Blog #7

The student’s essay I picked was the second one. In this essay, Bonnie Nelson, who is a student at ASU, sent a proposal to help change the payment and set up optional classes at the Student Recreation Center (SRC). In this proposal she states problems that all students have. She exclaimed that students do not have a lot of money to be spending extra for workout classes, thirty to sixty dollars to be exact; they also do not have all the time in the world to fit these classes into their schedules due to the inflexible class times. Through research, and interviews with the Director of Campus Recreation, Tamra Garstka, Bonnie Nelson was able to create two different and unique ways to fix this problem. The solutions are as she stated, “First suggestion pertains to grouping the classes together to create a combo pack. The combo pack will allow the students who want to participate in more than one activity for an overall low price. The second suggestion relates to selling a bulk of days a person can attend a group of class, which will allow students who cannot visit one specific athletic class on a consistent bases but uses the pass when it is most convenient for them.”

I believe that bonnie Nelson made a great argument about the Student Recreation Center and why they should be fixed. The reason I believe this is because she actually went and researched her topic, and provided great evidence of why it should be changed. The researched she uses was first her basic knowledge when she is listing a couple of the different classes you can take, and the amount of the classes at the Student Recreation Center, or the different sessions, times, and dates the classes are. She had an interview with the Director of Campus Recreation, Tamra Garstka, in order to figure out why they were charging this much money, how much revenue it brought in each year, and if they could lower it. Yes I believe it could be a little stronger through more statistics pertaining to how many students actually attend these sorts of classes like zumba, and how much it actually costs to run each class, or if they are free to run. Also you have to take in account there are people who would not see eye to eye with her and you need to have a great argument to not deter people away from you. A person she mentioned who would actually be in opposition would be the people who work there and actually get paid through the revenue from those classes. Unfortunately she doesn’t do a very solid job of appealing to ethos, and I think it was because she was sending in a formal letter where logos would be a more appropriate means of argument. When it comes to this group of people but she does give great examples of logos. With this and the great research done by her I feel like it could a good model for our proposal assignment. Overall I thought it was a well-put together argument with great research and examples of logos rhetoric.

Blog # 6

I am sticking my decision in my last blog, but if robots replaced most human jobs, the economy was horrible, and half of the American working class was unemployed, the government would need to make a couple changes in order to fix this problem. If I was in that same government there are a few things I would try to do in order to fix it. First off I would look at jobs that cost more for robots to run it than humans, and instantly replace them. I would keep those robots for extra parts, and replacements in case needed so the government won’t need to spend more on unnecessary items. I would then set up simple jobs that may or may not need to be done. For example, how Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the Great Depression. He had people throughout the day come and paint the White House every single day. I would try to find jobs where humans and robots could work together. So if your looking at an assembly line it may look like going down the line, robot, human, human, and robot. Lastly I would probably have to lower the minimum wage until the country starts again in order to not take a loss. I don’t think if half of the American working class who is unemployed is going to complain about what they get. These are the measures I would use if I was in the government who had to fix some of these problems.

Blog # 5

Robots are only used in place of humans if and only if they do a better job. Why would you put a robot in a bakery if they make burnt cookies? Now with that said I personally do not believe having robots in place of certain jobs would really hurt anyone. I understand the layoffs, and those people who lose their jobs, but that only happened because they could be replaced by cheaper more efficient machines. I know this seems harsh but you have to look in the future. The better, and cheaper the product that is made, the higher the price and amount of people will go up. Once many robots end up replacing certain human jobs like doctor and construction worker, the more money the company will make. They do not have to pay robots they just have to repair them, like a baker would in a bakery, but at least they have no salary or hourly wage. When the business is able to get more money they expand creating more jobs in human only positions. You can’t have a robot leading a company. Lastly, I would like to include an example from a famous movie reboot, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie’s father ended up getting replaced by a robot, which was the cause of his layoff. However, later in the movie you see he than found another job repairing the robot that replaced him. I do not believe robots would cause a major problem in the long run.

Blog #2

This blog I would like to share a few instances in which Obama uses rhetorical strategies in his speech. The three rhetorical devices used are that of emotion, character, and facts/reason.

Emotions

Wise- “They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.” This is a wise use of motion as a rhetorical strategy because it shows human’s wants and needs, and shows why people like to believe in a religion.

Unwise- “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.” Obama did not actually say this himself; it was said as a religious slam by Mr. Keyes when he was running against Obama. It is unwise because yes it moved Obama, but it was something that moves people to emotions such as anger, or disappointment. Also it was used to get people to vote against Obama.

Character

Wise- “I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.” Obama used this as a wise strategy in order to show having faith is good character because it gave him hope. Since he is such an important person, this shows good character.

Unwise- “I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.” This is unwise rhetorical strategy because it may be unappealing to religious voter’s character.

Facts/Reasons

Wise- “And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.” This is a wise use of facts as a strategic device because it shows actual studies and statistics that some people might not have believed unless it was proven.

Unwise- “That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.” This is unwise because I believe certain religions would be offended by their path being compared to Christian’s path of values.

Blog #1

Obama’s speech is about the connection of faith and government. He wants to add religious values to the government in order to help bring religious America and secular America together. He wants to do this in order to end the “mutual suspicion” between these two groups. Obama wants to bring every religion together, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., and non-believers together. He states, “Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.” With this he shows great successful leaders that used religion to help persuade crowds, but do it by not saying My religion believes this or their religion believes that, but by showing certain morality found in each religion that bring every one together to act a greater good. Also, he does not believe religion should be used as a reason or example, he states, “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Lastly, he says this in order to show you can’t bring religion in to be intertwined with government, but be side to side with it, only taking out certain moralities and beliefs that everyone agrees with.