Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution

Lovelock's article is about how the earth is in immediate danger from all the pollution. Lovelock wants everyone to understand why we are in peril and what we need to do to change if we want to survive. He uses language tools to make his audience understand.

First of all, I think his entire article is an overstatement. Lovelock completely dramatizes the whole issue on global warming. He compares the warming of the Earth to a fire that is "accelerating and almost no time is left to act" (par. 6). The earth is slowly becoming warmer, not burning like a fire. Lovelock also doesn't cite anything. He has no sources to backup his claim. His article isn't reliable at all. Lovelock does use some good personifications and analogies to try and convince his audience and I will analyze those.

One of the main language tools Lovelock uses is personification. The first example is in the third paragraph. "The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming". This example gives the ice in the Arctic human characteristics because it will be more 'vulnerable' when it is warmed up. Using descriptive words makes the reader feel like they understand how the ice feels, when the ice doesn't actually have feelings.

The second example, "[civilization] has to use nuclear... now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." (par. 16), gives our planet feelings which is also personification. The planet itself cannot be outraged, but Lovelock gives it this description because he wants the reader to feel related to the earth. The earth has always been given lots of personification in writing and speaking. We refer to the earth as a 'her' or as 'mother earth'. When the audience feels like they share the same feelings as the earth, they have more empathy and would more likely help the earth in a similar way as a person.

The main language tool that Lovelock uses is analogies. An analogy is "a kind of comparison in which something unfamiliar is explained by a comparison to something more familiar." (R&W pg. 94, Brett c. McInelly). Analogies are a good tool to use because they are easy to remember and understand. They are especially useful in scientific papers when the majority of the population wouldn't understand unless more simple comparisons are used.

Lovelock says, "...climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests...[and] the world... would lose one of its great natural air conditioners". Everyone knows the beauty of an air conditioner. Especially in the summer. The difference between summer heat and an air conditioned room is incredible. Lovelock puts this analogy into his paper to demonstrate what the difference in temperature would be if the pollution problem isn't taken care of and we lose the Amazon. Even those who don't know much about global warming can appreciate what this would be like.

Another analogy is in paragraph 6 which says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice... that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited". This, like the previous analogy, is a comparison so the reader can visualize the temperature difference. I think this comparison is also used to show the damage that global warming would create. Lovelock doesn't just say that the fire is out of control, but also that the 'furniture had ignited'. Lovelock demonstrates that if nuclear power is not implemented, the results will leave irreparable damage.

I Have a Dream

Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech made such an impact through history. It changed our country. Why was his speech so powerful? Without King's credibility and background, the speech would not have been nearly as profound. His ethos is so important and King does an excellent job at weaving his credibility into his speech.

King obviously relates to one of the audiences because he is African American, which gives him credibility. Even if we didn't know what King has done for African American rights, he establishes himself by creating an intimate relationship with the audience. By using the word "we", King shows that he has had a lot of the same experiences as the rest of the African Americans.

The African American audiences feel like they know him more personally because King implies that they have been through the same trials. He calls them "my friends" (par. 15), and treats his audience as if they know each other personally. By combining himself with the audience, King also proves that he is not just arguing for self-interests. He wants change for the entire African American population.

King is trying to convince the entire United States population that African Americans should be given their rights. He wants to convince the Government because the location is at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. He wants to convince the religious black and white men and women, that everyone can come together as "God's Children" (par. 6). He wants to convince those who don't believe African Americans should be free. "And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights" (par. 7).

King also wants to convince the African American people to continue to fight without violence. "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence" (par. 8). By making it clear he wants to negotiate peacefully, King appeals to the police force, and gains credibility by not advocating any violent acts. Finally, King encourages the African Americans in the South and the North, to have hope that the situation will change.

One of the main African American audiences King is trying to convince are those who think that waiting will solve their problems. "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy... Now is the time to make justice a reality for all God's children" (par. 6). King's credibility is so powerful at this point in his speech because of his experience and letter he wrote while in Birmingham Jail. In the letter, King says that he is disappointed with the "white moderate" and white religious people for being "more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace..." and for "[believing] he can set the timetable for another man's freedom..." (par. 19). Birmingham Jail is where King really developed his solid view about not sitting by and waiting for freedom.

Martin Luther King says, "I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come from fresh narrow jail cells". King, and many other African Americas, were unjustly put in prison. King describes the jail cells as "narrow" which gives the audiences an image of the cells, but also eludes to the narrow-mindedness white men in the South. In this context, going to jail gave the African Americans credibility because of the unjust laws that put them there. It stood as proof of the prejudice that was in the South.

King recognizes the value of his argument when he shares his personal desires. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (par. 20) He connects to the audience by sharing what his dream is for his family and every African American family. Using this personal information, King establishes that he is a father with little children and relates to others who are in the same position.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck commits logical fallacies in his news report, "Does Congress Matter?" One of his fallacies is guilt by association. Beck assumes that all of congress and politics are corrupt. He doesn't give the reader or listener a chance to even think that maybe Congress isn't all completely corrupt. Because Beck assumes that Congress is selfish and greedy, he make the audience assume the same. Beck gives good examples of how some members of Congress are spending money, and generalizes that to all of Congress. He says, "That's all I'm looking for: 56 brave men and women out of the 535 in Congress today... to stand up to the corruption..." Beck is "stereotyping all members of the group" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch).

Another fallacy that Glenn Beck commits is poisoning the well. He makes the issue so biased and one-sided, that anyone who wants to disagree with him would look "immoral" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch). I mean, who doesn't want Congress to spend money on what "the people want"? As if anyone even knows what it is that the people really do want. If someone did want to disagree with Beck, the other part of the readers and listeners would have a hard time agreeing because Glenn Beck is so credible. His audience is so willing to consent to whatever Beck says that contradictory view points would feel imposing.

The last fallacy that I found in Glenn Beck's article is his assumption that everyone wants to change all of Congress. When in reality, everyone likes their own congress members, it is the "other ones" that are disliked. If a democrat could choose who was in Congress, they would get rid of the republicans and keep their own party. Beck misinterprets and assumes that America wants to kick out all of Congress when everyone actually just has certain members that they have problems with.

Pearl Harbor

President Roosevelt used pathos when he gave his speech to the American people after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was a very emotional time for America because it involved war and the want for peace. Lives were lost in the attack and that evoked an emotional response. The people killed at Pearl Harbor were not relatives of everyone, but our nation as a whole has an emotional bond that connects everyone together. President Roosevelt used this emotion to his advantage and explained why America needed to enter the war, "...a formal reply to a recent American message... contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack".

President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war previously to the Pearl Harbor attack. "He wanted to prevent war in Europe, and in October 1937, Roosevelt proposed that the United States lead the "peace loving nations" in placing aggressive nations... under quarantine". But Roosevelt's idea "raised a storm of criticism". (Smitha par. 1) Roosevelt was passionate and knew the direction he wanted to take. He just needed to convince the American people.

President Roosevelt used specific words and phrases to bring his point across. "the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned..." (par. 5), "Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States." (par. 5), "severe damage" (par. 6), and "the facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves." (par. 13), were convincing in Roosevelt's speech and made Americans emotionally respond to the Japanese.

Roosevelt also had a very good logos appeal and used many facts to connect the idea of Japanese attacking other countries, to why America should enter the war. He listed the places Japan had attacked and concluded that the Japanese undertook "...a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area." (par. 13). President Roosevelt went on to say that he would defend our nation by going to war.

In 'Writing and Rhetoric' it says that "...a message that is primarily emotional is more persuasive than a message that is primarily logical." (Gary Hatch, page 65) The next paragraph in the Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation was President Roosevelt's best pathos appeal. He said, "The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory." (par. 15). Roosevelt used pathos because winning comes with a lot of emotion. Roosevelt said the United States will to go war in "righteous might", so the purpose is just and the opponent is in the wrong.

His speech came all together to the main issue of going to war, and destroyed any possible thought of losing because America will have an "absolute victory". I believe that because of Roosevelt's convincing use of pathos, Americans had such a strong response to the Pearl Harbor attack that it not only led to the United States entering the war, but also to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

What's Wrong With Divorce?

Gary Hatch said that "arguments from logos require claims and reasons as their basic structure" (Writing and Rhetoric 71). Karl Zinsmeister uses both good and bad logos in his article Divorce's Toll On Children. His two largest fallacies of logos are seen in the first several paragraphs.

In the beginning of the article there seems to be unlimited facts about how detrimental divorce is to children. Megan's analysis discussed how facts like these appeal to the readers emotions. She says they are "blunt and overwhelming." The facts include a claim that since 1972, one million children have suffered from their parents divorcing each year. He also says that about half of the children today go through a "marital rupture." Only one in ten children that have gone through divorce see there other parent at least once a week, and only one in five keep a close relationship with both parents. These statistics do indeed stir the emotions like Megan said, but they stir the emotions of those who believe everything they read on the internet. There is not one citation or any references to which studies came up with all these brilliant numbers. Even though they are most likely true, Zinsmeister is only appealing to the ignorant and those who don't know any better than to believe everything they read on the internet.

Megan also points out that a key tactic used by Zinmeister is fear. Fear does stir the emotions of the readers as Megan says, but in some cases it makes for poor logos. Zinmeister uses facts and words that scare the reader and make them think negatively. Language like this ruins logos by forcing the reader to associate negativity with the author and the article.

Another fallacy of logos is referred to by Gary Hatch as "stacking the deck" (Writing and Rhetoric 79). It is when an argument gives no acknowledgment to the other side of the issue. No where in the article are there any reasons why divorce might be good or necessary in some situations. Every argument, every fact, and every evidence is describing the detrimental effects of divorce.

Now with all this said I certainly do not condone divorce. Zinsmeister makes many great arguments later on that he backs up fully. He uses studies from reliable sources such as the University of Michigan, Gallup Inc., and The National Survey of Children. Using these studies he effectively argues that divorce in a child's life leads to a significant change in a child's views on love and commitment for the rest of there lives. These arguments are relevant and acceptable, and avoid logical fallacies.

(This article was also analyzed by Megan Corkran)

Great Expectations--Words From The Prophet

Brigham Young University has the wonderful opportunity to hold firesides and devotional in the Marriot Center on a regular basis. The speakers usually include highly esteemed professors or General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In most cases, the firesides are broadcasted across the world to other young adults. The words they speak are ones that can become of a great benefit to those who earnestly listen and take to heart. On January 11, 2009, President Thomas S. Monson gave a CES Fireside Message. By exercising multiple effective strategies of ethos, he influenced many people to continue to be strong and diligent through their course of life.

Building trust is the main strategy an author exercises when creating ethos. President Thomas S. Monson uses statements like "My dear young friends" and "my young brothers and sisters." These statements draw a connection between President Monson and those who hear his voice. Such words build trust between the speaker and the listener because people tend to trust those who are family, friends, and those who are of importance to them. In addition, the use of "young" demonstrates an authoritative voice since it implies he is older and therefore wiser from more years of experience.

President Thomas S. Monson continues to build this established trust throughout his speech by using the words "we" and "our" in order to establish the idea that the audience shares similar experiences with himself. By using a first-person point of view, "an intimate, personal, and friendly relationship [is created] between writer and readers." (W & R, p. 61) For example, President Monson states, "Greater than our period of academic preparation is the matter of spiritual preparation. We must acquire for ourselves a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which testimony will be an anchor to our soul...We must first have a desire to know for ourselves. We must study. We must pray. We must do the will of the father. And then we will know the truth." (p. 4, par. 5 & 12) His statement demonstrates that he too must do these things. Therefore, this allows readers to trust him more because he is discussing a topic that is of great personal importance.

Not only that, but President Monson's topic is one that shows his interests in others. This is shown when he applies a second-person point of view. He states, "Oh, my young brothers and sisters, make room for the Lord in your homes and in your hearts, and He will be your companion. He will be by your side. He will teach you the way of truth...You can go forward in this race of life and achieve your own great expectations." This technique grabs the readers attention and convinces the audience of his concern for them through his repetitive use of "you" and "your." With both a first- and second-person point of view, President Thomas S. Monson gives a very "balanced presentation." (W & R, p. 62)

Not only does President Monson use point of view to effectively use ethos, but he also builds credibility through "voice merging. Voice merging occurs when a writer quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to an authoritative voice." (W & R, p. 60) He quotes or paraphrases scriptures from the book of Ecclesiastes, First Peter, the book of Abraham, John, D & C, Hebrews, and Second Timothy. Additionally, he quotes influential figures such as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Charles Dickens, Dr. Glenn Doman, Henry Ford, Joseph Smith, Stephen L Richards, John Dryden, Christopher Columbus, and the Apostle Paul.

President Thomas S. Monson's persuasion about his care for the young adults and his knowledge through personal experience allowed speech became such an influential and convincing message. This is because he successfully built trust with the audience through his choice of words and quotes and developed strong ethos and credibility for himself.

Proactiv Solutions

If you want to get rid of acne, you need to use Proactiv Solutions--everybody knows that. Why? Because Proactiv advertisements are pure genius. A key to their advertisement is an effective appeal to the right audience.

Getting on the Proactiv website is like diving into pool beautiful people. You are graced with endless pictures of actresses, of dancers, and of Miss America. These bombshells are there to say "You can look like me if you use Proactiv!" The advertisement is appealing not to beautiful people, but people who want to be beautiful. Proactiv realizes that they can appeal to these people's emotions more than those of others. Realizing this increases their productivity because they draw the interest of the right people. All someone has to do is use the three step treatment and they will be beautiful.

Another interesting point is that the advertisement seems to focus more on females. Four out of the five celebrity endorsements on the home page are females. Girls tend to care about how they look more than boys, therefore, they are the ones that will spend more money on skin care. Studies have also shown that women also tend to have acne longer in their life as well. In their 40's, over 26% of women and only 12% of men had acne. By focusing their advertisement on women Proactiv is appealing to a bigger market and increasing their profit.

Lastly, Proactiv is clearly focusing their advertisement on white people. Every celebrity endorsement, and all but one of the "before and after" examples are Caucasian. In the United States the average white has a higher income than the average African-American or Hispanic. Proactiv appeals mainly to whites because they are the people with the most money. Once again, they are focusing on the audience that will give them the highest profit.

Proactiv Solutions has success because they capture the right audience in their advertisement. Specifically, they appeal to white females that want to be beautiful. Although they capture many other audiences who benefit from the product, they have pinpointed the key users of Proactiv. This appeal makes their advertisements successful.