2012

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/2012/theatrical_high.html

Argument:

What are the consequences of watching the movie 2012 on your life?

Claim: Watching the movie 2012 will change your life.

Reason: Watching the movie 2012 will help you accept the truth of the end of the world.

Audience:

The audience is United States citizens. Specifically those who go to theater regularly.

Goal:

To convince people buy tickets and go see 2012.

How:

This movie trailer makes excellent use of ethos in convincing the audience that the end of the world is coming. It begins with a shot of a Mayan temple and the words "Mankinds earliest civilization warned us this day would come." The Mayans themselves are given credibilty simply by being the "earliest civilization." In turn the Mayan calendar lends credibility to the prediction that the year 2012 will be the end of the world, because that's when their calendar ends. When the world is being destroyed the trailer shows clips of famous places and objects from around the world. It shows the White House, Everest, and the USS John F Kennedy either collapsing or being covered with water. This makes it seem more believable when people watch sites they recognize be destroyed.

Effective:

It is a very effective argument. The Mayans have been right this far, why would they be wrong now? If the world really is going to end in 2012 certainly that would be life-changing. Personally, however, I am unconvinced and I'm sure many others disagree as well. Many people I'm sure couldn't accept the idea that the world was going to end even if the evidence was staring them in the face. It's just too difficult for most people to imagine. I'm convinced that the world will not end in 2012 for religious reasons, but I guess we'll just wait and see.

APHA Policies on Universal Health Care: Heath for a Few or Health for All?

Akhter, Mohammad N. “APHA Policies on Universal Health Care: Heath for a Few or Health for All?” American Journal of Public Health 93.1 (2003): 99-101.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447699/

Argument:

What are the consequences of providing universal health care in the United States on the total cost of health care?

Claim: Providing universal health care in the United States will decrease the cost of health care for the government and the citizens.

Reason: Because providing universal health care in the United States will allow the government to run health care more efficiently.

Audience:

Subscribers to the American Public Health Association. Probably doctors and nurses in the US.

Goal:

To convince the audience that universal health care is a good thing, that it is will be more cost-effective, and that it is needed in the United States. The article also suggests a method of reform to begin a universal health care progam in this country.

How:

The article establishes credibility with a number of facts including the number of uninsured Americans, past attempts at establishing universal health care in the United States, and examples of the success of this program in other countries. It makes a logical argument that if in other countries they were able to provide health care for a larger portion of the population at a fraction of the cost, then why can't we do the same? The information shared is all very relevant to the topic. The facts support the argument and prove the author's point.

Effective:

The article appears convincing. I personally am not convinced because of information which I've gained from other sources, but if someone was to rely solely on this one source I think they would come to the conclusion that we, as a nation, should adopt a policy of universal health care.

The Encounter

As soon as we stepped out of our car at the Porsche/Audi dealership a hispanic man walked up to us and said hello. He shook our hands and asked us what we were looking for. We were honest so we told him we were college students and that we were looking for something with a 4-wheel drive and in an affordable price range. So he took us back to see some used cars. On the way he asked, "Yo hablos espanol?" I replied that I didn't speak spanish and we continued. The first car we looked at was a red Mazda which he said was in perfect condition, but had visible scratches on the side. He then left for about five minutes to get the keys so we could see the interior and the mileage. I asked him if it was a 4-wheel drive. His reply, "I think so." He asked us about how we would pay down payments several times so we told him our parents would help finance our purchase. As soon as he heard that he moved on to some more expensive cars. The next car we looked at was a subaru. Again he said it was "perfect." This time it actually did seem to be in good condition. We asked him some questions about the mileage and warranty and he gave us vague answers. The last car we looked at was a Jetta. It was nice. Again he used too many adjectives and not enough data, but we thanked him for his service and said, "We'll think about it." At which point he pulled out his buisness card and offered us a "bonus discount" if we called him. As we were leaving he asked for my sister's number to inform her about upcoming deals. She gave it to him and we left.

Argument

Claim: Buying a used car is a smart choice.

Reason: Buying a used car will give you a quality vehicle for a reduced price.

Implicit Assumption: Whatever gives you a quality vehicle for a reduced price is a smart choice.

Audience

My sister and I went to the dealership together so we were the audience.

Goal

To convince us to buy a car.

How

For me this man had no authority. He barely spoke my language. He didn't know his statistics. All he had going for him was a positive attitude. The fact that he left us for five minutes to get the keys was also very unprofessional. Emotionally, he was also unconvincing. His tone was flat and dull. There was little to no excitement. He didn't ask me about myself or my sister for that matter. He made no attempt to relate to either of us. Logic too had nothing to do with his presentation. Instead of quoting facts and statistics he just said, "This car is perfect." In fact in the 10 minutes we were there he probably said "perfect" 50 times. His argument was not sufficient. In fact it was lacking support.

Effective

I'm sure Willy is a wonderful man, but he is entirely ineffective as an English salesman. The little piece of paper taped on the Subaru made me want to buy the car more than he did.

Argument:

What are the consequences of making modern art a part of your life?

Claim: Making modern art a part of your life will improve the quality of your life.

Reason: Making modern art a part of your life will help you to recognize beauty in the world around you.

Implicit Assumption: Whatever helps you to recognize beauty in the world around you will improve the quality of your life.

Audience:

People who enjoy art, but perhaps do not appreciate the value of modern art or do not recognize the beauty in the world around them.

Goal:

To convince people to take a second look at modern art, go to an art museum, and look for examples of modern art in everything from silverware to buildings.

How:

At first glance the painting appears to be a simple table setting on a black and red background, but in reality the "plate" is actually a painter's pallete and the "knife" is a paintbrush. By using such conventional silverware the painter is actually incorporating ethos into his argument. The image is a familiar scene to any American. They recognize it and can relate to it. The subtle change draws attention from the careful examiner. It seems to express that even at your kitchen table you can find art. Art is not limited to a canvas and paint. Ordinary objects we see everyday can be art. This painting could also be interpreted to mean that everyone is an artist. The paintbrush has a red tip, implying that it's been used. In this case the everyday setting could represent how even the average Joe can paint. The painting is certainly relevant. It is in itself an example of modern art.

Effective:

The painting effectively conveys its message. It is simplistic in design and well-suited to its audience. It catches your eye and presents a clear message.

The Minimum Drinking Age Debate

http://primofe1.byu.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?ct=display&doc=RS_61040632882008eminimumdrinkingagedebate&indx=1&fromLogin=true&indx=1&fn=search&tab=remote&vl(freeText0)=lowering%20the%20drinking%20age&mode=Basic&scp.scps=000000200&vid=byu-cl
The minimum drinking age debate By Nancy P. Barnett, Ph.D
Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies

Argument

What are the consequences of lowering the drinking age on alcohol related harm?
Claim: Lowering the drinking age will lead to more fatalities.
Reason: Because lowering the drinking age will increase drunk driving.
Implicit Assumption: Whatever increases drunk driving will lead to more fatalities.

Audience

The article is in a newsletter at Brown University. So the audience is likely students who are interested law, drug addiction, and the effects of alcohol on society as a whole. It's definitely written to an educated audience who has some sort of interest in the matter. It doesn't have a catchy title like a newspaper tabloid, so I doubt the average Joe would be immediately drawn to its contents.

Goal

The article is subtly trying to convince the reader that lowering the drinking age is a bad idea, as it will lead to more deaths. At the same time it informs the reader, giving credibility to both sides, and allowing the reader to form an educated opinion on the matter.

How

The primary appeal is to Ethos and Logos. It doesn't attempt to sway the audience with emotion. Rather it presents the facts, adding credibility to the argument. The statistics she shares are from reliable sources and clearly support her argument. By presenting facts from both sides it makes the argument seem just. It concedes that there is opposition and even displays several counterarguments. In fact the opinion of the author isn't clear until the final paragraph. Once the author, Nancy Barnett, shared her opinion she immediately backed it up with Logos. She said, "there is no evidence that lowering the drinking age would result in less alcohol related harm... In fact there is considerable damage that it might lead to greater damage..." In two simple sentences she denies that the counterarguments have any validity and confirms the truth of her own assertion.

Effective

Even though the opinion is very understated it is convincing to the audience. A more educated population would not respond well to emotional pleas of why 18 year olds shouldn't drink alcohol. However when presented with evidence, allowed to think on their and given a simple opinion, I think the majority will