Rhetoric and Scholarship

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.

  1. The value of money is the mental reassurance of wealth.
  2. One might question what mental reassurance of wealth has to do with money.
  3. Simply it is the way we track value.
  4. We are reassured that the money we have can purchase a curtain amount of things.
  5. We place a value on money to keep track of things it can purchase.
  6. The psychological or economic value of money may change with currency variations, but the money will always be worth something.
  7. Over time, America’s relationship with the value of the dollar has evolved.
  8. In the early 20th century, it granted a request from the French to convert their dollar assets into gold.
  9. Granting that request gave the impression that the US dollar was weak.
  10. The French believed that their money was worth more than the U.S. dollar.
  11. The French wanted something they thought was worth having, so they asked for gold.
  12. 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 NOV 03

As you read the following paragraph, ask the important questions about Rhetoric.

  1. Does the paragraph use precise language to emphasize its ideas?
  2. Does it make clear claims?
  3. Does the paragraph ask readers to accept a specific premise?
  4. Does the paragraph reveal (or does it hide) its arguments?
  5. Does the paragraph present a complex thesis?
  6. Does the paragraph employ its Scholarship effectively?
  7. 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.

28 Responses to Rhetoric and Scholarship

  1. kingofcamp says:

    European folklore, also known as “Western folklore” and commonly known as “fairy-tales,” are a popular genre of literature, especially among children. Fairy-tales are popular in the West, stories such as Peter Pan, Snow White, and Cinderella are some of the most popular among readers and children. Fairy-tales are, of course fictitious but there is a deep psychological impact these stories have on children—potentially changing their outlook on life and how they perceive/and or carry out their actions. The Peter Pan Syndrome is a “pop-psychology” term used to describe those who simply do not want to grow up nor expand their understanding and knowledge.

    Like

  2. littlecow24 says:

    As a whole, music is many different things combined into one word. Music is a multitude of activities, written scores and objects. Music is usually treated as an object, being moved through time and morphed to fit out current times. Take Beethoven, who’s pieces are performed all of the time, even after being written so many years ago. Something like Bach’s B Minor Mass, which’s original purpose was for religious use but now is performed in a more secular setting. The amalgamation of fundamental building blocks that most pieces use now consists of repeated notes. Its system of tonality creates the space for music to be an object. There is also the act of buying and selling music, which has been occurring for many centuries. Translating into current times, publishers treat music pieces like such objects when they claim them, gaining profit when others want to use the piece for whatever their reason may be. In What is Sociological about Music?, William Roy and Timothy Dowd claim that “music’s object-ness, its embeddedness in institutions, its pervasiveness in everyday life, its popularity as an avocation, and its affirmation in a discourse of transcendent sanctification.” Music was pulled into this object state, and it created this commodity that people are drawn to.

    Like

  3. lokiofasgard24 says:

    It seems absurd that we can trade thin green paper or a number on a screen for goods or services. However, as long as people continue to believe in the value of money, it will continue to represent a device of trade. Even when questioned on its abstract nature, money will hold true to its value and desire. Money, with nothing behind it, is truly represented by trust. When making a transaction with money, both parties must trust each other and the rest of society that the money involved will be valuable as it circulates through a marketplace, otherwise your trading paper for goods. 

    Like

  4. spaghettitacosforthesoul says:

    This belief in value in money is also seen in one of the world’s top virtual currencies. Bitcoin is popular for its high trading value and a cryptocurrency that skips over finical institutions or central banks. Anne Renaut the author of “The bubble bursts on e-currency Bitcoin” affirms that “Bitcoin is made of strings of dazzlingly complex code created by raw computing power… that can in theory be carried out by anyone with a computer.” It’s another example of how money is a creation and is supported by a belief. Although the creation is quite complex, in its simplest form the idea of manifestation of money. Almost like the people of Brazil, anyone can use their real currency to buy virtual currency for trade or gain capital.

    Like

  5. levixvice says:

    Invasive species have been a problem since the introduction of trade and transportation, which had unanticipated consequences and long-term effects that have been ignored around the world. Such as the diseased-ridden rats traveling from the silk road that caused the bubonic plague or the well-known Asian Longhorn Beetle, which has infested trees in America and is eating them from the inside, destroying the ecosystem and overall natural state of the country. Spotted Lanternflies are similar to invasive species pushovers in that they eat fruit for its nutrients, which is why they have been scouring America’s orchards. Eventually, the lanternflies will lay their eggs within host trees for the next generation in America. Such behavior from this plant hopper can cause major problems for farmers and community, which would eventually lead to a shortage of fruit and more dead trees in the future.

    Like

  6. zzbrd2822 says:

    Everyone has a different interpretation of happiness and what exactly is the cause of it. The value of happiness is deemed very high in today’s society, which is evident by the increasing search for guidance through motivational speakers, life coaches, and self-help books all with the main focus of increasing happiness. We think that searching for happiness is beneficial in life, however, it is the pursuit of happiness that leaves negative side effects. Studies have shown that people who extremely value happiness are also less likely to attain long-term happiness, which is explained by lower levels of psychological well-being and life satisfaction. However, identifying the purpose of life will result in more life fulfillment and satisfaction.

    Like

  7. Lunaduna says:

    Nobody knows the actual number of beneficial pharmaceutical drugs, due to the fact that they are never released because of the harmful effect they had on the animals. Drugs such as aspirin, penicillin, and ibuprofen had negative impacts on animals, but have been seen to improve human health. These drugs many years ago would have failed the experiments because of the difference in metabolic processes between species. The use of an invalid animal disease model can lead scientists and researchers in the wrong direction. Which can waste valuable time, and even money. Time after time scientists has been led down the wrong path from information received after the experiments on animals. After these scientists do their experiments, which sometimes can last for years, results proven to be inaccurate to human physiology.

    Like

  8. minutemen14 says:

    Nigeria is haunted by what seems to be an inevitable dead end in eradicating the Poliovirus. False information and an overall fear of vaccinations has turned into guerrilla warfare when battling the poliovirus, rather than one common goal against it. Civilians do not know where to turn as they either fear that the vaccination is harmful or are skeptical of those giving out the doses. Without proper information and so many rumors circulating, it is impossible to have any cohesion to stop this virus. Many get hung up on the possibility of paralysis or death due to vaccine, when in fact the virus harms/kills much more annually. Therefore the only effort to be made is to somehow reach out and capture the attention of Nigerian civilians to stand against this virus once and for all. Without common trust or reliable information, these people are at the mercy of the rescuers around them to make decisions for what is best for themselves and their families.

    Like

  9. littlecow24 says:

    I believe that the paragraph does a decent job of being clear. More precise language can be used, and the claims used can be much clearer, showing the reader what to believe. I don’t see a specific premise it is driving forward, and it seems to hide its arguments for me. Its thesis is kind of confusing, and I’m still not exactly sure what it wants me to believe. It definitely gives the reader time to disagree, especially right at the end with “It is almost unfair.”

    Like

  10. kingofcamp says:

    1. Does the paragraph use precise language to emphasize its ideas?
    a. No, the paragraph does not use precise language to emphasize its ideas.
    2. Does it make clear claims?
    a. No, the paragraph does not make clear claims.
    3. Does the paragraph ask readers to accept a specific premise?
    a. The premise of the paragraph was blurry and difficult to understand; the paragraph was not efficient in this category.
    4. Does the paragraph reveal (or does it hide) its arguments?
    a. The paragraph hides its argument with incoherent language.
    5. Does the paragraph present a complex thesis?
    a. The paragraph presents a complex thesis.
    6. Does the paragraph employ its Scholarship effectively?
    a. The paragraph does not employ Scholarship effectively, though it does not entirely do a terrible job.
    7. Does the paragraph give readers time to disagree?
    a. Yes, the paragraph gives readers time to disagree.

    Overall the author of the paragraph does a mediocre job at presenting their case and using precise language to covey their message. Readers can follow the paragraph to and extent but later become lost because of blurry language.

    Like

  11. zipemup1 says:

    All have a distinct view of pleasure as well as what creates it. Happiness is highly valued in today’s culture, as seen by the growing demand for counsel from motivational speakers, life coaches, and self-help publications, all with the goal of enhancing happiness. We believe that seeking pleasure is good in life; nonetheless, the pursuit of happiness has detrimental side consequences. According to research, individuals who place a high value on happiness are less likely to achieve long-term happiness. 

    Like

  12. zzbrd2822 says:

    I feel that the paragraph uses precise language to emphasize its ideas and makes decently clear claims. I don’t feel that the paragraph asks readers to accept a specific premise and it does hide some of its arguments. Some of the arguments were not easily understandable. The paragraph does present a complex thesis and employs its Scholarship effectively using sources. The paragraph also gives readers time to disagree.

    Like

  13. levixvice says:

    1.The sentences in the beginning are somewhat in a second perspective of the argument, while the rest is in third perspective, which is a good reason to be precise on money laundering.
    2.Not really
    3.Somewhat the writer is trying to, but never does
    4.None whatsoever
    5.Seems it not complex
    6.No
    7.No

    Like

  14. Lunaduna says:

    The paragraph does not use precise language to emphasize its ideas, however, it does have somewhat clear claims. I feel as though the paragraph does not clearly tell the reader to accept a certain premise, and the author seems to be hiding some of their arguments. The paragraph does not employ its Scholarship effectively, but it does have a complex thesis. The paragraph does give the readers time to disagree.

    Like

  15. minutemen14 says:

    The paragraph offers specific ideas, but the language could probably be a bit more centered to the main topics. Claims could be more clearer and the flow of the paragraph could be less choppy. The thesis is somewhat hazy because we see where it is trending but do not know where it is trying to direct our attention. Scholarship is used, but not used affectively to support the reasoning for the claims. It gives the reader time to disagree as many statements are listed, but a strong central claim is not established

    Like

  16. imaspookyghost says:

    If I were to toss $500 into a Ziploc bag then throw it into the ocean, whoever finds it wont make an effort to find me and give me my money back. In the same way if somebody owns a big ball of limestone at the ocean floor, and someone who wants to take it comes along they will without trying to seek out an owner. In both cases there is no proof or documentation of who owns these items therefore finders keepers.

    Like

  17. calamariii says:

    The legal reasons and identifiable factors that make a possession yours. While the person who owns a large chunk of limestone is deceased, the chunk of limestone is able to be recognized and legally claimed as theirs. Paper money is something that is often nearly identical between versions, as well as the fact that no person can legally claim ownership of a random piece of paper that isn’t in one’s possession.

    Like

  18. strawberryfields4 says:

    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 defies all concepts of ownership previously understood. If someone threw 500 dollars into the ocean, one might believe that they gave up their ownership of the money. When the money washes up onto shore and someone picks it up, it would now rightfully belong to them, as the original owner chose to relinquish possession. Nobody can just go pick up the giant ball of limestone and claim it. Ownership is abstract and depends on how society actively choose defines it.

    Like

  19. frogs02 says:

    A giant ball of limestone sitting in the middle of the ocean is still being claimed by someone who is deceased is unsettling to me. This is equivalent to throwing 500 dollars in the ocean. It is equivalent to giving your car to a valet parker and not getting your car back. With paperwork, that car is yours, but who gets it when it is passed along. When the 500 dollars wash up onto the shore and someone picks it up, it is now theirs. There is nothing on the money that says “this is so and so money.” Therefore anyone can pick that money up. However, nobody can just go pick up the giant ball of limestone and claim it because it is claimed by someone else. The money is not claimed.

    Like

  20. Lily4Pres says:

    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.
    ->
    The concept of ownership being never-endless is not plausible. A man from an ancient civilization that left his wealth in the ocean, he should not maintain that wealth today. If I were to do the same as this man, my wealth would disappear as soon as any other being got their hands on it. Ownership has restrictions that go far beyond our constructs of documentation and trust of word.

    Like

  21. krackintheneck says:

    If a giant ball of limestone was sitting in the middle of the ocean owned by a deceased person, does that deceased person truly still own the limestone? It is like throwing $500 on the ground and still claiming it is your money even though you do not truly posses it. It may be unsettling, but after it is out of the current owners grasp it’s up for grabs.

    Like

  22. ziggy026 says:

    The details in the paragraph should be expanded upon There are definitely improvements that could be made to this paragraph, specifically the unnecessary language used. There are many filler words and phrases that don’t do anything to improve the paragraph and it is very repetitive. There is not a clear goal with this paragraph and the repetitiveness and the wordiness makes it difficult to follow.

    Like

  23. krackintheneck says:

    1. I think the paragraph utilizes precise language to get their point across, but it is hard to actually point out what the claim truly is.
    2. No true claim I can find
    3. I wouldn’t really say there was a specific premise if there was it was to unclear to comprehend
    4. Hides its arguments very hard to find its true argument, so it hides it
    5. No
    6. No
    7. No

    Like

  24. frogs02 says:

    The paragraph does use precise language to emphasize its ideas. I think the claims could be a little more clear and have more details. The author does not give the readers to accept a specific premise. I think the paragraph tries to reveal the argument but it is still half-hidden. The paragraph tries to present a complex thesis. The paragraph does not employ its Scholarship effectively. The paragraph gives the readers time to disagree.

    Like

  25. Lily4Pres says:

    The paragraph doesn’t use very precise language to emphasize its ideas and convey their argument. There are a few ambiguous words/phrases used in the paragraph that give the reader an opportunity to look at the other side of the argument. The paragraph is not concise and seems to be written in a perspective that is not certain of their conviction.

    Like

  26. imaspookyghost says:

    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?
    There is a lot of filler, and useless words that would be used when speaking the paragraph rather than reading it. It asks the reader to accept that once criminals successfully launder money they do it again with more success, which is unfair. (I found this obvious considering its illegal). The paragraph reveals that argument that money laundering is one unfair, and two it increases street crime. The paragraph does not present a complex thesis. It presents a list on bad outcomes to money laundering, and how the criminals actually laundering don’t have to deal with. The paragraph gives the readers all the time they need to disagree because of the filler language.

    Like

  27. strawberryfields4 says:

    1) The language used is not precise or formal. There are unnecessary words that prohibit the paragraph from being truly clear and precise.
    2) The claims are not really identifiable within the paragraph. Some statistics that relate to the same subject are present, however, the point that the author is trying to convey is not distinguishable.
    3) There is no clear proposal for what perspective the author is asking the readers to agree with.
    4) The arguments are hidden within the paragraph. The reader must “dig them out,” which is not their job.
    5) Rather than a complex thesis, the paragraph just fails to highlight a single thesis.
    6) It is evident that sources are used and research was conducted, however the author fails to add rhetoric to their sources
    7) The choppiness in the language of the paragraph gives the reader too much time to think for themselves and possibly disagree.

    Like

  28. comatosefox says:

    Sports nowadays are played with one of four reasons in mind; for fun, for scholarships, for money and for an outlet. Fun is how most people start out playing, hopping from one sport to the next to find the ones that are most enjoyable and stress relieving. Scholarships are either sought after or a bonus, some people may need to receive a scholarship in order to go to college and others may receive without trying to achieve them. Money, different from scholarships, is a career which many have decided that they not only have fun playing, but would like to make this their career. Then there are those who need support, who have no way of getting their emotions out. Those who have a hard time expressing themselves, who have bottled up anger and stress. Numerous players use their sport as an outlet for the negative emotions they have allowed to linger. Some sports give players a more physical way to channel their feelings through contact, while others give an outlet for stress through a less physically damaging sense of competitiveness. Although all sports are equally difficult and competitive in their respective fields, there are those who get outshined by the sports heavily involved in physical contact. Women’s lacrosse, although it is not as physically active as its male counterpart, is outshined regardless of it being the superior version.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s