of a demagogue. I think that by framing someone around that and listing their rhetorical strategies. I think Miller’s argument shows that there are two sides to how we label someone for their speech or seeming persuasive.
Starts to sound interesting but need to develop a more sustained analysis of the target text. This means taking concepts from RM (polarization, demonization, motivism, fallacies, etc.) and showing examples in the
In Robert Miller’s article Demagoguery (Denver Talk) Miller outlines the problems with the definition of demagoguery such as, “ the way it emphasizes the identity and motives of the rhetor, and that emphasis comes from what I think is a methodological error. Scholars begin by compiling a list of prominent and powerful individual they consider dangerous. They then look to that set of individuals to see what they have in common in order to define what is wrong with that rhetoric”(1). He then goes on to list specifically the “six problems to consider with the methodological problems with the infer rhetors I hate”. His main argument is that, “I think we can distinguish demagoguery from other forms of persuasive discourse on the basis of the presence of certain rhetorical moves, not the identity of the rhetors. I think, also, we should talk about the effectiveness of demagoguery in terms of how it plays into the information worlds that people inhabit. Demagoguery isn’t an identity. It’s a relationship”(2).
Nice overview of Roberts-Miller's main claims.
n Miller’s article, “The Smoker’s Plea”, Miller implies the correct way to look at both sides of an argument. He suggests, “Miller criticizes the implications that follow from his opponents position.
Seem to mix up Miler and the text on assumptions? (I wrote that).
of the argument and implies through his critique on the argument that he does not agree with the smoking ban, but takes the argument from two different angles.
OK, but this seems very general and does not really evaluate the two target texts.
The assumptions such as, “Understanding what holds an argument together, Identify the writer’s primary audience,
I think of these less as assumptions and more as rhetorical knowledge and critical thinking skills. (Maybe check use of assumptions?)
I agree with Boyd, because I feel like now days unless you’re going to school and constantly learning your way around technology that you’re not going to learn how to be a critical thinker. Young people today need to not believe everything they see, learn about both sides of an argument, and learn how to navigate the digital age
Good points on critical literacy and life long learning.
Boyd’s argument in this article because he makes the claims that the younger generation is not as knowledgible as they may seem. The younger generation is set in what they know how to use and often do not know what the interworkings of social media and the internet are. This is why I agree with Boyd and his claims in this article.
Solid, thoughtful, interesting discussion of Boyd's text. Try to make the account of claims a little more precise.
This forces the younger generation to limit their knowledge of social media to what they know.
On the right track, but not quite what Boyd argues.
Boyd argues in her article that teens may be active on social networking sites but it doesn’t mean they are knowledgeable about how the internet works.
Good - this captures some of her overall argument, but there is more that could be added (e.g. the problem with mainstream definitions of digital literacy, esp. the idea digital natives/immigrants))
Sundiata and understand the two different versions of the ancient story.
I enjoyed reading this. You capture some of Ong's key claims nicely and begin to explore the Sundiata text using Ong's framework.
In future homework try to include more examples from the text and some close analysis of those examples to help extend and support your points.
Keep up the good work.
Version I looks as if it could be a short story or fable like story due to its length and introduction, while Version II looks as if it could be a poem or song because the verses are short.
Yes, this is correct. One has been transformed into the conventions of (literate) prose narrative, and the other is a transcript of a performance by an oral poet/singer.
Formulas are put in place as a type of rhetorical device that strategizes on how a sentence sounds to is intended to sound like by the author for readers.
Bit hard to follow - doesn't seem to capture how formulas work.
al cultures also relies heavily on formulas, which according to Ong, “help implement rhythmic discourse and also act as a mnemonic aids in their own right”(31)”. The formulas in the rhythm of languages are what help establish the formulas in language.
Good, this gets to the heart of several of Ong's key claims.
Without Rhetoric we would not have structure in writing and would not be able to think critically about our writing or the writing of other’s.
Nicely put!
I find Thompson’s rebuttals to be very persuasive and accurate because he interviews bloggers, scholars, references popular shows, and social media outlets to back up his arguments.
OK - but stronger if you include an example of how he rebuts an opposing view.
He interviewed Standford Univeristy English Professor, Andrea Lunsford, who states that, “
There you go - this is nice framing of primary and secondary author.
became very disciplined. Knowing I had these people reading me, I was self -conscious to build my arguments, back up what I wanted to say. It was very interesting. I got a sense of obligation”
Nice - key quotation. This is an important piece of evidence for T's argument.
Okolloh states in her article
Small point - more typical to frame discussion of primary author in terms of how s/he draws on secondary one. Even though I understand perfectly what you are saying, more typical to say "Thompson uses Okolloh's experience to illustrate his argument about the audience effect. He notes she said she "became very disciplined..."