GE's Claims of Arugument

I had a really hard time with this question regarding Toulmin analysis of the GE advertisement. For some reason, analyzing the image was a lot harder than analyzing a written argument. I felt like there was a lot I should be seeing, but was missing. As is, I came up with several claims and evidence, but only a couple reasons and warrants. I could not bridge the gap very easily and see what each individual item was. Really, with this visual argument, I did not see any Toulmin terms left out. They did not really concede a point, but in a photograph, that is not necessary. Toulmin analysis basically states that there is a series of claims, then assumptions drawn from those claims that the author makes. I believe this argument is well presented. Here are my claims, reasons, and evidence that I drew from the image.

Claim1: The Evolution is the cleanest train ever made.

Claim2: GE is at the foremost of technology and preserving the environment.

Claim3: Riding in a GE train like the Evolution promotes a healthy environment.

Claim4: Most people who ride trains want to because it is better for the environment.

Reason1: The train goes through nature without disruption.

Warrent1: What does not disrupt the environment must be good for it.

Warrant2: If a train does not harm the environment, then it must be the best choice to ride on.

Evidence1: The environment is very beautiful and peaceful.

Evidence2: The train does not disrupt the natural, endangered birds in their natural
environment.

Evidence3: There is no smoke or pollution in the image. No tracks cutting though the landscape either.

Qualifier1: Most other trains do not protect the environment.

Analyzing The Argument

Claim: People should honor the true definitions of “Patriotism” and “supporting the Troops,” not the political and media’s definitions.

Qualifier: Most people only understand the political definitions and “hard evidence” definitions.

Good Reasons: Patriotism cannot be limited to commercialism.
People will die for these terms; the definitions should be known.

Warrants: People should understand the difference between the two definitions.
If people are willing to die for something, the reasoning should be known.

Backing: The general public has a need for knowledge and that should not be skewed by any force.

Evidence: People dying for a word.
Government taking advantage of US unity and patriotism.

Authority: Various quotes from known public figures about Patriotism and supporting the troops.

Rebuttal: Some people don’t care about the definitions of words as long as it suits their purposes.

Response: Everyone has the basic need and want of being informed. If they do not wish to listen, they do not have to.

In my opinion, this essay was not suited for a Toulmin analysis. There are too many abstract ideas here, and not enough hard evidence either way. It is an opinionated essay, bound by those ideals. Most all of the facts are supported by opinions. I was able to fill in most of the slots, but am not sure if I completed the activity correctly. In my essay I was not short of evidence, and rebuttal was not needed, but the Toulmin analysis shows I was lacking in both categories.

I guess, if I were to rewrite this paper using a Toulmin style, I would have to construct my arguments on more than just opinion. More information would have to be brought in, this time over factual evidence supporting my claims. Also, I would have to think more in-depth about what I want to get across. Do I simply want to define how I view Patriotism, or do I want others to see that the definition has become grossly disproportioned?

Censorship in our World

I have to be honest; this chapter of the text has to be my favorite so far. I liked the presentation of Toulmin arguments. First of all, it came at a great time in the class; right as we are beginning to write our papers. I believe going over this topic has helped me prepare immensely and I plan on using the Toulmin analysis in writing my paper. Already it has helped me to stay organized and open-minded.

The essay by Alan Dershowz was another highlight of this week. Not only was it a continuation on the topic of censorship and the idea of free speech, but it was also a perfect example of the Toulmin argument style. I love how the essay was reversed, putting the examples and evidence first, then the warrants, claims, and thesis. If I had a better grasping, I would try it myself!

Although this essay was very insightful and well written, I have to say it did not change my views about censorship. Mostly because my views are his- nothing can realistically be censored. If something offensive to one person is banned, then ten million other things that are offensive would have to be banned as well. To censor would be to enter a world like that of Orwell’s in 1984. Nothing is private due to a fear of someone performing a banned action.

All in all, my views coincide with Dershowz’s and those of my peers. Censorship is not the answer to offensive material. Instead, each individual must rise against it, accepting and posing their own arguments. Then all views are heard, offensive or not. It is up to the individual to decide.

So much Information!! - "Will it ever stop?"

Deardorff, Julie. “Technology puts years on young ears.” Chicago Tribune(2005). Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Helmke Lib., Ft. Wayne, IN. 5 April, 2008.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W70340603255&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

This article details the usage of cell phones and how it effects people’s hearing. It is a well known fact that listening to music too loud will harm your ears and render you temporarily ‘deaf’ but recent studies have shown that talking on cell phones too long and often can result in hearing loss too.

“Last Word On Cell Phone Safety?” Child Health Alert(2007):25.3. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Helmke Lib., Ft. Wayne, IN. 5 April, 2008.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23714960&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

This is another source dedicated to the studies done on Cell phone usage and the possibilities of brain tumors. As it is now, none of the studies are able to prove the fact one way or another. There just is not enough data. Previous studies have indicated that there is no connection, but those were done with older phones, and people who have not been using cell phones from young ages. The main concern now is with children. Does their thinner skull affect the amount of radiation the phones are giving off?

Cramer, Sheryl. Joni Mayer. Sherry Ryan. “College Students Use Cell Phones While Driving More Frequently Than Found in Government Study.” Journal of American College Health(2007): 56.2:181-184. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Helmke Lib., Ft. Wayne, IN. 5 April, 2008.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27264993&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

I decided after gathering my information that I may not have enough research to complete the six to seven pages, so decided to broaden my horizons to include how driving with cell phones constitutes more danger. All in all, cell phones are proving to be harmful to an individual’s heath. This article details the statistics, as well as a study aimed at, driving with cell phones and the impairment because of such. The study has shown that college students are at the highest risk because they drive while using cell phones the most. I figured it would be a good article to include, because it rounds out my research. Cell phones are not just dangerous in regard to mental and brain health; they can be dangerous to your bodily health as well.

Plagiarism - In all its Glory

Due to the advances in technology, even the most basic of things, such as essays, are being transformed. What was once a long, drawn out affair of research, quoting, and explaining evidence has become a much simpler task of searching and adding a hyperlink to a more “reliable and creditable” source. It is still up for debate on whether or not this is a better method than the latter.

When it is all said and done, I liked the essay regarding plagiarism. There is a lot to be said on the topic and it makes it even more real when a well-known professor and author ends up plagiarizing most of her information. But I am not so sure that I enjoyed the format. I am not much for reading online, over a computer screen. Not only that, this essay uses several hyperlinks to inform readers of more information on separate sites, which may or may not be a good thing.

Now, I am not saying this format is bad. In all honesty, I can see several benefits, and the essay flows smoothly. But the format is very unreliable. In more than one case when I attempted to click a hyperlink, it brought up computer errors and would not display the page. This could be due to my computer, but the author should keep that idea in mind; not everyone’s computer will work well with the hyperlink format, therefore not everyone will get the benefits of this method. Also, after time, the links the author has posted may run into disrepair and no longer work. What will his essay be then?

The claim argued here was very well discussed. The author used a lot of quotes and used the hyperlinks in a very supportive manner. He did not rely upon them totally, only used them as backup in case a reader wanted more in-depth information. I believe this is the best method for hyperlinks. If I understood it better, I would probably use the hyperlinks more, just for the simple fact that it allows readers to go to the source, instead of believing the author totally. If I were to question credibility, I could just click the source and see if I was being lied to or not. Hyperlinks help readers with their understanding, so in this case, they are good. The reader just has to keep in mind that with technology, being tricked becomes much easier. Just because one uses a hyperlink does not mean he or she is more creditable. The author could be using false hyperlinks on purpose, just so the reader will attribute the unresponsive page to a computer error, not a false creditable site.

With everything considered, this author does not misuse hyperlinks at all. All of the pages were informative, liked to well-known sites, and worked (for the most part). The argumentation was factual and the author used quotations outside of hyperlinks, supporting his argument. The best use of such was when he liked directly to the plagiarized paper in question. Readers could see directly that Ms. Goodwin paper was plagiarized. It helped to see that he was not just assuming, he knew what he was talking about. Plagiarism is a serious topic, much like that of censorship. It is a topic all college students should be aware of and wary of.

So many Images, So little Space

http://anothermonkey.blogspot.com/2007/04/old-phone-new-phone.html. Personal blog.

This image shows how cell phones have changed over the years. They were once huge, bulky things that had to have their own bag. Now, phones are slim, hand-shaped and easily hidden. This is part of the huge controversy with cell phones. Because they can be hidden, students are using them to cheat on tests, take inappropriate photos, and other things.

http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/cellphonecancer.php. Environment, Health and Safety Online. Updated Feb. 2008.

This image shows the radiation levels in cell phones, compared to other household and everyday items. It is an interesting comparison. As shown on this graph, the radiation from cell phones is very similar to that of televisions and microwave ovens, which have already been determined to not cause radiation damage. The controversy however, is if holding these radioactive elements, no matter how small, up to your brain can cause more damage that just having the radiation floating around. Although the site I found this information on is not purely academic, it has a lot of information and studies that I plan to use, along with this image.

http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/ask/archives/007174.html Personal Blog, October 2006.

This images shows the extent to which cell phones are being used. When I came across it, I was very surprised. The people of Africa, small, secluded tribes at that, are using cell phones regularly. They even sell cell phone cards and such at common market stores! I plan to use the image to relate how wide spread cell phone use is. Not just Americans own phones. Even the smallest, most secluded African tribe has several phones. There is even talk that Iraq and other such nations are wanting to buy into the cell phone craze.

http://cellphoneuse.org/

This image came from a personal website, aimed at exposing the risks of cell phones to the world. Unfortunately, I found the site to be completely biased and no where near useful. All the sponsors did was bash cell phone use, saying it causes cancer, but they did not back up their facts very well. Most of the studies used only show the results saying cell phones and wireless signals are harmful to the brain due to Electromagnetic radiation, but they never concede points. Cell phones can cause damage, but in most case studies it has been proven that the phones only hold small amounts of radiation. The site may be worth more looking into though; maybe some of the links will prove more informative.

Speeches to Move

Oh the inevitable act of taunting others!

In my opinion, these essays state the same thought, support the same opinion; that free speech should be allowed and it is a basic right of all Americans. The idea of trying to limit free speech makes anyone bristle. These people just spoke out against it.

I liked both essays, because they came towards the same idea, only using different approaches. The first essay tried to show all viewpoints; why the hoisting of the two flags could be seen as both an outcry and testament of free speech, as well as how it can be seen as offensive to others. This author gauged his audience and tried to make both sides of the view fair. He held to the view that free speech should be allowed, but that some people need to think of others before blatantly ‘speaking.’ The second essay was a critique of the first, going into detail about how the first essay could have been improved, but how it did a good job of sticking to its view.

In my opinions free speech should always be allowed. But, as stated, it is a hard topic to gage. Just how ‘free’ can speech be if one has to consider all possible reactions before speaking? And how ‘free’ can speech be if there are some topics one cannot broach? The First Amendment kind of contradicts itself here. Everyone has the right to free speech, but then everyone has to be treated equally. So if Person A wants to fly a confederate flag, but Person B finds that offensive and demeaning, Person A would have to take down that flag because it would go against Person B’s rights. How “free” is that?

Free speech is such a broad topic I believe it is limitless, so anything can fall under its protection. But the most publicized is with religion or sexual orientation. I have heard a lot about these topics, though have never experienced them myself. The closest I think I have come is watching the news about how “In God We Trust” may be taken off money, and how the Ten Commandments were going to be banned from display in Government buildings. Here, it never hit home so I never gave it attention.

With the issue of hate speech, my opinion rides to that of the essays. Just let people go and try to ignore it. Most times, people enact hate speech to get a response. There is no ‘fair’ way to draw a line here, no adequate way to say “this is hate speech and this is not” so people need to take it into their own hands. Also, hate speech is all relevant to the listener. I may find being called an Indian degrading and mean, while someone else may think it the regular term.

All in all, the idea of Free Speech is hard to define. No one can say exactly what it is, what it entails, or how to enact it. The terms are just to general for our increasingly specific culture. Someday maybe the terms will be set. But for now, everyone has to just accept them as general, try to live by the general rule of treating others with respect.