks of breaking the law.
It is almost unfair.
Almost?
They are working illegally to get their money.
Unclear here is whether the author means drug dealers, embezzlers, or money launderers. They’re all illegal, but this paragraph was about the consequences of money laundering, not all money crimes.
Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.
Again, we’re not sure whether the laundering is the crime, or whether it facilitates the commission of other money crimes.
Let’s Build it Back
First, let’s establish the function and value of money laundering.
Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail.
Next, we make the claim that money laundering is an effective way to evade detection and prosecution.
By operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts.
After readers know the game, the scholarship makes more sense.
According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.”
But, aren’t the criminals worried they’ll get caught? Apparently not. We need to make that clear to our readers.
As Layton and Curran make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.”
The “larger social aspect” of despair among legitimate businesses isn’t a direct result of money laundering. It’s a reaction to the sense among law-abiding business people that they’re being chumps who could profit more if they didn’t follow the rules.
It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.
Revised
Follow the causal claims in bold.
Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail. Instead, by operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts. According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” As the authors make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.” It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.
Dev
Joe Gramigna
adamreim
alexmoran17
alivewit55
americangods01
anonymous123
Anonymous
azntaco
belldere
bigcounrty609
bigfoot9
bj112295
blueee04
breadpatrol99
brxttyb
calamariii
cfalover
charlieclover
cherries267
chickendinner
chickennugget246
chickennugget444
clevelandbrown03
cocochanel715
comatosefox
crossanlogan
cswilliams15
dancingueen
disneylover2002
doglover846
dontquoteme187
douglasadams525
dt2018
faded26
fatjoe000
friendoftacos
frogs02
fromcasablanca
fulcrum66
g00dsoup
giants19
gingerbreadman27
girlno3
gobirds115
goodmusician440
gracchusbabeuf
hiralp365
ifurreadingthisits2l8
ilovedunkinoverstarbucks
ilovenas
imaspookyghost
inspireangels
JalenHurts4Mvp
jasrielle2
jcirrs
jonnyb25
eagles21
kilotoon
kingofcamp
krackintheneck
Philip Ebenezer
Lily4Pres
littlecow24
ljkvng34
lokiofasgard24
luckyleprechaun1
marinebio18
mellowtacos
miliwawa
minutemen14
mossmacabre
music0392
mymomshouldhavenamedmegrace
ndb1996
neferpitou626
nugget114
oatmealvibes
ohearnj8
palal24
peachesxo
philsfan1133
pinkheart84
pinkmonkey32
pitandthependulum22
queenrandom04
RowanAnnouncer
Rowan27
rowanluver29
rowanstudent6
saltysurfer322
saycheese03
Senpai Pio
sixfortyfive645
sortableelms
spaghettitacosforthesoul
strawberryfields4
suedejackson
sunflower0311
sunshinegirl457
tarheel1999
teddysdoggydaddy
thatwonguyy
themildewmuncher7
Public Display Name
thirdlady226
tlap23
tmjj4345
toastedflatbread22
tpaz1
tristanb50
twofoursixohtwo
tyblicky2001
venom2929
vicarij0
wakeup5am
Water
wildcuttlefish
wizzard201
xchuki
Lunaduna
zeek
ziggy026
zinny11
zipemup1
zoeyzoey0210
zzbrd2822
Counterintuitive Spring 2023 
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
To give a simple answer to complicated questions: they made more money. They as in the Federal Reserve. In the NPR podcast, “The Invention of Money” I learned that the federal reserve is not apart of the government. It’s just a company that controls the wealth and well-being of the country. I find a company being the saving grace from a national recession, dystopian. Despite them not folding to Nixon’s wants because they, “do what’s best for the political economy.” Their main goal within their solution was to not lose the societal value of a dollar. Before changing the rules of how they operated pre- 2008 recession the value of a dollar was decided by a group of people behind closed doors. If money is a made concept how indoctrinated is all of America to accept whatever they say.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
Beyond the creative aspect, Animal Crossing: New Horizons also offers a sense of community. The game allows players to visit other players’ islands, trade items, and interact with each other’s villagers. This social aspect has been particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic, as players are able to connect with others and form friendships in a safe and virtual environment. The one thing we craved the most during the lockdown was social interaction, and this video game – a video game! – gave us the chance to have the feeling of being with friends all over the world. Birthdays, graduations, proms, and even weddings were celebrated within the world of Animal Crossing.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
Similarly, the internet is creating an obsessive and reliable place for teens to distract themselves with. Twenge actually started doing interviews with teenagers to see how deep this theory really was. Come to find out, most teens “checked social media right before they went to sleep, and reached for their phone as soon as they woke up in the morning” (Twenge, 2017). This clearly means that teens are limiting their sleep and using their smartphones as an obsessive comfort source by constantly checking their media and scrolling through multiple apps and platforms. When a person is keeping their phone next to them or on them while they sleep, it may cause lack of sleep because this is a constant distraction. According to Twenge, “Nearly all slept with their phone, putting it under their pillow, on the mattress, or at the very least within arm’s reach of the bed” (Twenge, 2017). Twenge believes the teens that were interviewed are obsessed with their phones and that those who sleep with it after using it see it as a sort of “comfort”. Initially this will cause bad habits and insomnia to people who continue to overuse their phone at night.
LikeLike
ANSWERS TO THE 7 QUESTIONS:
1. The language is not bad in this paragraph however there are some points where the language makes the argument somewhat confusing.
2. It makes a clear claim at the beginning where it says people money launder because it’s an efficient way to increase your funds.
3.I think it wants you to accept that while money laundering is not fair people will continue to do it until they get caught.
4. I think it hides its argument because I am kind of confused on whether the author is saying that money laundering is an efficient way to make money or if money laundering is just bad.
5. I do not think it has a complex thesis because I am not sure what their thesis is.
6. I think the evidence chosen in this paragraph does not ultimately help the argument and does not really prove anything.
7. I don’t think the paragraph gives people time to disagree.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
Physical activity is not easy for all kids especially in a group setting such as physical education. Many children experience anxiety or low self-esteem because they constantly compare themselves to the more athletic kids. These feelings are especially apparent when playing games such as soccer or baseball where some of the kids have been specifically trained in that sport. While it is understandable for some kids to be reluctant to participate due to these confidence issues it ultimately does affect their health and sometimes it can be in major ways. To combat this problem utilizing the exergaming within physical education classes can make physical activity more accessible and enjoyable for all types of students. Exergaming is fairly simple and does not require a high athletic ability to be able to effectively play and win the game. This allows for students to be more equal in their abilities and helps build up confidence.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
A Machiavellian is a cynic (or a realist), but they are not “immoral”. When an immoral action is politically necessary, it is only advised because the alternative is worse. For instance, should the citizens of Florence not have risen up against their social betters, the Medici’s, and strived to rule themselves simply because they might need to break a few eggs? The infantile political philosopher will wring their hands about abrogations of justice and the misdeeds that an upstart regime like the Florentine republic undoubtedly perpetrated. Yet, what goes unremarked upon is the cost of the status quo, of permitting an ancien regime to persist. It is not as if the Medici’s themselves did not perpetrate countless injustices to attain and maintain their de facto hereditary control over Florence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to profess horror that the Machiavellian political actor is willing to do what is politically necessary instead of simply rolling over. A critic can object to Machiavelli’s proposal that “the ends justify the means”, but cannot deny that the same ruthlessness is perpetrated by an ancien regime against their opposition. Power politics is a zero-sum game, and the Machiavellian plays to win, content that their crimes will be justified by the good outcomes they ensure. Whether the ends truly did justify the means is for history to decide.
LikeLike
ANSWERS TO THE 7 QUESTIONS:
Personally, I had a hard time following what this article was trying to argue at first. For starters, it doesn’t define money laundering, and it gives the impression the author isn’t entirely sure what money laundering is. This is highlighted in the last sentence, where the author acts like they are reacting to money laundering for the first time. “It is almost unfair.” After rereading a few times, it seems like the main argument is trying to explain why people money launder, despite the negative effects it can have on them personally and societally. However this article seems a little all over the place, and is very vague in what it’s argument is. An example is the first quote that’s used, where it mentions some outcomes, related to money laundering, that are harmful to the public. It doesn’t actually mention what about money laundering leads to those outcomes, and makes the paragraph in general harder to follow. The previous sentence mentions the individual penalties for money laundering, but that obviously is not what the quote is discussing. Ultimately I think this quote should’ve been omitted entirely, as the author probably could’ve worded it in a way that would’ve fit into their essay than the quote. The next quote is very large, and takes up a good portion of the paragraph despite most of it being a run on sentence. This would’ve been a good place to paraphrase, as much of the writing is irrelevant to what the author is discussing. It’s pretty hard to disagree on this article, as it doesn’t make many bold claims. It mentions that money laundering is illegal, and that it is bad. If the author brushed on their wording and scholarship, they could make this paragraph a lot stronger.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
Money is a necessity, it’s not something that we can’t get rid of, but it is such a dangerous necessity. Money causes ones behavior to change dramatically and people in lower classes get treated unfairly. Studies have shown that when one is bribed with money they will get the task done more efficiently. This shows how easily money can convince one to do something. It’s also divided our society into classes and the poor get treated the worst. They don’t get the same opportunities as the rich do and they pay more taxes. One that is rich can get better education than a child who is poor, which is so unfair. It should not be this way. The government should help the poor more but instead they have them pay taxes that are higher than the wealthy. The ones less fortunate continue struggling.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
A healthy 49-year-old man instantly died in a car accident. The cause of death was from a seat belt. He suffered deadly compressions where the seat belt injured his neck, chest, and torso. In addition, abrasions and lacerations were found from his upper left shoulder to the front, right side of his body. There were also hematomas of clotted blood found around the muscles of his throat and larynx. The cause of death was the “compression of neck critical elements such as the carotid sinus by a three-point safety belt.” A seat belt can indeed be a dangerous piece of equipment used by a driver in an automobile and it can even threaten one’s human life. In approximately 37,133 cases in 2017 who died in car accidents, 17,452 people were not wearing a seat belt and 19,681 were wearing a seat belt. Eliminating the seat belt would produce a more aware driver who could have avoided this accident and saved his life.
LikeLike
ANSWERS TO THE 7 QUESTIONS:
1. I think some of the language used within this paragraph is confusing and unclear.
2. The claims within this paragraph are unclear because I do not know what exactly the author is trying to argue about money laundering. I feel that the author does not establish a clear claim within their argument because they mention that people money launder to keep their funds increased and then they talk about the consequences of money laundering, so it is hard to understand the whole point of the argument.
3. I do not think the paragraph is asking readers to accept a specific premise since it is not exactly established.
4. This paragraph hides its arguments since the author is unclear on their exact intentions or message, and what they are trying to convey to their readers.
5. There is not a clear thesis within this paragraph, so I am unable to specifically point it out.
6. This paragraph does not employ its scholarship effectively because the evidence is not supporting a specific claim that the author is trying to make, so it does not really make sense.
7. I feel like we do not have a chance to agree or disagree since the author does not establish a clear claim within their paragraph, so we are lost and unsure of what exactly they are trying to explain to us. There is also no logical sequence to follow that could help us better understand their argument.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
As someone who grew up performing in school plays, musicals, and choir concerts, it is impossible for me to imagine learning in an educational setting where the performing arts is absent. My high school’s drama club was the only thing that made me want to wake up in the morning and attend class, because it was the place where I could express myself the way I knew best: through acting, singing, and dancing. Calculus or gym class most certainly did not inspire me to come out of my shell, and I can say the same for many of my musically-inclined friends. The performing arts is my life. If my high school did not have a drama department, I would have lacked the creative outlet I depended on most to socially and academically thrive. In short, my mental health would have suffered immensely.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
This one is probably better:
Perhaps one of the greatest benefactors to the performing arts in education is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, or NCLB. This is a bill that aims to improve the academic success of children in primary and secondary schools through standardized testing. It additionally requires teachers to meet “higher standards for certification” and accommodates subordinated youth by raising their test scores.” In simple terms, it holds schools accountable for the success of their students and assures the public that Congress will do everything they can to provide the best education possible for American children.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:
Before covid had even been discovered there was no pet demand whatsoever. Shelters and fosters were just as sad and packed as ever. People went on with their lives without a single desire to adopt a dog, despite their need for a home. These same people didn’t need to because they were already emotionally complete. They had an abundance of social interactions and weekend plans after a long week of work. They spent their hard earned leisure income on vacations, fine dining, and hobbies . Their jobs kept them well enough engaged where they didn’t need to be more active.
LikeLike
ANSWERS TO THE 7 QUESTIONS:
Does the paragraph use precise language to emphasize its ideas?
– Some parts of the paragraph do not use precise language to emphasize its ideas. Especially the first sentence. Reading it aloud, the grammar/tone sounds a bit off and does not sound like a logical idea.
Does it make clear claims?
– I believe most of the paragraph makes clear claims, especially this part: “When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach. The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence.” However, there are some that are not super clear/logical.
Does the paragraph ask readers to accept a specific premise?
– It does not ask readers to accept a specific premise.
Does the paragraph reveal (or does it hide) its arguments?
– I believe it does a good job of presenting its arguments. The feelings of the author show through in this paragraph, which is good.
Does the paragraph present a complex thesis?
– The thesis is admirable, but it can definitely more complex.
Does the paragraph employ its Scholarship effectively?
– The paragraph needs more work employing its scholarship effectively.
Does the paragraph give readers time to disagree?
– It does give readers time to disagree. However, I believe there is too much disagreement. There has to be something in the middle.
Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased. There many effects and consequences, however. The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time. In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach. The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence. There are many negative consequences to this however. These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.” It is almost unfair. They are working illegally to get their money. Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP:The safety of the drugs that addicts are using is also a questionable topic. Drugs today are often laced with chemicals and other unhealthy substances. Addicts are now shooting these laced drugs into themselves 2-3 times a day. Most overdoses are not caused by the drug itself but by the chemicals added to it. In figure 5 of the article,” Drug Overdose Death Rates” by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, you can see that heroin overdose rates have increased dramatically when including opioids such as fentanyl. If the safety of the addict is what matters most we should be offering them an alternative to their street drugs and giving them clean and pure drugs that can be administered through sterilized needles and with a medical professional present.
LikeLike
SUBMITTED FOR A FUTURE RHETORIC WORKSHOP
In Wenying Wu, Pavlos Protopapas and Zheng Yang’s “Gender Classification and Bias Mitigation in Facial Images” study, they thoroughly explain the experiment conducted in 2017 where deep neural networks would be used to detect white male sexuality. This controversial research implied that the facial images of the LGBTQ population had distinct characteristics when compared to the heterosexual groups. They pushed the idea that by misgendering/misidentifying one can increase one’s perception of being socially marginalized. To be misidentified by something like facial recognition or programs of AGRS (Automated Gender Recognition System) not only follows the stigma of there only being two genders but overall reinforces the gender/sexuality standards.
LikeLike
ANSWERS TO THE SEVEN QUESTIONS
1. The paragraph does use some words of precise language to emphasize an idea but the build-up is lacking. In the first sentence there is no attention grabber nor did it sound formal when you read it out loud.
2. The claim in the paragraph is extremely hard to understand or even get to what they are trying to say, the way I see it it’s more of defining their concept of what money laundering is, and it’s not even correct. are they trying to say money is a sufficient method to save money or is it trying to say something else?
3. I think the author is trying to point out that money laundering is becoming a bigger operation for saving funds and due to the success rates, it’s only going to increase
4. the paragraph tries to be clear by stating money laundering is bad. Although they make it hard to follow that statement, I had trouble trying to put myself in the pov of the author and to understand what they were trying to say but with the minor mistakes and lack of using resources to their full extent.
5. By reading all of that it is hard to pinpoint what the thesis is about.
6. The paragraph does not employ its scholarship effectively because, in the source used, it pretty much restated what the sentence before it said. It had no meaning being there, it didn’t provide facts.
7. The paragraph does not have enough material to allow the reader to either agree or disagree. The paragraph lacked structure and clearance, evidence was not used in a manner where it would influence the opinion of the reader. If I could give an analogy of how confusing it is, it would probably be that of walking in a foggy swamp with a torch. You could see some things but not clearly enough to comprehend what it is .
LikeLike
ANSWER TO THE 7 QUESTIONS:
1.) I think that this paragraph does a pretty good job at introducing the idea that they will be discussing in the piece that the reader is about to encounter. But the first sentence didn’t really have much going for it, and I would understand why someone may get discouraged to read the rest of the article.
2.) I think the paragraph makes clear claims, but I don’t think the paragraph makes sense in it’s entirety. The paragraph talks about money laundering but never made it clear as to why we are discussing it in the first place.
3.) I do not think that the paragraph asks readers to make a specific premise. But I do think that they are trying to get the point across that money laundering is popular and has both benefits and consequences depending on if the criminal gets away with it.
4.) It is seen that the author is against money laundering, but it gets lost in translation and jumbled with other things in the paragraph. It is hard to follow because they are on the side that is against money laundering, but they also claim that it is an efficient way to increase funds. I don’t think they did a very good job at making this paragraph clear.
5.) I cannot really find a solid thesis in this paragraph.
6.) I do not think that this paragraph employed its scholarship correctly because although it used one of their quotes, they did not seem to go into detail about how it helps their side of the argument. So, to me, they just restated what someone else had said, making it less significant.
7.) I think that the paragraph does not give enough detail to let one decide what side they are on. As a reader, I felt like I was confused about what side the author was on, which made it almost impossible for me to be able to pick a side. There is also not information about either side in general for me to be able to make a decision for or against money laundering.
LikeLike