TOW #7: TEXT- Boys Love Rainbow Loom, Defying Stereotype and Delighting Moms Everywhere By Annie Murphy Paul

In this opinion piece, Annie Murphy Paul discusses her son's newfound desire for Rainbow Loom, a popular bracelet making toy. Paul, being a mother herself as well as a writer well-established health writer understands that a "girly" toy such as the Rainbow Loom usually isn't something that boys play with. Paul then takes this information to essentially say that this change could possibly lead to more gender equality in the future. In order to make her point, Paul uses a plethora of rhetorical devices to draw the reader in. Paul first starts out with an anecdote as to target her audience of parents of children under 12 years old. By talking about a common motherly experience with her 12 year old child, Paul is trying to connect with her parent audience. By using her real like to draw experience from, Paul makes her article seem less scientific, and more approachable. However, in order to substantiate the claims she makes through anecdotes, Paul then uses scientific evidence to show 97% of all boys prefer cars, weapons, etc. (stereotypical boy toys) over girly ones. Although this is the case, the bracelet making toy has stood the test of time as such a fad is still going on today. Paul shows the benefits of boys taking on this very meticulous task of looming because instead of just breaking things, boys are now spending their time quietly making bracelets. Then to wrap it all up, Paul says that this change in toy selection, one of the most gender separated industries, is a positive one because it is eliminating gender roles in society. Personally, I think this claim is a bit far fetched, however I agree that this change to bracelet making for all kids is quite unusual. I think Paul's rhetorical devices were really well used because after reading the article, I had to think about what was truly happening with these rubber band bracelets. Although at the end of the day I don't agree with Paul, I think she made really good points.

TOW #6 (Text): Are Chicks Brighter Than Babies? By Nicholas D. Kristof

In the New York Times article, Are Chicks Brighter Than Babies?, author, Nicholas D. Kristof provides insight as to how chickens, despite popular opinion, are actually smart. Kristof uses the fact that chickens are not "birdbrains" to provide a broader message that cruelty of animals, no matter what we think of them, should be eliminated. Kristof, a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, grew up on a farm and provides anecdotal evidence as to how chickens aren't simply dumb birds, but rather social creatures. He then uses scientific evidence to support his claim that chickens are indeed smart, and in some cases more so than babies. Kristof uses a combination of ethos through his anecdotes and logos through his scientific studies to provide an overall message that chickens should be treated with respect, and not treated as a dumb and unworthy bird. In an attempt to seem less of a preacher and environmental activist, Kristof admits that he himself eats chicken all the time. However he uses this point to further show that the common meat eater can take small steps to avoid harming chickens by just not eating factory farmed ones. He puts into the reader's mind the scene of rotting dead chickens next to others in a farm and says that this is wrong. One of the most effective parts of Kristof's argument is how he compares chickens to human characteristics. Through his anecdotes, Kristof makes a claim such as, "Geese shared family obligations" and then delves into his argument that geese (chickens) are similar to humans. He later even compares them to babies, saying that chickens have been seen to replicate TV faster and better than when babies are shown what to do on TV. The comparison of chickens to humans was an attempt to show that chickens don't deserve cruelty just as much as humans don't. Being a vegetarian, this article really connected with me and I found it a refreshing way to send the vegetarian message. Although it didn't say to go vegetarian, it provided simple steps as to how the common consumer can easily avoid animal cruelty. I found that Kristof's overall comparison of chickens to humans, scientific evidence, and use of anecdotes were profound as this is quite possibly one of my favorite articles that I have read in a while. 

Suffering Chicken

TOW #5 (Visual Text)- FedEx Advertisement by FedEx

     In the FedEx advertisement shown below, FedEx is essentially showing consumers that they are as much as two times better than UPS, a competitor in the shipping industry. In this advertisement, FedEx is targeting anyone who uses postal services and more specifically, those who don't know whether to choose UPS or FedEx. Since many people don't really know which company is better for their shipping needs, FedEx tries to clear this discrepancy for customers as through the advertisement they essentially they can ship twice as much as UPS while also showing that UPS uses FedEx to transport its own trucks. FedEx uses this visual advertisement to stress to the consumers that FedEx is so good that even its competitors use it. Although this may not be true, FedEx's use of hyperbole makes the viewer think that FedEx is the superior company. In addition to hyperbole, FedEx puts two UPS trucks inside one of its trucks to show that FedEx can ship twice as much as UPS. Although consumers probably aren't going to want to send two truckloads of items, the comparison of 2:1 makes FedEx seem far superior to UPS.  FedEx, being a huge leader in the transport industry, is trying to further prove its brand, and make it seem better than the competition, and in this advertisement it does achieve that task. Personally, this advertisement caught my attention right away, and I thought it was a creative way to make FedEx seem better than UPS. With a simple image, FedEx was able to make it seem two times better than UPS, while also showing that it is a reliable brand that even its competitors use. Overall, I thought this advertisement was very effective and the rhetorical strategies to essentially build up the ethos of FedEx worked. Currently, I have my own t-shirt company, Qi Apparel, and after seeing this advertisement I feel inclined to check out FedEx prices because the advertisement was so compelling. 

Advertisement from FedEx Blows UPS out of the Water

TOW #4 (IRB)- Moneyball By Michael Lewis

The first part of Moneyball by Michael Lewis consists of a thorough explanation as to who Billy Beane is. In the first section, Lewis talks about Beane's baseball promise, his rise to the MLB, and then his eventual downfall into an angry General Manager (GM) of the Oakland Athletics (A's). While seemingly just summarizing his life, Lewis, a credible non-fiction author and financial journalist, uses a plethora of rhetorical devices to make simple backstory into something interesting and connectable. In this first section, Lewis' purpose is to essentially introduce Billy Beane, and paint a picture as to what the context of Moneyball truly is. One way that Lewis makes something like baseball seem more connectable is by using extended metaphors. Throughout the introduction, Beane compares baseball prospects to sports cars. He writes, "They feel more like sports cars being taken out for a spin than they do like young men being tested"(5). He continues this metaphor throughout this chapter as to make the foreign subject of baseball scouting something more relatable to the average reader. In addition to using extended metaphors, Lewis uses a lot of direct quotations to solidify his points. Because Lewis is retelling a story, he needs to make it seem as real as the actual events. In order to accomplish this goal, he uses quotes from people involved such as Joe Torre, and even Billy Beane himself. The use of direct quotes makes the story more believable and as though the reader is reliving the events. Personally, I think that the two strategies make Moneyball a much more connectable non-fiction piece as the direct quotes and extended metaphors make me feel the experience much more than a simple summary of the events. Although the book is so far just a summary of the events, the way in which Lewis makes the book more connectable makes something that would be dry, something interesting and involving. 

The Real Billy Beane

TOW #3-Text: iPads on Planes: Be Careful What You Wish For

         In this article, William J. McGee, talks about the potential drawbacks of only allowing certain electronic devices on planes. McGee is a known aviation journalist who is the author of many books such as Attention all Passengers. In today's society, many of us are more and more connected to our electronic devices, and are therefore finding it harder to listen to the flight attendants and turn our devices off. McGee is using this context of the 21st century to show that if there was a slight revocation to the rule, it would be a threat to our health. He starts off this article by asking the reader (directed to all who fly) if they are guilty of using an electronic device for takeoff and landing. The question, "Are you guilty?" immediately grabs the reader's attention and asks them wondering what they are guilty of. McGee goes on to say that although we all know not to use phones during takeoff and landing, 30% of us still do it. This statistic and connection to the audience appeals to the reader’s logos because instead of saying that a lot of us break the rules, McGee uses a statistic, which is more logical than a simple generalization. McGee continues to say that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is still uncertain about the implications of radio-signal transmission on a plane, and therefore it may be too risky to use the devices on them. During takeoff and landing, the most dangerous parts of flying, the FAA has still yet to discover what the effects of certain devices are on the plane. However, the FAA is looking to allow some devices on planes as to please passengers. What McGee finds, however, that once certain devices are allowed, there will be a plethora of problems. One is that once one person is allowed to have their I-Pod on the plane, other passengers who have devices that are prohibited will start to get angry and therefore the plan of pleasing passengers is foiled. Another is that the flight attendants will have a difficult time regulating the usage of some devices versus the use of other devices. McGee substantiates these problems by using rhetorical devices to grasp the reader. Besides the ones already mentioned, McGee uses a lot of quotes and direct examples from flight attendants and FAA officials to make his point. This establishes his ethos as he uses direct information to make his argument established and substantiated with evidence. In my opinion, I think this article does a great job in changing my opinion. Originally I hated the idea of turning off my devices because it meant one less tweet or one less text. However after seeing that the use of electronic devices may actually have an effect on the plane and consequently my life, I now understand that the text is not worth it. In addition I agree with McGee’s point that a partial ban would not be beneficial because if my iphone isn't allowed and someone else’s device is, it makes me upset and almost jealous that I am not allowed while someone else is. Although originally I was unsure what the title of the article meant by being careful what I wished for, I now understand that having devices on planes could be a threat to my safety. 

TOW #2: TEXT- Breaking Bad Normalizes Meth, Argues Prosecutor By Blake Ewing

     In this article, Blake Ewing, an assistant district attorney in Austin, provides insight as to how the popular show Breaking Bad, normalizes the meth industry. Breaking Bad is a popular show that takes the viewer through the life of a dying man, Walter White, and his decisions to cook meth to provide for his family. Since this is such a popular show about a serious subject like meth, Ewing argues that, although entertaining, it makes meth seem normal. In reality, methamphetamine is one of the most serious, and dangerous drugs in society, and through the show's popularity, meth seems less intimidating. Ewing's audience is meant for all those who watch the show as to show them what exactly it is doing to their minds. Since I am an avid viewer of the show (just finished watching it) I found this article compelling, as a credit to his use of rhetorical devices. Ewing initially makes himself seem approachable to the reader (mostly Breaking Bad fanatics) by saying that he enjoys the show as well. By opening himself up to the viewers of the show, the audience doesn't automatically discredit him as a person who doesn't understand the true worth of the show (it is amazing). Ewing again makes himself approachable by closing his article saying that although meth is normalized by the show, he is still going to watch it. Although this may seem counterintuitive, it makes his point easier to grasp. For me, Ewing is simply trying to say that the show isn't a bad influence as long as the viewer is cognizant of the effects of meth. Ewing also uses hyperboles to appeal to the pathos of the reader. Humor used by Ewing such as, "Does this mean that watching an episode of Breaking Bad will cause responsible adults to run out and find a local meth dealer? Clearly not" (Times) provide readers with a comic relief to his serious claim. This question also appeals to the reader's sense of logos as it makes logical sense that something that crazy would not happen. Another useful rhetorical device he uses is that he clearly addresses both sides of the argument and then substantiates why his point is better. This gives him more credibility as he acknowledges that there are other sides to the argument. Overall, I think Ewing effectively uses rhetorical devices to get his point across. From being a die-hard fan of Breaking Bad I understand how sensitive we can be when people criticize the show, however the way in which Ewing does it is brilliant. Not only does he get his point across that the show is indeed making meth normal, he does it from the perspective of a fan. After reading this article, I realize that what he was saying is indeed true. Before watching the show, I never really thought about the drug industry and meth, however after the show I think meth is more common in everyday conversation. Although people are simply talking about the show, meth is talked about and seems more normal. Overall, I think Ewing did a great job making his point while not angering any die-hard fans.

TOW #1- Visual Text: Nokia Lumia 1020 Commercial By Nokia

      In this commercial, Nokia attempts to advertise its latest phone, the Lumia 1020. Nokia is advertising the Lumia 1020 for its 41 megapixel camera, unseen in the phone industry, to try and compete will other phones such as the Apple I-Phone. In order to gain customers, Nokia pokes fun at the struggle of other cellphone users in their latest commercial. By showing that their cameras are not up to par with the 1020, while also appealing to the audience's emotions, Nokia puts forward a valiant effort that caught my attention. During the commercial, people are struggling to get a good picture of a children's play, and their attempts to do so are humorous. People taking random panoramas and even head-butting each other are part of Nokia's rhetorical strategy of using pathos to get the audience interested. While watching the commercial, I found myself laughing showing that the commercials' attempt to be comical, worked. Nokia was once a top seller of cellphones, however with the invention of the I-Phone in 2007, Nokia, along with other companies saw a steep decline in marketshare. In order to gain more marketshare, Nokia has targeted the camera aspect to the cellphone, and through this commercial the camera shines through. At the end of the commercial, the viewer sees that a man all the way in the back is relaxed and can see the entire play due to the power of his camera-phone, the Lumia 1020. This with and without effect is seen by showing people with I-Phones struggling and then showing people with Lumia 1020's relaxing. This rhetorical device is exaggerating the difference between phone users, however it makes Nokia's point that the camera is better on the 1020. Personally, I think that this commercial was very comical, and therefore caught my attention. The pathos used by Nokia really appealed to me and made me realize how much better having a good camera would be. Although head-butting people for a picture is hyperbolized, the constant struggle of taking a decent picture on your phone is real. Because Nokia pointed this out to me, I realize the need of a better camera on my phone, and therefore I think the commercial definitely worked. Nokia's use of pathos, and with/without as well as hyperbole appealed to the audience, and moreover was a successful commercial.