Pick an op-ed piece by a regular New York Times columnist that interests you. For this post, you’ll analyze how the writer reasons through his or her argument.
First, examine the use of enthymeme in this article. In a sentence or two, state the piece’s conclusion (put another way, summarize its main argument). Then identify the major and minor premises that lead to the conclusion. What ideas or assumptions does the conclusion depend on for it to be persuasive? As you reconstruct the piece’s enthymeme, explain the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and discuss how effective you think the writer’s reasoning is.
Last, describe this piece’s use of an example, analogy, maxim or sign. Identify at least one instance of one of these strategies that the writer uses in his or her piece. Explain how it enhances or diminishes the writer’s main argument.
Please post your response as a comment to this post before class meets on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The main point of Thomas L. Friedman’s article “Adults Only, Please,” is that when the United States government is so heavily invested in the recovery of the economy then the leaders of the government need to be able to find “sustainable” solutions as opposed to “situational” ones. The major premise of Friedman’s argument is Americans expect that their representatives in government will be able to sacrifice personal agendas for the good of the country, instead of simply refusing to work with each other. The minor premise in his argument is that various groups have not behaved responsibly with threats and refusing to cooperate. The conclusion of his article depends on these two premises to be persuasive and is effective in persuading the readers that these groups have behaved irresponsibly. Friedman compares the economic situation to a patient waking up on the operating table only to find that the doctors and nurses are squabbling with each other instead of caring for the patient. This example enhances the writer’s argument because it allows the reader to recognize the ridiculousness of the way groups like the President, Democrats, Republicans, banks and unions are behaving.
ReplyDeleteOp-Ed Kids in Crisis (Behind Bars) by Nicholas D. Kristof
ReplyDeleteIn this piece, Kristof's main conclusion is that we need to end criminal abuse and sexual assault in jails, especially in youth correctional facilities. I believe the editor's enthymeme is as follows:
Major Premise: All people have human rights and we need to be alert to human rights abuses in our own country.
Minor Premise: People, especially juveniles are being beaten and raped in US correctional facilities.
Minor Premise 2: Being beaten and raped is a human rights abuse.
Conclusion: Therefore, we need to do something about how people are treated in US correctional facilities because their human rights are being abused.
Throughout his argument, Kristof makes the assumption that prisoners have human rights and that the public should care about their future the way they would any other person or child. In order to back up these premises, the author uses specific examples and studies to prove his point. First, Kristof uses a specific example of a 16 year old boy named Rodney Jr. who hung himself after being beaten, robbed, and raped for several months in a men's prison. This example speaks to the morals of the reader and makes them feel guilty and ashamed that this happened in a government facility where something could have been done. Next, Kristof gives an example of a Justice Department special report done this month. This report states that 1 in 8 youth report being assaulted behind bars within the last year, which is double the amount reported by adults. The author also states that surprisingly, the study also shows that the biggest predators are not other inmates but the prison staff themselves and he describes specific examples of how this is done. I think that the writer's reasoning is very effective as long as you believe in the major premises that prisoners have human rights and that being raped or beaten is a violation of those rights. This is a premise I believe most people would agree with. The specific examples the author uses speak to the morals of the reader and help persuade him/her of the final conviction.
The main argument in this op-ed article, “Tiger Woods, Person of the Year,” is that Tiger Woods should be “person of the year” because the scandal is emblematic of how easily and how often most all of us have been fooled by appearances. The major premise discussed is that over and over those who fool the public are the real “movers and shakers “ of this century. Also then, the minor premise discussed is that Enron is the template for successful ruses. People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion depends on three things for it to be persuasive. First, it depends on assumption that people are gullible, that they will believe what they want to believe. It also depends on the idea that the consistent story of this century is that society is easily taken in. Lastly, it depends on assumption that the difference between Wood’s public and personal life was carefully managed in order to fool us.
One must accept the writer’s major premise in order to come to his conclusion. To do so, one must overlook all those who do not “grab the headlines” and yet exert influence. If one does agree, then the argument follows logically from the major premise, supported by the minor premises.
His use of Accenture is an example of those taken in. They are now trying to erase its six year association with Tiger. One has to assume that Accenture and its clients didn’t know or they would have acted differently. At one level, it enhances his argument. The slogan “Go on. Be a Tiger” shows how difficult it will be for them to recover people’s trust. On another level, the example depends on the assumption that hiring Tiger as a spokesman was based on his total image, public and private, instead of being built solely on his stellar accomplishments in golf.
In her column titled "Bringing Sexy Back," Maureen Dowd asserts that the recently-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has replaced President Barack Obama as 'The One', contrasting "The New One" with "The Old One", explaining that the "New One is the shimmering vessel that we are pouring all our hopes and dreams into." Dowd makes the case that Scott Brown has brought Americans a new sort of populism - posing the question why settle "for gloomy populism when we can have sunny populism? Why settle for Ivy League cool when we can have Cosmo hot? Why settle for a professor who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Democrats when we can have an Everyman who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Republicans?" The author, however, relies on her assumption that Americans' political ideas are wrapped around superficial observations of candor and a candidate's affection for talking sports and pick-up basketball games. Dowd's entire argument rests on the premise that Americans favor the flashy, broad-knowledge populist over the bright intellectual (although no one can deny many publications' and other media organizations' affection - and near obsession - with pictures of the president with Air Force Ones on the basketball court and its overtake of policy coverage). Dowd uses a powerful analogy to reinforce her argument that Scott Brown is the new "All-American populist", comparing him with the president and posing the question, "Why settle for a 48-year-old, 6-foot-1, organic arugula when we can have a 50-year-old, 6-foot-2, double waffle with bacon?" This analogy is powerful in comparing the Ivy League elitist with the Everyman all-star (which is what Obama was originally considered to be anyway - Dowd's argument at its core), and goes further to compare their public images and personas. She explains that the president "is coming across as plastic and hidden, rather than warm and accessibly all-American (citing Brown's use of his pick-up truck and occasional task of doing his daughter's laundry). Dowd's argument that the president - who's smiling charisma and appeal to the masses made him seem to be the accessible populist leader - has been replaced by a new one whose affection for traditional Americanism has hit home with many formerly-Democratic constituents: "Whereas Obama had to force himself to nibble French fries and drink beer (instead of his organic Black Forest Berry Honest Tea) during the Pennsylvania primary, Brown truly loves diners, Pepsi, Waffle Houses and the unwashed masses. Dowd's unwritten conclusion: Scott Brown - the new populist - doesn't need a teleprompter or a crowd of millions to be the 'everyman' leader, it's inherently in him.
ReplyDeleteThe article, “Lady Blah Blah” by Charles Blow has a hidden enthymemes tying Lady Gaga to Sarah Palin. Anyone who has been observing the pop culture lately would know about Lady Gaga’s rise to fame. And she has been the center of the media because of her oddity (wardrobe, personality.) Charles Blow is saying that Sarah Palin is the Lady Gaga of politics. The major premise is that peculiarity catches people’s attention. Minor premise is that both Lady Gaga and Sarah Palin are both different from others in their field. Therefore they will catch people’s attention. He argues that because Sarah Palin wants to be the Republican nominee in 2012, her choice to join Fox New as a contributor is one of the best decisions she has made in her political career. With Sarah Palin still in the spot light she has an advantage of retaining attention on her. By being a part of Fox News she has more time to demonstrate her perseverance, and responsibility. Charles Blow also mentions that she may be a perfect contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 simply because she’s white. In his article he notes a poll that analyzed presidents’ approval after the first year, among whites, and the plurality of whites said that Obama has been a worse president than George W. Bush. This argument is not as convincing since the poll for George W. Bush was taken at a time of economic success, where as Obama is taken during a Depression. This comparison is an analogy comparing Lady Gaga and Sarah Palin’s eccentricity, and that Sarah Palin could be successful because of that.
ReplyDeleteThe Op-Ed article by Nicholas Kristof called “Orphaned, Raped and Ignored” main enthymeme is the American’s are willing to help other countries that are in need of help when a natural disaster occurs but only when there is a great amount of publicity. Kristof feels that we should help others as well as Haiti because there are others that are also in need like the people in Congo have been for many of years but they are suffering diseases, young children are getting rapped by soldiers, and their homes are being raided and their parents are getting murdered by this never ending war.
ReplyDeleteThe main premise that Kristof is trying to get to is that he would like to see people help all that is need. He tries to persuade the readers by explaining that even though we may not all have the time or we are already helping with Haiti that there are many other people that need a helping hand. And also a minor premise is that we need American influences to help stop the war in Congo.
Kristof does diminish some of his argument by explaining that Congo does not get much help from America but he explains that some villages receive aid packages. But the way he does turn it around is by investing, having a video of the location and interviewing the victims to this case in order to persuade the readers even more. Finally the way Kristof ends the piece is by thanking all of those people for helping out with Haiti but if they can help the places that are unnoticed.
The argument that the op-ed piece, "Orphaned, Raped, and Ignored" brings to the readers attention is the struggle that the eastern Congo is facing. With the recent disaster that has struck Haiti, we are doing all that we can to help them while we do not think about the civil war taking place in the Congo. There are many women who are being raped and abandoned, while the men are being killed by the soldiers. After a woman in the Eastern Congo is raped she is disowned, thus making it almost impossible for the women to continue their lives. The major premise is that we will help countries in need that have faced a disaster but disregard the countries who are facing a civil war. The minor premise is that we need to help people in the Eastern Congo just like we have helped out the people in Haiti.The conclusion will persuade a reader who is able to sympathize with the people who live in the Eastern Congo. Due to the fact that the audience is hearing real stories about the tragedies that the people of that country have been exposed to allows the reader to feel compassion towards those people. The author has to assume that the audience wants to help out countries that are less fortunate and will feel compassionate towards these people. One has to embrace the major premise of reaching out towards people in need, and they also need to feel compassion towards the stories of rape, pillage, and murder that are being shared by the natives of the Congo.
ReplyDeleteIn the Article “No Jobs, No Recovery” is assuming that the reader is in favor of having the government be in charge of ending the current economic recession. There are some people that believe that the government shouldn’t be spending lots of money to fix the economy and that if it is allowed to run its course then it will get better on its own. What is hidden in the article is the assumption that the government should get us out of these hard times. The main point of the article is that jobs need to be created in order for the country to recover. The premise that leads to this conclusion is that the only way to fix the problems is to create more jobs. The minor premise is that the government should start this off and do the majority of the job making. The premises and the conclusion are one in the same. The author ties it all in affectively because the entire article is about what’s needs to be done to fix what’s wrong. The premise leads directly to the conclusion. One example that the author uses is that the “the sick economy is recovering, not that it is healthy.” This enhances the article by making it clear what our current state is by comparing it to a sick person. It isn’t as sick as it was, but it is not totally healthy. It is on the road to recovery and that is a positive sign.
ReplyDeleteI read the article “Orphaned, Raped, and Ignored” by Nicholas D. Kristof. His main argument was a plea to the people that they should pay just as much attention to what is happening in eastern Congo as they are in Haiti right now. More people are dying in the Congo, families destroyed, raped, and people being killed than this major disaster in Haiti but no one is paying attention to Africa. The major premise in this argument is that the earthquake in Haiti has claimed millions of lives and therefore requires world attention to help them. The minor premise is that the genocide in Congo has claimed millions of lives. In order to make the conclusion of this article persuasive, the author told the story of a little girl in Congo whose life has been torn apart twice; stripped from her parents then from her aunt and uncle. The relationship of both the major and minor premises is that both the people of Haiti and the Congo are in harm so therefore if the people in Haiti are getting national attention, the people in the Congo should have national attention also in order to help them. I think the author’s reasoning is very effective because at this point in time, a lot of people are deeply concerned about the suffering happening in Haiti and the author is pointing out that worse things are happening in the world, especially the Congo, that require attention also. The author uses signs to enhance his argument. He states “The barbaric civil war being waged here is the most lethal conflict since World War II and has claimed at least 30 times as many lives as the Haiti earthquake.” He is using the fact that the Congo has lost 30 times more lives than Haiti, which everyone knows was a huge number of deaths from the earthquake. This enhances the writer’s main argument because it shows them how extreme the violence is in the Congo and proves how much attention the Congo needs when compared to the attention Haiti is receiving right now.
ReplyDeleteThe article "The Counter Revolution" by Howell Raines main conclusion was that the South must work together politically to reach a common purpose, potentially being more biracial voting or any sort of change. He is assuming the reader wants change in the South. The major premise is that biracial voting should be more prevalent. The minor premise is that the "Counter Revolution," as Raines titles his piece, brought cooperation between the older, more peaceful figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and the younger, more radical students to form quick change in the South. Therefore the conclusion is that Southern Republicans and Democrats should work together to get something done, just as the factions of civil reformers did previously, instead of living in a political stalemate. Raines reasoning is good; however, the common goal of the Civil Rights Movement was much more common amongst groups than is the political status of the present day. The reasoning is effective because it is obvious, especially by looking into our past, and the author is convincing in calling for change.
ReplyDeleteSegregation is the word used to make the image of the problem. Segregation was the reason for problems in the South. Segregation is the problem in our current politics. The historical example and the application to the current situation make for a convincing argument that we should work for a common purpose.
In his article, “Kids in Crisis (Behind Bars)”, Nicholas Kristof asserted that rape and violence occurs not only in adult prison, but also in juvenile facilities- sometimes at even alarmingly higher rates. Kristof emphasizes the importance of doing something about this apparent “blind spot” to most Americans, who tend to focus on more extreme conditions such as those in Guantanamo Bay, and Chinese and North Korean prisons. The major Premise in the articles argument states that rape and violence is against basic human rights. The minor premise is that Rape and violence occur in juvenile detention facilities. The premises lead to the ultimate conclusion that rape and violence in juvenile detention facilities is against basic human rights that even prisoners have.
ReplyDeleteKristof opens the article with an example of a 16 year old boy who was placed in an adult prison for arson. Due to his small statue, the boy was raped and beaten on a regular basis, until finally he hung himself. This example is extremely effective in the argument made by the article. A reader can be immune to empathy for adult criminals who are tortured in prison because they may deserve to be there. The story about the young boy evokes an emotional response because people are more inclined to feel empathy for an innocent child, no matter what they may have done.
I read the article “A woman burns” written by op-ed columnist Roger Cohen. He used the story, which the flows from the city demolition squad beat the Tan Huiqing and her family in order to let them go and demolish their house but finally caused the suicidal of Tang Fuzhen by burning herself, happened on Tan Huiqing and his family to illustrate the cruel the Chinese government are and the damage it made to its civilian’s lives. The major premise is that the development of China, which is a fast train to the future, is based on the cruel bulldozer to their civilians and the rights taking off from them. Most of the expansion of china is the guarantor of the Communist Party’s hold on power and so everything will be done to sustain it. There’s neither freedom nor rights in China. The minor premise is that Europeans or other first world countries’ people cannot see the underside, which are often trampled lives. Because they are not suffering in the Chinese development disaster. They are just sitting in the sidelines instead of being a actor in such drama. The conclusion of his article depends on these two premises to be persuasive and effective in persuading the readers that the Chinese people who live in the underside of the society are suffering in the evil development, which is a beautiful story to changing the world. The author used a real story that happened several days before as a screen to see the whole situation of China’s development. This helps the people to think about it from one point to a surface.
ReplyDeleteThe op-ed article I read is called “The Feds Best Man”, by Alan S. Blinder from Thursday, January 28. The main argument Blinder is making is that Ben Bernanke should be reappointed to the head of the Federal Reserve. Blinder does not claim Bernanke did a perfect job, but a change of power would set back the progress we have made. Blinder even goes to back Bernanke on one of his main criticisms: “It’s a fair complaint, but who has always been right? Yes, he initially allowed the Fed to continue the regulatory laxity bequeathed him by Alan Greenspan. No, he did not foresee the full depth of the impending financial implosion. But who did?” (Blinder http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28blinder.html) Blinder sides with Bernanke by not blaming him for the global recession.
ReplyDeleteBlinder definitely utilizes an enthymeme. In the first couple of sentences, he states, “Rejecting him would be a big mistake, for it would both flog a distinguished public servant who helped avert catastrophe and turn the Fed chairmanship into yet another political football. Washington has plenty of political footballs already.” (Blinder http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28blinder.html) This statement has a major premise, minor premise, and a conclusion. The major premise is “Rejecting…mistake”. This is his first main statement, setting up the idea. The minor premise is “for it…political football”. Although this is the second part of the same sentence, this is his explanation for his first/main idea, which is why this is the minor premise. The conclusion is “Washington…already” because it his final idea of his thesis; the idea that ties both premises together. What I like about this conclusion is that Blinder uses an analogy, by comparing certain politicians to a football.
In "The Counter Revolution" Howell Raines describes the media coverage of The Greensboro sit-ins and the rest of the civil rights movement and how the media's coverage almost forced the civil rights movement to proceed forward and gain momentum. Maybe the movement was too quick, because biracial voting has caused severe segregation among white and black voters. Back then, the movement brought people together, but as politics and the country moved forward, the southern peoples grew increasingly segregated. Raines uses the word "segregate" to carry his piece and show that political reform is needed in the south.
ReplyDelete