Chapter 16

Chapter 16 talks about evidence for an argument and basically explains what counts as evidence. It starts off by explaining that evidence is everywhere and we are constantly finding new things to prove ourselves/arguments. It goes into detail with firsthand evidence and research. Firsthand means firsthand... aka what you experience or are more closely interacted with. The most common types of firsthand research we use are observations, interviews, surveys and questionnaires, experiments, anddd personal experience. So now I get to go into detail about all of them. Observations.  Pretty easy. The idea behind this is that when people look at the same thing, they will describe it differently. So if Brooke and I were to see a man riding his bike, I might be looking at his clothes while Brooke was looking at his bike. The book then goes on to explain that you have to be careful with what you are choosing to observe. Decide exactly what you are looking for so you are relevant to your argument. Interviews. If I wanted to do research on clothing, I should stop the biker we mentioned above, and ask him why he chose to wear the outfit. Direct quotes in an essay show more examples and credibility. Surveys and Questionnaires. Surveys most likely require the use of questionnaires. Obviously when making a survey, you should make sure that the information is relevant and important. I could take a picture of the biking man, show the picture to friends, and ask them if they think his outfit is hot or not. Experiments. When I think of experiments science comes to mind. Since writing a paper is not science, you can use a more informal experiment. Experiments are risky because some audiences may not see the importance. Personal Experience. This can be the most powerful when it is completely appropriate. It will draw in the reader. However, when you are only using personal experience then it is not sufficient enough to carry the argument. In the end, you can use any of these firsthand evidences to  make your argument awesome.

chapter thirteen.

Chapter thirteen is all about style and presentation in arguments. What it is basically trying to say is how to form an argument but with more of an in depth style including word choice, punctuation, and other ideas. I responded most to the section, “ Special Effects: figurative Language and Argument.” It starts off by giving examples of figurative language as well as defining it as “language that differs from the ordinary - language that calls up, or “figures” something else.” An example of this could be if I were to say that our English class produces happiness. We all know that it is not physically producing bags of happy, but rather it would then infer that our class is a fun class and the students are happy coming out of it. It then goes on to explain that all language produces the idea of something else. So pretty much all language is an argument. Crazy stuff. 

Then the chapter goes on to talk about how figurative language can draw parallels between an unknown and a known. They used the example of DNA and related it to a spiraling zipper. Now personally I don't know jack about DNA. However, hearing that it looks like a spiraling zipper makes me understand it more. I know zippers and I know spirals. Figurative language makes the argument more memorable too. They used the example of slang. In an everyday conversation, I know almost all of us use slang words, even if you might not consider it slang. By using these words or phrases, the listener then may get the picture more. 

The section then goes on to talk about how figures of speech are classified into two main types: tropes and schemes. “Tropes involve a change in the ordinary signification, or meaning, of a word or phrase, and schemes involve a special arrangement of words.” Obviously with such fancy smancy definitions, they help improve an argument and make it more memorable/inspiring. 

numero 9

Chapter 9 is all about arguments of definitions, obviously because that's the title of the chapter. When I think about that I get confused, how can an argument have a "definition?" Well the section within the chapter called "developing a definitional argument" explains it all.
It starts out with stating that definitional arguments "don't just appear out of the blue; they evolve out of the occasions and conversations of daily life." I liked their example of the word "nerd." Bascially when I am talking to you and say "omg she is such a nerd," you might think I mean a smart educated young woman when I really mean a girl that, in my eyes, is a girl that has no friends and is obsessive with schoolwork.

They then go on to discuss how the first step is formulating a claim. This means that you will come up with your overall opinion on the word and state your basic definition. They used many examples such as defining volunteers and political bias. I personally would like to continue with the nerd example. I could say my claim is: A nerd is not a smart and popular person. This claim is then the starting point for the rest of my argument about nerds. You are then supposed to add more of a general definition to make it a full-fledged argument. A nerd is not a smart and popular person because a nerd is someone who is weirdly obsessed with schoolwork and has no friends. (Sorry if this is harsh, it is just for the purpose of explaining a definitional argument).
The next paragraphs talk more about formulating the argument. People are always going to question what you have to say, so it is important to show your credibility and make them believe you. They continued on with the volunteer example and used more detail. When sticking with the nerd example, I could say: Lisa Simpson is always doing her schoolwork and sitting at home with no one to hang out with; therefore making her a nerd and not popular. A nerd is not a smart and popular person because a nerd is someone who is weirdly obsessed with schoolwork and has no friends.
With your argument in hand, you have to make sure that it provides evidence of either:
Clear example of class defined (like the nerd argument)
Clearly falls outside the defined class
Falls between two closely related classes or fulfills some conditions of the defined class but not others
Defies existing classes and categories and requires an entirely new definition
 The last step is considering the design and visuals. This can definitely add to your credibility and make the argument more powerful. Contradicting my argument I have the "sexy nerd" as just a fun way of explaining the other side of nerds. Agreeing with the argument I have an actual male nerd image.

chapter tres

Understanding How Arguments Based on Character Work. Sooo.... would you come to me and ask me about basketball? Do I look like the type of girl who watches it and knows all the penalties and shiz? No. I don't even know if there are periods or quarters or whatnot. Now think about a new topic.... maybe fashion or something more feminine? Then I'm your girl.
Basically the topic in this section of the chapter was about establishing credibility and finding the right sources to believe the information. They gave examples about the "car guy" in the neighbor hood when you have car problems, and the short-order cook at the local diner. You are less likely to believe things or be swayed by an argument unless the source is someone credible.
They also have some claims to think about:
1. A person (or group) does or does not have the authority to speak to this issue.
Lets go back to me and the basket ball issue. I have never played basketball in my life or really known anyone who is crazy about the sport. I have only been to maybe three games ever. All of this would definitely not give me the authority to speak to this issue.
2. A person (or group) is or is not trustworthy or credible on this issue.
Since we already established that I know nothing about basketball, I am already not credible. However, if I put on a jersey you may think that I had knowledge about the sport. In which case, I would lie to you, making me even less trustworthy about the issue.
3. A person (or group) does or does not have good motives for addressing this subject.
Say you were going to give me a million dollars if I answered your basketball question. Chances are I would figure out an amazing answer, right or wrong, just to get the moolah. This would be an example of a bad motive.
In the end, I do not know basketball. I do not have authority, credibility, or good motives. Put me against a pro player in a basketball argument and 100% of the people will believe the player. Like it says in the chapter, you are more swayed in an argument by those who have all the necessary traits.

Chapter fourteenizzle

What I responded to most in chapter 14 was the part about visual arguments based on character. The section started by comparing two papers, one written on a looseleaf piece of messy paper, and the other nicely typed. This immediately made me think of legally blonde.... don't judge me. She comes in with her little happy self and submits her resume in a very nontraditional way, on pink scented paper. I can only imagine what the man reading her paper was thinking. The section then went on to explain how appearances shouldn't count for much, but they do. It is best to seem "authoritative and credible." Relating back to legally blonde, obviously her paper, in a legal business environment, would not be treated with as much respect. The section explains that to have respect, it is best to visually prove that you deserve it. They give the example of the university website... to be honest I like my legally blonde example better. Later they explain how the design reflects your character. They say that fonts can tell a lot about a person, wether they are warm and inviting or efficient and contemporary. Also, the color means a lot, helping the reader visualize whatever you are portraying. 
After reading the chapter, I decided to pull an Elle Woods, and make my writing pink. Sorry it's not scented, if I could I would.


Ideas for WP1:
I really like animals, little kids and nonprofit organizations so something to do with any of those seems like a good idea. I seem to respond more to the emotional aspects and funny aspects so I have to decide what will be easier to put together. Kinda sorta nervous because I am not a very artistic person.

Me.

Wow, well since I have never blogged before we'll see how this goes....
Hi! My name is Rachel, obviously since the title of my blog is "Rachel's Wonderful Blog." I am a Freshman at the good ol' ASU. I am currently majoring in Business Sustainability, but I am thinking about switching to Business Law because being a lawyer sounds pretty fun. Who doesn't want to yell at people and get their way? Other than academics, I am involved in Kappa Kappa Gamma (a sorority) and am rushing for Alpha Kappa Psi (business frat). I love to dance, and have been involved in classes since I was a wee little one. While I am all about having a good time, education is surprisingly still very very very important to me. If all falls into place, I hope to attend Harvard Law School. I know you are thinking that a girl like me would never get in.... well watch me prove you wrong. Oh and that's something else about me, I obviously like to shoot for the stars. Another thing I am probably most fond of is people. Now I'm not saying I want to be your best friend, probably not even your friend, but I do like to talk and you like to listen. Yeah I can listen too, and I will probably give you awesome advice, but talking is my forte.
List of other things I like because I got tired of writing sentences:
-giraffes
-pink
-cheese
-sparkles
-movies that I can understand
-you
-crafting
-bacon
-facebook
-long walks on the beach... but really.

Hmm, I really just rambled didn't I? Oh well. You read it anyways.