1. What did you think of when you encountered the word argument as you began reading this chapter? What do you think now? (150-200 words)
The first thing that normally comes to mind when I think of argument is "To make a case for." This is my own personal definition, and it really comes from that fact that as a writer, a father, and someone who likes to go online and engage in unmoderated messageboard debate (meaning that sources are rarely cited, unless I'm trying to move in for the kill on a particular topic), I am frequently called on to justify my point of view on a given topic. For example, when I tell my oldest child that she cannot go over to her friend's house to play for the day, in order to seem like a fair parent, I need to make the arguments that we might be leaving the house soon, her friend's parents said that they would be busy for the day, and that she's still grounded for cutting the cat's hair with the scissors. Of course this is a very easy argument to win because I am the final authority in this case.
According to Nancy V. Wood, in Essentials of Argument, "Argument classes are taught in college because they improve the students' ability to read and think critically and write or speak about signifficant problems and issues that have social consequences. (5)" In my experience in the real world, a number of people end up in careers that have nothing to do with the field in which they earned their degree in college. The fact that they have a college degree is often enough to earn them the opportunity to fill various positions based solely upon the fact that they are able to think problems through critically and then act upon them competently.
When properly used, argument informs us of critical things, such as the best candidate to vote for in an election based upon their stance on the issues rather than whether or not we simply like them as individuals. Critical thinking helps us watch a movie and then evaluate it based on the artistry of the film making as well as the message it is trying to convey. For instance, is a war movie trying to expose the horrors of war by showing the plight of a soldier, as in Saving Private Ryan? Is it a propaganda film that is meant to influence the audience to support U.S. interests abroad, as I would argue that the third Rambo movie does? Critical thinking allows us to determine which products are the best to buy based on its features, benefits, and consumer reviews as opposed to relying on the hype of salespeople.
When faced with a complex problem, how do we deal with it? We must be able to come to decisions and then present arguments to explain why we took the actions that we took. We must also be able to analyze the arguments made by others to decide whether we agree or disagree with what they are saying, and sometimes offer up counter-arguments in an attempt to change a proposed course of action.
Honestly, my opinion about argument isn't any different now than it was before the reading. Argument is everywhere in our society, and it makes us better and more useful individuals if we recognize it when we see it and analyze it to determine the best way to process it.
2. Why did you choose your magazine? (75-100 words)
I chose Discover because of all of the magazines that were listed, it was the one that appealed to me the most. It is the one magazine from the list we were given that is most likely to have articles that I'd be interested in reading. I enjoy science articles, yet not coming from a background in hard science, I fit perfectly with this magazine's target audience. Discover is a science magazine for lay-people. In other words I like to read about all of the neat new developments in science and technology, but I'm not particularly interested in trying to make sense of the complexity of the actual science since I lack the background.
1. Wood, Nancy. Essentials of Argument. 2nd. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 2009.
4 comments:
Hey good post, but I have to respectfully disagree with you about the rambo films being propaganda pieces. If you remember the CIA guy who sent rambo on his mission in first blood 2, pretty much represented the government and was pretty much portrayed as a cowardly bureaucrat who treated rambo with contempt most of the time. For me the main theme of the film was that the government routinely uses soldiers (like rambo) as means to an ends in achieving their objectives. When these soldiers become inconvenient political liabilities (like the POWS Rambo rescues) the government simply writes them off as expendable. Not totally a pro US viewpoint IMO.
I see your point on Rambo II, so I'll drop that from my argument. However, I do feel that Rambo III was total propaganda.
I would argue that the major conflict in Rambo I and II is Rambo, as a veteran of the war in Vietnam, was at war with the society he tried to reintegrate into. In First Blood, it is pretty clear that the people were prejudiced against him because he was an ex-soldier. Sure, he had his issues, but they went way over the line in their handling of his arriving in town. In Rambo II, the fact that he was used shows how the government treats soldiers like him as completely expendable assets that they can use and abandon as needed. Again, this is Rambo in conflict with America.
In Rambo III, Rambo wasn't in conflict with America in any way. He opted not to go on a mission he was offered, which was as far as they go into this conflict, and then after that he goes on this mission to Afghanistan where he fought alongside the "good" arabs against the "evil" Russians. They even went so far as to dedicate the movie to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.
As an aside, I think that a more modern audience would look at this and equate the people Rambo is helping with the Taliban. This would be an incorrect assumption. Rambo was there to help the Mujahedeen rebels. This is the same group that allied themselves with the US in 2001 to overthrow the Taliban.
Great work! But I am curious when you write: " In my experience in the real world, a number of people end up in careers that have nothing to do with the field in which they earned their degree in college. The fact that they have a college degree is often enough to earn them the opportunity to fill various positions based solely upon the fact that they are able to think problems through critically and then act upon them competently."
Do you think there is a sort of ideological argument out their with a claim like "A college degree equates to critical thinking; critical thinking means they will make good decisions." And the evidence is that the classes teach critical thinking. Whatcha think?
I think that's a valid argument. Another argument that I've heard is that a college degree means that this person is more likely to stick with a project to completion rather than getting out when it become difficult. A college degree is a clear marker of achievement, no matter what your major happens to be, so employers are more likely to hire you onto a project that will constitute an achievement once complete.
Post a Comment