Leader/Editorial
-informative
-persuasive
Should be written in the following format:
-Introduction
-Key point
-key point
-key point
-concession- the act of giving or conceding (giving in to an argument that the opposing side might make)
-final key point, smacking down concession
- conclusion
If you will write an editorial like in the new york times you have to make sure that you have: a hook, drop the lead and only then a hard introduction.
It is suggested to make a persuasive editorial (since it would be easier for us).
However every editorial still has to be speaking to the audience. Every newspaper knows what their audience is and hence every editorial ("editors opinion")still appeals to them. Occasionally they will write an editorial to challenge their audience, however most will still speak to them.
Write your editorial on a current issue(get a paper that you can pull a newspaper out of) e.g. Climate change, paris conference, syria, migrant/refugee crisis, paris + brussels attacks,(one can go back to discussing whether this is a migration or a refugee crisis) presidential election (US), Brexit (reasons for and against), the role of an independent supreme court in a free society.
You must always have the language and the tone of the newspaper you are writing to.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Major Barbara- analysis
For prosperity you need:
1. Human resources (of appropriate age, young and many of them)
2. Infrastructure
3. Appropriate investment in education(in america this costs a fortune, and all schools are based on housing taxes)
4. Appropriate investment in healthcare(healthcare is also expensive
5. Natural resources
Major Barbara was written during the height of UK's Industrial Revolution. The idea is that commerce is going to fix everything. However its hasn't because there is still a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. Therefore then there are organisations such as the Salvation army who are intrenched into caring for the poor people. However what they are doing in reality is trading food for prayer.
Shaw sees commerce as the answer. However the question is, what do we do with commerce? Shaw is saying that the real power of England is in the hands of the people who control the money, not the government. The end of the play is what we call the tri-partite.
Undershaft is so excited for cousins to become the leader of the business because he is a Greek professor. A professor of the classes.
*UNDERSHAFT*- can undershaft exist now? In our times.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Global Warming Paper
Why is Climate change a natural rather than a man-made process?
Global warming, natural or manmade?
There has been a number of contradicting arguments whether global warming is caused by man or not. Throughout this article I will argue for why the current change in global climate could not, in any way, have been caused by human activity. I will go over the points which prove that global climate change is all natural and the reasons why assuming that we have caused it are unrealistic. In the following paragraph I will look at how climate change has changed in the past and how that proves we are not the cause of todays global warming.
The primary reason for which we know that it is impossible for human activity to be playing a role in the current rise of temperatures is the fact that the earth has always been experiencing a change in climate, it is just the way the our planet adapts. Rising temperatures have been present long before human existence and have allowed for the development of complex organisms to exist on our planet now. Not only have there been rising temperatures but falling ones too, there were numerous ice ages in the past which simply serve to show that what we are experiencing now is all natural. As there were higher temperatures long after the ice ages, we can only assume that the earth is simply warming up. It is common sense to anyone and everyone that this is the cause of what we are experiencing today. More than half of the population in developed countries know that global is a natural phenomenon, hence there is no reason to worry. The thermal maximum was in fact experienced between the Palaeocene and the Eocene which was around 55 million years ago, where the average temperature of the ocean was 3x as high as ours (14 degrees celsius).
Secondly what scientists assume is that the rise in temperatures is caused by the higher concentration of greenhouse gasses which are released into the atmosphere by the human population, mostly by the burning of fossil fuels. However simply because gasses such as carbon dioxide absorb heat and there is a higher concentration of them in the atmosphere, scientists are wrong to assume this is the direct link to global warming. It is wrong to assume that the use of cars or agricultural breeding of cows is what will destroy our planet. They are wrong to assume so because CO2 is in fact great for plant life and has (similarly to temperature) carried greatly throughout the history of our planet. Just like temperature it has carried however not accordingly. Throughout history there is no clear link between gasses like CO2 and the overall temperature of our planet. Besides that, there has always been a layer of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere as it is a vital component that allows life of earth. Besides this, there was a large increase in CO2 emissions in the atmosphere after the second word war, however there was a fall in temperatures recorded for a long 4 decades after that. The evidence contradicts itself hence why it is a myth that human activity is melting glaciers and killing the ecosystem.
Lastly I will focus on what scientists intentionally miss most of the time. Which is the suns activity, after all the primary source of heat in our galaxy is the sun. They all spend too much time focussing on human activities whereas in reality they all should be looking at the one thing which is the source of almost all heat, the one thing without which we would not be able to survive at all. Which is the sun. Again throughout the past, increased activity on the surface of the sun has shown an increase in the earths temperatures. Solar activities are believed to vary, on average, in 11 year cycles. A more specific factor in which a clear correlation between global temperature can be seen is the change is solar radiation. Changes in solar wavelength is believed to have a higher kinetic energy. However again the scientists have not been focussing on solar radiation changes and therefore do not know much of what this could mean for our planet. For all we know, solar changes could be the end for planet earth. Not only does the radiation impact the earth's temperatures but so do solar flares. There is a peak in these solar flares, called the solar maximum, which is achieved every 11 years or so. This can be a large contributor to global warming since these solar flares are very high in kinetic energy as well as in magnetic activity.
In conclusion I believe it is not up to us, the citizens, to be worried as to what contributes to global warming. The real reason lies in the research being carried out by our scientists. In order for us to understand what further steps to take we have to firstly know what is causing this rise in temperature. As of right now, we can assume that this is all natural and will not further affect the human population. We can stop worrying and take further actions once they, the scientists, give us a direct link as to what is causing global warming and whether this is even a threat. Let alone if the precautions we should be taking will even help reduce the temperatures and whether even that is good.
Global warming, natural or manmade?
There has been a number of contradicting arguments whether global warming is caused by man or not. Throughout this article I will argue for why the current change in global climate could not, in any way, have been caused by human activity. I will go over the points which prove that global climate change is all natural and the reasons why assuming that we have caused it are unrealistic. In the following paragraph I will look at how climate change has changed in the past and how that proves we are not the cause of todays global warming.
The primary reason for which we know that it is impossible for human activity to be playing a role in the current rise of temperatures is the fact that the earth has always been experiencing a change in climate, it is just the way the our planet adapts. Rising temperatures have been present long before human existence and have allowed for the development of complex organisms to exist on our planet now. Not only have there been rising temperatures but falling ones too, there were numerous ice ages in the past which simply serve to show that what we are experiencing now is all natural. As there were higher temperatures long after the ice ages, we can only assume that the earth is simply warming up. It is common sense to anyone and everyone that this is the cause of what we are experiencing today. More than half of the population in developed countries know that global is a natural phenomenon, hence there is no reason to worry. The thermal maximum was in fact experienced between the Palaeocene and the Eocene which was around 55 million years ago, where the average temperature of the ocean was 3x as high as ours (14 degrees celsius).
Secondly what scientists assume is that the rise in temperatures is caused by the higher concentration of greenhouse gasses which are released into the atmosphere by the human population, mostly by the burning of fossil fuels. However simply because gasses such as carbon dioxide absorb heat and there is a higher concentration of them in the atmosphere, scientists are wrong to assume this is the direct link to global warming. It is wrong to assume that the use of cars or agricultural breeding of cows is what will destroy our planet. They are wrong to assume so because CO2 is in fact great for plant life and has (similarly to temperature) carried greatly throughout the history of our planet. Just like temperature it has carried however not accordingly. Throughout history there is no clear link between gasses like CO2 and the overall temperature of our planet. Besides that, there has always been a layer of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere as it is a vital component that allows life of earth. Besides this, there was a large increase in CO2 emissions in the atmosphere after the second word war, however there was a fall in temperatures recorded for a long 4 decades after that. The evidence contradicts itself hence why it is a myth that human activity is melting glaciers and killing the ecosystem.
Lastly I will focus on what scientists intentionally miss most of the time. Which is the suns activity, after all the primary source of heat in our galaxy is the sun. They all spend too much time focussing on human activities whereas in reality they all should be looking at the one thing which is the source of almost all heat, the one thing without which we would not be able to survive at all. Which is the sun. Again throughout the past, increased activity on the surface of the sun has shown an increase in the earths temperatures. Solar activities are believed to vary, on average, in 11 year cycles. A more specific factor in which a clear correlation between global temperature can be seen is the change is solar radiation. Changes in solar wavelength is believed to have a higher kinetic energy. However again the scientists have not been focussing on solar radiation changes and therefore do not know much of what this could mean for our planet. For all we know, solar changes could be the end for planet earth. Not only does the radiation impact the earth's temperatures but so do solar flares. There is a peak in these solar flares, called the solar maximum, which is achieved every 11 years or so. This can be a large contributor to global warming since these solar flares are very high in kinetic energy as well as in magnetic activity.
In conclusion I believe it is not up to us, the citizens, to be worried as to what contributes to global warming. The real reason lies in the research being carried out by our scientists. In order for us to understand what further steps to take we have to firstly know what is causing this rise in temperature. As of right now, we can assume that this is all natural and will not further affect the human population. We can stop worrying and take further actions once they, the scientists, give us a direct link as to what is causing global warming and whether this is even a threat. Let alone if the precautions we should be taking will even help reduce the temperatures and whether even that is good.
Global warming plan
*logical fallacies and propaganda tools*
1. “Climate change is a natural not a man-made process”
Why is Climate change natural rather than a man-made process?
INTRODUCTION
Slippery Slope, Hasty Generalisation, Post hoc ergo propter hoc,Genetic Fallacy(idea of someone else),Circular Argument(restating), Straw Man.
PARAGRAPH 1- There has been a rise in temperatures before, it is just how the earth adapts. This has been taking place even before human existence. (" For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages.")
PARAGRAPH 2- There is no proof that the CO2 levels which we have been releasing into the atmosphere prove that this(human activity) has lead to the warming of our planet right now. ---------------use bandwagon (e.g. it is common sense that...)
PARAGRAPH 3 - Solar activity (sunspots and cycles) have lead to the warming of our planet rather than human activity.----------use exaggeration
some stupid points:
What you can say is, yes, carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is at levels higher than ever before, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so it’s reasonable to say that there’s warming associated with the increase of carbon dioxide. But you can’t make the leap yet that all the cars in the world have led to what we’re observing in the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.
And so you have all these processed mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you’re in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is.”
The earth could also be warming as a response to last glacial period around 10,000 years ago.
-Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere.
1. “Climate change is a natural not a man-made process”
Why is Climate change natural rather than a man-made process?
INTRODUCTION
Slippery Slope, Hasty Generalisation, Post hoc ergo propter hoc,Genetic Fallacy(idea of someone else),Circular Argument(restating), Straw Man.
PARAGRAPH 1- There has been a rise in temperatures before, it is just how the earth adapts. This has been taking place even before human existence. (" For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages.")
PARAGRAPH 2- There is no proof that the CO2 levels which we have been releasing into the atmosphere prove that this(human activity) has lead to the warming of our planet right now. ---------------use bandwagon (e.g. it is common sense that...)
PARAGRAPH 3 - Solar activity (sunspots and cycles) have lead to the warming of our planet rather than human activity.----------use exaggeration
some stupid points:
What you can say is, yes, carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is at levels higher than ever before, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so it’s reasonable to say that there’s warming associated with the increase of carbon dioxide. But you can’t make the leap yet that all the cars in the world have led to what we’re observing in the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.
And so you have all these processed mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you’re in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is.”
The earth could also be warming as a response to last glacial period around 10,000 years ago.
-Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere.
-During Earth’s long
history there has been more and
less carbon dioxide in the atmos-
phere than we see today.
-Regionally, climate has
been shown to change rapidly in
the past and will continue to do so
in the future.
-Life
on earth has been shown to thrive
when planetary temperatures are
warmer as opposed to colder.
-We simply
don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the
data to demonstrate that human-
ity is having a substantial impact
on climate change.
-There's no empirical evidence "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. "
-There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
-There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
-After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
- It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
-
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Donald trump presidential announcement speech Analysis Letter
Dear Donald Trump,
I am writing to you regarding the presidential announcement speech you gave at the Trump tower in New York, which I will go over to analyse a number of techniques you use throughout in order to persuade your audience in order to earn more votes. More specifically, in this letter I will focus on your use of repetition and pronouns and how they serve your speech when using it to attract and persuade your audience, and how they make it affective. However firstly I will look at your use of simplistic language.
I took notice of the fact that your speeches are worded in a simple way. The diction and syntax in the presidential announcement speech is easy to follow along to, understand and therefore remember. The language used appeals to the majority of the American population. "I think I am a nice person. People that know me, like me." Not only do you use short and simple sentences most of your words are either one or two syllables long, making whatever you claim easy to remember and believable. The diction used does not involve any sophistication and pushes the American population to follow along and hence express more interest in what you are saying. The interest sparked leads to support, which is mainly reached through grabbing the attention of the vast majority of America's population that would otherwise not understand the language used amongst the other candidates. There is a large number of America's population who have been listening to presidential speeches without fully understanding them and have seen presidents get elected through the use of sophisticated diction and not achieve much change. Therefore the population will only be more likely to vote for someone that appears different, in which case this is you. The short sentences and simple diction portray you as someone who is down to earth and unlike the others, hence might actually make a change. This, I believe also brings you votes.
Secondly I focussed on your use of rhetorical devices, one of, which is most commonly used is repetition. Your use of repetition, of words in sentences, points in speeches or sayings in general serve to highlight ideas or create an over-arching theme. Upon speaking of Obama being a negative force in your speech, you refer to him as a 'cheerleader' around four times. This repetition of the word cheerleader is not only apparent throughout the paragraph but there is also a clear assonance between the words "cheerleader" and "leader". The word "cheerleader" is primarily used to put down Obama and this is done so by disregarding him as a "leader". In other words saying that he is merely a cheerleader. However later on you disregard him as a 'cheerleader' as well, only to repeat the idea one more time before the end of the paragraph. The repetition of the word cheerleader allows you to further push down Obama upon developing of the meaning and importance of the word 'cheerleader'. To which Obama is compared to one last time in order to say he isn't motivating enough to even be a cheerleader, let alone be a leader. The development in importance of the word 'cheerleader' throughout the paragraph makes Obama appear too small for even such a title, that seemed humiliating at the start of the paragraph. This positions the name Trump higher up and indirectly makes you superior as you are delivering the message. Such repetition is used numerous times throughout your speech not only to change the idea behind other words but repetitions helps the audience remember your message. Hence are more likely to listen the next time.
Lastly I have taken notice of yet another rhetorical device used for the duration of most your speeches, your use of pronouns. Not only do you include pronouns to create a feeling of unity and belief, you use pronouns in contrary, to distance others. "I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better". The use of the personal pronoun 'I' appeals to ethos. In other words, placing this pronoun by events that seem difficult or by placing it in a sentence with strong adjectives such as 'bigger' and 'better' serves to make the audience believe and have faith in the strength of your character. Making them more likely to follow you. However once you have built upon your character you move on to using pronouns such as 'we' in order to involve the audience and make them believe they are part of this team. Subconsciously this feeds their ego and where one places themselves, therefore they will almost always be willing to corporate or support (vote for) you. However you use pronouns such as 'they' when referring to nations that, according to you, are a disadvantage to America. "They kill us" In this case you were referring to China, you actually used both pronouns. 'us' and 'they' upon doing so you create a comparison between the two nations and make China seem as if they are against you and hence everyone who follows or agrees with you. This a good way to make it seem as if only America is great and everyone else below you is a negative force. Again this is how people start to believe whatever you say and discount the fact that your decisions may be wrong. They follow you blindly.
In conclusion I admire the methods you use while speaking to your audience as I can see that clearly they are working well for you. Your use of simple language, repetition and of pronouns undeniably attract the audience and their support. This is what I believe helped you come to where you stand at the moment and gain the number of votes you did. However I do as well believe that a number of you values and attitudes towards others are misplaced and may stop you from winning the election.
Best Regards
-Eva
I am writing to you regarding the presidential announcement speech you gave at the Trump tower in New York, which I will go over to analyse a number of techniques you use throughout in order to persuade your audience in order to earn more votes. More specifically, in this letter I will focus on your use of repetition and pronouns and how they serve your speech when using it to attract and persuade your audience, and how they make it affective. However firstly I will look at your use of simplistic language.
I took notice of the fact that your speeches are worded in a simple way. The diction and syntax in the presidential announcement speech is easy to follow along to, understand and therefore remember. The language used appeals to the majority of the American population. "I think I am a nice person. People that know me, like me." Not only do you use short and simple sentences most of your words are either one or two syllables long, making whatever you claim easy to remember and believable. The diction used does not involve any sophistication and pushes the American population to follow along and hence express more interest in what you are saying. The interest sparked leads to support, which is mainly reached through grabbing the attention of the vast majority of America's population that would otherwise not understand the language used amongst the other candidates. There is a large number of America's population who have been listening to presidential speeches without fully understanding them and have seen presidents get elected through the use of sophisticated diction and not achieve much change. Therefore the population will only be more likely to vote for someone that appears different, in which case this is you. The short sentences and simple diction portray you as someone who is down to earth and unlike the others, hence might actually make a change. This, I believe also brings you votes.
Secondly I focussed on your use of rhetorical devices, one of, which is most commonly used is repetition. Your use of repetition, of words in sentences, points in speeches or sayings in general serve to highlight ideas or create an over-arching theme. Upon speaking of Obama being a negative force in your speech, you refer to him as a 'cheerleader' around four times. This repetition of the word cheerleader is not only apparent throughout the paragraph but there is also a clear assonance between the words "cheerleader" and "leader". The word "cheerleader" is primarily used to put down Obama and this is done so by disregarding him as a "leader". In other words saying that he is merely a cheerleader. However later on you disregard him as a 'cheerleader' as well, only to repeat the idea one more time before the end of the paragraph. The repetition of the word cheerleader allows you to further push down Obama upon developing of the meaning and importance of the word 'cheerleader'. To which Obama is compared to one last time in order to say he isn't motivating enough to even be a cheerleader, let alone be a leader. The development in importance of the word 'cheerleader' throughout the paragraph makes Obama appear too small for even such a title, that seemed humiliating at the start of the paragraph. This positions the name Trump higher up and indirectly makes you superior as you are delivering the message. Such repetition is used numerous times throughout your speech not only to change the idea behind other words but repetitions helps the audience remember your message. Hence are more likely to listen the next time.
Lastly I have taken notice of yet another rhetorical device used for the duration of most your speeches, your use of pronouns. Not only do you include pronouns to create a feeling of unity and belief, you use pronouns in contrary, to distance others. "I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better". The use of the personal pronoun 'I' appeals to ethos. In other words, placing this pronoun by events that seem difficult or by placing it in a sentence with strong adjectives such as 'bigger' and 'better' serves to make the audience believe and have faith in the strength of your character. Making them more likely to follow you. However once you have built upon your character you move on to using pronouns such as 'we' in order to involve the audience and make them believe they are part of this team. Subconsciously this feeds their ego and where one places themselves, therefore they will almost always be willing to corporate or support (vote for) you. However you use pronouns such as 'they' when referring to nations that, according to you, are a disadvantage to America. "They kill us" In this case you were referring to China, you actually used both pronouns. 'us' and 'they' upon doing so you create a comparison between the two nations and make China seem as if they are against you and hence everyone who follows or agrees with you. This a good way to make it seem as if only America is great and everyone else below you is a negative force. Again this is how people start to believe whatever you say and discount the fact that your decisions may be wrong. They follow you blindly.
In conclusion I admire the methods you use while speaking to your audience as I can see that clearly they are working well for you. Your use of simple language, repetition and of pronouns undeniably attract the audience and their support. This is what I believe helped you come to where you stand at the moment and gain the number of votes you did. However I do as well believe that a number of you values and attitudes towards others are misplaced and may stop you from winning the election.
Best Regards
-Eva
Ways to improve your introduction
In your introduction always start with the "big things" and slowly move into the specifics.
eg. Camping- Bringing Food would be one of the big things. Whereas the specifics would be bread and butter and marshmallows...etc.
In Stefan's example:
-> Instead of saying that Hillary Clinton's use of personal pronouns creates a sense of unity he should say that her use of rhetorical devices(big idea-general), which the personal pronouns are a part of, create a sense of unity. Then give an example from the speech."Now, it's our turn to stand in solidarity with France and all of our friends."
eg. Camping- Bringing Food would be one of the big things. Whereas the specifics would be bread and butter and marshmallows...etc.
In Stefan's example:
-> Instead of saying that Hillary Clinton's use of personal pronouns creates a sense of unity he should say that her use of rhetorical devices(big idea-general), which the personal pronouns are a part of, create a sense of unity. Then give an example from the speech."Now, it's our turn to stand in solidarity with France and all of our friends."
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
How to write an Introductory paragraph
1.You have to start with a hook (something that grabs the readers attention)
2. Introduce what you are talking about
3. The thesis statement
4. State what the idea is. What is the message? (move from the generals to the particulars)
5. What is used to transmit the message/idea
6. Link to first body Paragraph (
2. Introduce what you are talking about
3. The thesis statement
4. State what the idea is. What is the message? (move from the generals to the particulars)
5. What is used to transmit the message/idea
6. Link to first body Paragraph (
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)