- What is the editorial writer's thesis?
- What do you think the writer hopes to achieve (the purpose) by publishing this editorial?
- Describe in detail how the writer makes his point.
- Do you locate any logical fallacies in the editorial?
- What would the writer's opposition argue?
- Do you agree with the writer?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Due Monday, October 6
Post a comment of 250 words minimum - in paragraph form - in response to the following questions about the New York Times editorial you have chosen. Make sure to identify the author, title, and date of the editorial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
In the editorial “No One Should Have to Stand in Line for 10 Hours to Vote,” published on August 26, 2008, Adam Cohen’s main thesis is that waiting in line for 10 hours to vote is a ridiculous amount of time. Cohen hopes to achieve changes in the polling sites for this year’s elections, with the help of the secretaries of state. He states that polling sites that are better equipped with supplies, such as backup ballots, and voting machines and have more trained poll workers will make the voting process smoother which will encourage more people to vote. The writer makes his point by giving examples of sites in several states that voting lines are hours long. For example, in Columbus, people in black neighborhoods left without voting after waiting in line for 4 hours in the 2004 presidential elections. He also points out that everyone complains that young people don’t vote, but in reality students are forced to wait in line for 10 hours because there aren’t enough voting machines. I did not locate any logical fallacies in this editorial. The writer’s opposition may argue that society is so used to luxury service that they don’t have the patience to wait in line once every four years to do something that is going to benefit them in the future, anyways. I agree with the writer, I think polling sites should be better equipped to encourage more people to vote, especially sites in predominately black neighborhoods. People are always complaining that more people should vote, I think more people would vote if they didn’t have to wait in line for so long. Many people try to get their vote in before work, during their break, or right after work, but since they have to wait long they usually just leave because they don’t have enough time.
“Colleges and Binge Drinking” by David Brooks.
On September 16, 2008 The New York Times released an article entitled “Colleges and Binge Drinking ”, written by David Brooks. The writer’s thesis is that, despite the opinion held by 130 college presidents, the legal drinking age in the United States should not be lowered below twenty-one.
The writer is attempting to discourage any reader who might hold the opinion that lowering the current legal drinking age would somehow positively affect the problem of binge drinking on college campuses.
The writer makes his point by illustrating the fact that the current legal drinking age has had a positive affect in many areas. For instance, alcohol related traffic deaths among people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one have declined 11 percent since the legal drinking age of was established. He also states that brain development continues in young people well beyond the age of eighteen, indicating that underage drinking is harmful to young people. And most importantly, he shows that certain colleges that have taken measures to restrict underage drinking on campus have had positive results.
The straightforward manner in which the writer illustrates his point is very logical and in my opinion contains no fallacies.
As the writer states, 130 college presidents would argue that due to the fact that underage binge drinking is so prevalent on college campuses, one should conclude that the current legal age limit for purchasing and consuming alcohol is ineffective.
The writer’s opposition would argue that problems with underage drinking comes from the fact that college students who are under twenty one participate in binge drinking partly because of the fact that it is illegal and it is a form of rebellion. Therefore, by this logic, lowering the drinking age would cause young people to loose the interest in consuming alcohol legally.
I personally agree with the writer that the age limit should be left where it is. Other countries that do not have a strictly enforced age limit, such as Russia where I am from, have a much greater problem with underage drinking than here in America.
In the editorial “No More Plastic Bags,” published September 29, 2008, the writer’s, unnamed, thesis is, plastic bags should have a tax to cut down on plastic bag usage. The writer hopes to achieve more communities and states all together ban plastic bags to help the environment. The writer states that The United States uses at least 100 billion plastic bags a year. These plastic bags end up in other places than the trash and end up endangering the wildlife. Also, most plastic bags are manufactured from natural gases; by using these natural gases the plants which produce the plastic bags contribute to global warming. Only about five percent of plastic bags get recycled nationwide. The writer then gives examples of what Ireland has done. Ireland has become the first country to put a tax on plastic bags, which has cut the percentage of bags being used by 90 percent. The money from the taxes goes to helping the environment. I could not find any fallacies in the editorial but the writer’s opposition would argue that a tax on plastic bags would start protest against the tax. Another opposing thought would be that plastic bags are not the only item that is not being recycled enough. I do agree with the writer. I think a tax would be great to cut down on natural resources and filling landfills with something we don not need. Canvas and other reusable bags are just as good as plastic bags. I think the sooner the whole nation acts on this the more productive we will become. Its all about reduce, reuse, and recycle.
“Foreclosures and the Right to Vote”
The editorial “Foreclosures and the Right to Vote” was published by the New York Times on October 4, 2008. The author was unidentified. The writer’s thesis is if the increase in number of foreclosures would affect voters due to the fact that voter registration is based on people’s residences. The writer states that because the vast majority of the foreclosures occur in areas of low-income families and minorities, these events will affect the Democratic Party most. It also states that the Republican Party will try to take advantage of these events. The writer’s purpose is to inform those voters who have lost their homes that they have not lost their right to vote. People in foreclosure still have the right to vote where they have been living and that people who leave their homes can change their registration, to vote from their new addresses. The writer makes his point by stating the official voting rights, which vary from state to state, and by quoting Republican representatives on their plans for their campaign. It also uses statistics on the number of foreclosures in the past two years. The opposing argument would state the foreclosures affect everyone, not just the lower-class, and that they are not doing anything wrong because they are not preventing anybody from voting. I believe that the writer brings up a very strong point and supports it with strong evidence, which leads me to agreeing with him.
In the editorial "Kiplin' vs. Palin," published on October 5th 2008 by the New York times, the author Roger Cohen creates a thesis within his article that attacks the American public's short-sighted, dreamy interpretation of the financial world. Cohen uses his article to remind the American public that their irrational greed caused an economic downfall unlike any other. In addition to this, he uses poetry such as "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" by Rudyard Kipling, to emphasize an additional point within his thesis, that the delusional public economic downfall will be paid for by the children of this generation. Cohen mocks Palin in an attempt to strengthen his thesis, he does this by poking cutesy remarks at her words such as her saying of "Never Again" for Americans in economic free-fall and relating it back to the Holocaust. Cohen makes his point by simply stating the reality of the American economic situation. I did notice a logical fallacy within Cohen's argument however, he states that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. And to this I ask, how could rounding up the number of total dead to six million be of any benefit to Cohen? What is his purpose to fail to realize the actual facts of World War II? The writer's opposition (myself included) would be to state actual facts and use them in a highly respected news article, rather than blow smoke and joke around with the concept of genocide. However, i do agree with Cohen's actual thesis that the American public became delusional and greedy during the housing balloon. If Cohen was actually an intelligent and rational person he would have not made a fool of himself within the article by saying that American's heads are in the clouds when he himself is drifting amongst "...cloud-cuckoo land". Cohen is a hypocrite at best.
In the editorial “Dick Cheney, Role Model”, the writer, whose name is not mentioned, describes Governor Sara Palin’s view on the role of vice president and how such a view would damage American democracy. The writer notes how Ms. Palin agreed with Dick Cheney that the vice president has “a lot of flexibility” in office, and that she was thankful that “the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president.” The writer believes that Ms. Palin has no understanding of how giving that much power to the vice president can be harmful to American democracy, and appears to have a purpose of informing the general public of how a vice president, under the Constitution, should have limited amount of power as oppose to what was displayed during Dick Cheney’s vice presidency. To make his/her point, the writer points out how the Constitution does “not state or imply and flexibility in the office of vice president.” The only thing that is a bit flawed with the way the writer proves his point is that while he is making a statement about the Constitution, he doesn’t seem to site or quote the source that would make his argument completely believable. Other than some lack of proof, I could not detect any logical fallacies with this editorial. While some people may think that, regardless of what is said by the Constitution, the vice president should have more authority in office, I agree with the author of this editorial. A vice president, like any government official, should do his or her job as written, and not try to go beyond or challenge rules that have already been set in stone, as it would cause a working democracy to fail.
In “Family Values” from September 15, 2008, the editor applauds New York governor David Paterson’s decision to recognize the legality of homosexual marriages performed in other states. The positive attitude used to describe the governor’s action is meant to emphasize the support the editor offers to the legalization of homosexual marriage. Paterson’s decision is said to be well within his authority, despite accusations that he was violating the Legislature’s duty. New York itself is also congratulated for recognizing gay marriages done in other states. The refusal to recognize these specific homosexual marriages is referred to as “enshrin[ing] bigotry,” further supporting the article’s main argument. The editor quotes Justice Lucy Billings to support another related argument: homosexual marriage is just as valid and important to the family as heterosexual marriage. The article concludes by asking the New York Senate to pass a bill supporting gay marriage. “Family Values” wholly supports the struggle for legalizing homosexual marriage and praises those who contribute to the struggle.
“Family Values” is a well- written article that admirably supports gay marriage. The author uses a relevant recent event to draw attention to the issue of recognizing homosexual marriages performed in other states. The article then champions homosexual marriage as perfectly equal to heterosexual unions. This is perhaps the weakest area of the article; the sentiment is correct and just, it leaves itself open to attack due to its lack of detail and support. Those who oppose the article’s main idea would also criticize the accusation of bigotry and accuse the editor of being unfair. However, these areas are open to the reader’s interpretation. “Family Values” is an article that strongly plays to those who support homosexual marriage while also reporting a fairly important event pivotal to the struggle for legal equality.
In the editorial "In Poverty and Strife, Women Test Limits" October 5, 2008, Carlotta Gall's thesis is how women in Afghanistan have been receiving more rights, thus improving their situation in the country.
Gall tries to give a better understanding of how difficult life is for a woman in a county with unequal right for the female sex. And that in a country where the male sex dominates, females have many disadvantages in the social progress such as getting a job and making money. She gives multiple examples such as arranged marriages, that more than 80 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, and vulnerability from the cult of war. The writer points out that receiving more right not only helps women to support their families but get a popper education but socially progress as well. It did not look like there were any logical fallacies in the editorial.
Galls opposition would argue that Afghanistan is not the only country in which women have unequal rights. There are still many places in which women have absolutely no education and are considered way below the status of the male.
I definitely do agree with the writer. In my opinion it is an absolute breakthrough that women in Afghanistan have been receiving more and more rights. It allows them to progress not only in the social but in happiness as well. It is extremely important that women are equal to any other person. They're rights are just as important as any other person's.
In the editorial “Never Again, Again” published on September 20, 2008 the authors main thesis is that Louisiana needs to come up with a better state plan to keep evacuees safe and comfortable in emergencies. By publishing this editorial, I believe that the author is trying to make a point to the government; the plan to keep people out of harm’s way just made matters worse. The writer makes his point by describing the conditions the people were put through and how this affected them after. He describes how citizens were just put on a bus without being told where they were going to be taken. Once they arrived, they were packed into a warehouse with a thousand other people and no privacy. Not only did citizens not have a place to bathe, but they had to buy extra basics and return with the thought of next month’s rent pending. Through this article, the author makes a very good point saying that Louisiana had three years to prepare for an emergency like this but still failed. While reading this editorial I did not find any logical fallacies but found the writers opposition argument very clear, it would be in defense of the government helping the citizens out in the crisis and keeping them safe from danger which was their main concern. Throughout the article, the author makes a good point saying that the government had three years to make a plan but did not succeed. I agree that even though the government kept the people safe it is unnecessary to keep them in unsanitary conditions.
In the New York Times editorial “After the Collision” published on September 24, 2008, the unknown authors’ thesis is that nowadays we can see the consequences of overly lax regulations everywhere we go. The author aims to inform the public of a recent commuter train and freight train collision that occurred in California that is urging Congress to move quickly move forward on a legislation to improve rail safety. The author achieves his point by mentioning the 25 people that died during this collision and how the railroad administrator admitted the collision could have been prevented by the new regulations and technologies that the legislation will set forth. These new regulation would cut the number of hours crew members could work from 400+ to 276 a month. Wireless braking technology would also be installed to stop any trains on a collision course with each other. The logical fallacy that I found was that the author writes as though events like this one will be repeated until Congress passes the legislation and it takes effect. The authors’ opposition could argue that accidents like this will always occur because of operator mistakes of computer malfunctions and the money used for this project would be better spent on something else. I believe that the author is correct and agree with his idea of careless regulations causing problems that we see or hear about every day. Congress shouldn’t wait until the year 2015 to implement this legislation because the improvement on railway safety is obviously needed now.
In the editorial “A Deep Sip for Deep Thinkers”, published by the New York Times on October 3, 2008, Jonathan Miles’ thesis is that a Negroni, a specialty cocktail at I Sodi, a Tuscan restaurant, is a drink that people will enjoy although it might be intense. The purpose of Miles publishing this editorial is that he hopes to let people know more about this alcoholic beverage which he believes to be really good. He simply tells of the background behind the beverage and what it is composed of. The author makes his point by carefully explaining his experience going to I Sodi and having a Negroni. There he interviews I Sodi’s manager who tells of the background behind the drink and why many people enjoy it. The manager tells Miles that a Negroni is unique in its composition and compares it to the formula of water in how an addition of one more oxygen atom can risk messing the good taste of a Negroni. Through the I Sodi manager, Miles is able to gather insight of the drink and illustrate its potential to please its drinker. In my opinion, the editorial does not contain any logical fallacies because Miles simply describes his experience and the background of the drink without the use of any argumentative elements. The writer’s opposition would simply argue that a Negroni does not compare to other drinks that taste better and hit harder. They would dismiss all of Miles’ praises a Negroni with facts and studies that prove other drinks to be of better quality. As for agreeing with the author, I really can’t say until I tried a Negroni for myself.
Post a Comment