Horatio Algier- Ragged Dick

Within the story, “Ragged Dick,” Horatio Algier constantly stresses the fact that hard work, dedication and honesty will lead to a better life. This is not explicitly stated, however, which makes this an implicit argument. In the story, a young hard working man had begun planning out his future and had set realistic goals about how much he could make, but a turn of fortune, in which he rescued a young child from drowning, made him much more successful. His drive to rescue the child and later modesty about the event led to the father offering him a high paying job in a counting room. The description of the characters modesty, hard work attitude and kindness followed by his success leads to the idea that the American Dream truly does exist and that those who work hard and have traits such as Dicks can be successful. These kinds of stories are truly why Horatio Algier is known for his “Rags to Riches” stories.

Rhetorical Triangle- Color Plate G

Exigence-The need to demonstrate that the VUE was environmentally friendly so that more people would be interesting in it.
Purpose- To show that the Saturn VUE wouldn't hurt nature.
Audience- Those who are concerned about how environmentally friendly a VUE is.
Logic- Cars that do not harm the environment are better and may sell better.
Credibility- No real demonstration of credibility.
Emotion- Appeal to love of environment.
Organization- VUE slightly off center with many animals and trees surrounding it, has a key of all the animals in the left hand sides.
Imagery- Uses many different animals, from small creatures to large ones to help give the message that the VUE will not hurt the environment.

Visual Arguments

Our society is quickly becoming a visual society, which means we are subjected to more and more compelling stories, day after day. Before, people would read newspapers which would provide a story, which also generally contained the bias of the writer. Many people, however, were used to this kind of bias and it was much easier to ignore within the confines of a written piece. Nowadays, we are subjected to image after image, whether it be of terrible deeds done by groups such as the LRA, or a political comic poking fun at the amount of pork in the last Stimulus Bill. These kinds of images are much harder to reject because images can easily appeal to our emotional side and, though they are generally not explicit arguments, they lead us to think of the argument from the point of the view the images creator wants us to think of. Though they are only images, and can easily be ignored, visual arguments can be much more persuasive than written ones.

Pathos AP Lit Blog

When constructing an argument, many disputants attempt to appeal to their audience’s sense of pathos, that is, the audience’s emotions. This can often be very effective, and can lead to an emotional connection that is hard to break. This only works, however, if the audience is sympathetic to that side of the argument, otherwise, they may have a negative reaction. The only responsibility lies with the fact that appeals to pathos should not confuse an issue; it should help to make the issue clearer. The media and the government, both of which generally utilize the appeals correctly, often utilize appeals to pathos. If talking about abortion, pro-choice people will tell stories of mother’s health being at risk, or if they talk about taxes, people will talk about how strenuous they can be on the poorer people in our society. The problem lies with the fact that so many media agencies appeal to our sense of pathos that it can confuse people, with all the different stories and distortions of truth they are told. Though appeals to pathos can often be effective, it should always help to clarify and issue, and if too many sides attempt these appeals then the audience can eventually grow confused.

Analyzing Skateboard Argument Evidence

In “Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Langley uses a great deal of evidence to try and convince the reader that skateboarders are not menaces to society and should be treated better by officials. The most compelling piece of evidence is the fact that he himself is a skateboarder who has, along with his friends, frequently suffered many injustices just because he skates. These include having a friend receive a $50 ticket for skateboarding in an area that even said it was ok to skateboard in during Holidays. He also uses very effective analogies when he says skateboarding is as natural as surfing, in that people are adapting to their environment. He appeals to people’s senses of emotion by continually giving examples of skaters being harassed and even says that cities have tried to accommodate skaters, but are not succeeding. To further emphasize his point, he offers what he considers reasonable and safe solutions to the problem, which shows the reader that he really wants to find a solution. His argument accurately fills out every portion of the STAR method of looking at evidence. The evidence is accurate (mainly because it is based off his opinion or memory), it is relevant to his argument, he provides more than enough evidence (though some statistics may have been helpful) and, according to him, the evidence he presents is representative of what happens to a majority of skaters.

Toulmin's System

Real world arguments actually seldom prove anything to be 100% true, because what you are arguing about could be subjective based on the disputant or things could fall into different groupings, as the example provided on page 87 of the book does. Though, real world arguments seldom actually prove anything, they do serve as a good advocate for one cause or another. Normally, you can only hope to strengthen your side of the argument or weaken your opponent’s side and garner supporters for you cause, but not actually prove either side to be right or wrong. This in and of itself is enough of a reason to learn Toulmin’s “courtroom model” of arguing (“Writing Arguments”). Toulmin’s system assumes that a neutral third party will render all verdicts in regards to the argument and that all assumptions are contestable by an opposing side, which forces the disputants to tailor their arguments to their audience, thus garnering more support. Though it is very difficult to ever prove something in a debate, using a system like Toulmin’s allows you to make a better case for your belief and possibly garner more supporters.

Pseudo-argument

A pseudo-argument is an argument, which is based on the opinions of the people involved and often means that the people are fanatically devoted to their side of the argument and unwilling to change their views based on the strengths or weaknesses of their opponents argument. This is why it is a pseudo- argument, because there is no collective inquiry or potential for intellectual growth through the debate. This seems to be what many of my arguments are whether they are with friends or with parents. The most common kind of pseudo-argument I have is with my parents and involves my curfew (both during weekdays and weekends). My parents always thought there should be a set time to be home and that I should always call to tell them where I am, whereas I believed that, as long as I had my phone with me I should be allowed to do what I want. They thought that getting home at a specific time would help develop a habit which would lead to getting homework done faster and better, and they would always know exactly where I was. I believed that it didn’t matter where I was, as long as they were able to contact me (via the cell phone) and that the time I got home didn’t matter, as long as I finished my homework. This kind of homework almost always ended with my parents winning because they could easily threaten to take away my car privileges altogether, but this kind of argument still exemplifies what a pseudo-argument is.