Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Rhetorical Analysis
I decided to do my rhetorical analysis on the show Seinfeld. The show is about nothing, but it also portrays real life. I thought that if I could analyze that show and pick out all the fallacies, then I could show how there are fallacies everywhere in everyday life.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Fallacy
I wanted to think of a fallacy that I could connect with or recognize, but it took me a long time to think of it. I then remembered reading that if you got out of bed the same side you went on before you went to sleep, then you were going to have a good day. If you got out of bed on the opposite side, then you weren't. This fallacy falls under the faulty causation. If you went to bed on the right side, and got out of bed on that same side, you ended up having a good day, After I read this, I tried it out to see if it was true, but I never really paid attention to which side it was I was going in and out of, so I don't know if this is really true. After thinking about this, I don't know if this would be considered a superstition, but it's just something I thought of.
There was another fallacy I thought of, which I think would fall under association or causation. It has been stated that people who attend church are 4 times less likely to commit suicide, therefore, those who don't attend church will commit suicide. There is another fallacy I've heard that goes with this category. Conventional bombs did more damage in WWII than nuclear bombs, so conventional bombs are more dangerous than nuclear bombs.
There was another fallacy I thought of, which I think would fall under association or causation. It has been stated that people who attend church are 4 times less likely to commit suicide, therefore, those who don't attend church will commit suicide. There is another fallacy I've heard that goes with this category. Conventional bombs did more damage in WWII than nuclear bombs, so conventional bombs are more dangerous than nuclear bombs.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Residence Halls
I think Kelly McCormick makes a very valid point. I have nothing against Miami, but from what I was reading, it seems that Miami only tried to get the best parts of their school onto the brochure. Which is what any “business” would do to get customers. I do not know if I would exactly call it “false advertising,” but they definitely were not telling the whole truth about everything.
I do not think I ever looked at the brochure for living here at Miami. Dorms were not a big factor in my school making decision, and I also just assumed the dorms were the same at other schools. But from this selection I read, the brochure seems too good to be true. It almost sounds like something you would read on a Disney brochure; they try to make everything sound perfect and how you would want it to be. But in reality, it does not happen like that. Kelly made a good argument with the housing on campus.
When I came on a visit here to Miami, I do remember hearing or reading that Miami was voted number one in campus food. And the food is really good here, just not in the dining halls all the time. The food there is very bland and sometimes overcooked. But the food at the Bell Tower is what gets this school high rating in the food. But I can see what she means about what makes food “excellent.” It’s people’s opinion on what good food is. And there is not a wide variety in foods for those who are vegetarians or vegans.
I think Kelly made some good points in her argument for the use of rhetoric in the Miami housing brochure. The brochure is written to make that living on campus is best. She clearly pointed out the different rhetoric appeals. The value appeal: the dorms could be personalized with matching drapes, not always true. The appeal of reason: it was stated that the dorms were close to classes, they made it sound living on dorms was convenient. Also the appeal of credibility: she said there was an expert who stated that academics and social life is superior to living on campus. Kelly compared her experience for living on campus to what it says on the brochure, and she made a clear argument for the use of rhetoric in the Miami brochure for housing.
I do not think I ever looked at the brochure for living here at Miami. Dorms were not a big factor in my school making decision, and I also just assumed the dorms were the same at other schools. But from this selection I read, the brochure seems too good to be true. It almost sounds like something you would read on a Disney brochure; they try to make everything sound perfect and how you would want it to be. But in reality, it does not happen like that. Kelly made a good argument with the housing on campus.
When I came on a visit here to Miami, I do remember hearing or reading that Miami was voted number one in campus food. And the food is really good here, just not in the dining halls all the time. The food there is very bland and sometimes overcooked. But the food at the Bell Tower is what gets this school high rating in the food. But I can see what she means about what makes food “excellent.” It’s people’s opinion on what good food is. And there is not a wide variety in foods for those who are vegetarians or vegans.
I think Kelly made some good points in her argument for the use of rhetoric in the Miami housing brochure. The brochure is written to make that living on campus is best. She clearly pointed out the different rhetoric appeals. The value appeal: the dorms could be personalized with matching drapes, not always true. The appeal of reason: it was stated that the dorms were close to classes, they made it sound living on dorms was convenient. Also the appeal of credibility: she said there was an expert who stated that academics and social life is superior to living on campus. Kelly compared her experience for living on campus to what it says on the brochure, and she made a clear argument for the use of rhetoric in the Miami brochure for housing.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Tennis
Tennis is something that I have been into for about five years now, so I decided to observe the courts here. As I walked to the courts, I noticed they were all empty. There were no practices going on at this time, but I decided to just sit and wait to see if anyone would stop by. I waited for about a half an hour until I saw two people come walk toward the courts. There was one guy and one girl. They walked onto the courts, and the girl walked to the other side. As she was walking, the guy was bouncing the ball against the ground. The guy starts the rally by bouncing the ball on the ground, and then hitting it with his racket. The girl hits is back and the guy tries to slice it back, but the ball did not make it over the net. He starts up the rally again, and the girl hits it back but they can’t seem to be able to hit the ball back more than once each. The guy hits the ball over the net and yells to the girl, “Get it!” as the girl races to hit the ball. They finally are able to get a good rally going, and you can hear the ball bounce back and forth slowly and inconsistently. The guy ends the rally by hitting the ball into the net and the girl cheers for not being the one that made the mistake.
They take a break to gather up the balls, because they only had three to begin with. The guy picks up a ball, and randomly hits that ball over the fence as a joke. The yellow ball flies over the fence, and the guy runs out to get it. There is little interaction between the two when playing tennis. The girl starts the rally, and the yellow ball goes over the net and bounces near the guy, so he swings, but misses the ball completely. You can hear the ball bouncing off in the distance; hit the fence, and drops to the ground. Along with balls bouncing around the courts, the sound of shoes shuffling can be heard. Their shoes squeak when preparing to hit the ball correctly over the net.
The guy and the girl mess around with the yellow tennis balls for a little while longer. They decided to call it quits, because it was hot outside and they were tired. They collect their three tennis balls and their water bottles. They walk to the gate, and as they open it, the gate screeches and they walk out. The guy walks out after the girl and turns around to shut the gate. The gate again screeches. The courts, once more, are empty with only the wind being heard.
They take a break to gather up the balls, because they only had three to begin with. The guy picks up a ball, and randomly hits that ball over the fence as a joke. The yellow ball flies over the fence, and the guy runs out to get it. There is little interaction between the two when playing tennis. The girl starts the rally, and the yellow ball goes over the net and bounces near the guy, so he swings, but misses the ball completely. You can hear the ball bouncing off in the distance; hit the fence, and drops to the ground. Along with balls bouncing around the courts, the sound of shoes shuffling can be heard. Their shoes squeak when preparing to hit the ball correctly over the net.
The guy and the girl mess around with the yellow tennis balls for a little while longer. They decided to call it quits, because it was hot outside and they were tired. They collect their three tennis balls and their water bottles. They walk to the gate, and as they open it, the gate screeches and they walk out. The guy walks out after the girl and turns around to shut the gate. The gate again screeches. The courts, once more, are empty with only the wind being heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)