Ahhhh! It’s that time of year again. Trees are being put up, the lights are wrapped, and stockings are hanging above the furnace. The smell of Christmas cookies waft into the living room from the kitchen, the sappy Hallmark-esque Christmas movies play, and every station on the radio has to mention a cyber sale for Christmas. Black Friday has just passed and we think the chaos is over. At least temporarily.

Let me just say, working in retail is HELL during the holiday season. Yeah, we might be getting paid, yes we have a job because of you, but a free therapy session isn’t necessarily what we’re trained for. Some days, I don’t care that your boyfriend cheated on you for the fifteenth time or how your boss passed you up on that promotion you really wanted for that one coworker he’s sleeping with, and yes that sweater dress IS hideous enough for your ugly sweater Christmas party. Because the store is a MESS and ain’t none of us got time for that, we’d like to close on time. Please DO run out of the store with 20 hangers of free merchandise, that’s less for us to pick up off the floor. Unless you’re signing up for a credit card that will finally get my manager off my back, I don’t have time to chit chat.

The above may sound harsh, but during the stressful times of the holiday season, retail can be a scary place.

Chapter one of The Paradox of Choice is titled, “Let’s Go Shopping.” The authors opens this section with an anecdote of a trip to a supermarket. It starts off basic enough, until they start listing out the large quantities and varieties of every product in the store. Consequently, I am overwhelmed. I mean 285 varieties of cookies? COME ON!

Much of this reading focuses on the overwhelming amount of choices modern day consumers have and how the industry is evolving in drastic ways to ensure a capitalistic society. Groceries? Not a big loss if you choose the wrong tomato sauce. Electronics? Kind of a problem when that $700 TV ends up being a dud. Not only are companies offering selections their stores, but they mail you catalogs directly to your home. It’s inescapable. Everywhere we go today, people look at us and see money signs. The author redirects this thought process toward education. Compared to when they went to school 35 years ago, the choices were slim and everyone took the same classes. Today, there is a degree for every imaginable field and soooo many class options. The author recognizes the problem of basically demanding 18 year olds to make a decision about their future and secure a promising future of debt and no promise of a career at such a young age. In fact, they are at a stage in their developmental years they might not be ready to commit yet.

The author brings up the point that people are shopping more today, but enjoying it less than their predecessors. I think having a variety of options to test and taste help us express our autonomy. We feel like our opinions matter because there is a diverse amount of perceptions on products. People enjoy and get paid to review things, but it doesn’t mean someone will definitely buy the item. Sometimes I watch makeup tutorials, or read Yelp reviews of the choices people make in makeup or restaurants, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to follow suit. In a society where we are SO regulated, the government wants us to think we have choices. That we have a voice. That we matter. In return, they can profit off this false sense of freedom in choice and maintain this economy.

Christmas was never about gifts, but it’s been commercialized to the point most people forget what the day signifies. Kids are being raised today more than ever to view Christmas Day as “presents day”.

I think exposing our youth to so many choices can become a sensory overload of sorts. Maybe an inability to stay happy with one thing. Maybe it’s a learned coping mechanism. I mean, if I have so many choices, why shouldn’t I just up and leave? We see this even with dating apps. Less and less people live a relationship like their grandparents did because we have been conditioned to treat people like they are disposable and replaceable.

After all, we do have so many choices.

Shania Velikic
Professor N. Villanueva
English 101
28 November 2018
Just Don’t Do It
“Just Do It.” The infamous slogan triggers our working memory to recall the source, Nike, the American multinational cooperation catering consumers with athletic wear and equipment. Designed to elicit motivation, the company’s slogan fits perfectly with sports and athleticism. But, what about “Just Don’t Do It?’ In 2002, South Korea’s Anti-Drug Campaign Center used Nike’s logo and adjusted their slogan to inspire their advocacy against drug use. This advertisement was intelligently designed to grasp the audience’s attention and maintain its relevancy through a global pastime such as sports and a global company such as Nike. By analyzing the visual literacy of the image, we gain a better understanding of the source’s reasonings for the design and the message it aims to convey. We can also infer the reaction the advertisement aims to elicit within the public.
The advertisement used by South Korea’s Anti-Drug Campaign Center was designed by the “Diamond Ad” advertising agency in 2002. It was designed to raise awareness toward drug use and persuade people to never start using them. The backdrop of the image is pitch black with a white, powdery substance that appears to have been scraped into the form of a checkmark in disarray in the center on the image. This powdery substance is the main focal point of the image as it is visually the largest part of the advertisement. Next to the substance are the words, “Just Don’t Do It,” in typewriter front. The bottom right corner of the image is stamped “Korean Anti-Drug Campaign Center.” This anti-drug image was designed to convey a message to its audience and was purposely arranged in a way that fulfilled this vendetta.
At first glance, context clues give the impression that the white substance depicted in the image is a drug, probably cocaine. However, without the Anti-Drug Campaign Center’s stamp in the bottom right corner, it would be harder to infer what the advertisement is trying to convey. There are clues available that make it easier to infer the white substance is cocaine, such as the choppy lines of powder surrounding the checkmark. It is common knowledge that cocaine is often scraped up and cut up into neat lines with a credit card, to later be snorted with a straw or dollar bill. However, this inference heavily relies on the audience’s ability to assimilate previous information into current stimuli. Without prior knowledge of what cocaine looks like or how users consume this drug, then the audience would not have enough information presented in the image to understand what it is depicting. Knowing that the substance is a drug, one can infer that the choppy lines surrounding the checkmark are indicative of the “messy” havoc that drugs take on a user’s life. The image states, “Just Don’t Do It,” next to the substance to ward people off from starting drugs or relapsing on them.
The creators of this advertisement purposely picked the shape of the drug to resemble Nike’s logo for its relevancy. The Diamond Ad agency even adjusted Nike’s famous slogan from “Just Do It” to “Just Don’t Do It.” The reasoning behind this is to draw attention to its message because most people are familiar with this brand. Maybe it would attract people into thinking it is an advertisement for Nike, since most people do not think to search up anti-drug ads. Maybe it was so people would stumble across this image when googling Nike. The image also draws an association between sports and using drugs, since they are both activities that people are drawn to together. It is a societal perception that drug users use drugs as a past time, like how sports fan turn to sports as theirs. Knowing that this ad was used in South Korea, it is possible the creators intended for a wider audience. Nike was founded in the United States and spread globally, so most people across the world can understand the meaning of this ad without having to come from a specific region.
Pathos, ethos, and logos can be powerful rhetorical devices used in visual representations with the right intent. However, this advertisement fails to properly engage with these devices and elicit the intended response. The use of pathos fails to develop an emotional pretense due to the playful nature of associating the cocaine with the Nike symbol. The backdrop is meant to convey an ominous and serious tone but comparing the drug to a successful brand like Nike defeats this purpose. The use of ethos again heavily relies on previous knowledge and society’s perception that drugs are grotesque and dangerous for us. The image does not exactly explain or depict why drugs have this effect, but we know that drugs are against the law, lead to addiction, and possess the possibility of death. Similar to ethos, the advertisement relies on the audience’s ability to reason that drugs pose negative consequences. The advertisement fails to provide evidence on why this is true, so it is weakened in that regard. Therefore, the logical argument is missing. We know they want us to “Just Don’t Do It,” but why should we not?
The nature of the playfulness presented in the advertisement is counterintuitive because it desensitizes the seriousness associated with drugs. The phrase “Just Don’t Do It” is too similar to the original slogan “Just Do It” which may actually encourage the audience to think otherwise. From the similarities presented in both advertisements, it may cause the viewer to associate the drug advertisement with the positive representation of sports. It assumes that users will reap the reward of getting high similar to athletes reaping the reward of winning a game. If the image was reconstructed to say “Just Do It,” then the anti-drug campaign would become a pro-drug advocacy. Therefore, South Korea’s anti-drug campaign message is not strong enough because it enhances the appeal to do drugs. The message could be strengthened by replacing the Nike symbol with a depiction of an actual overdose. The slogan could be replaced with statistical information about the death rate from drugs and its potential for addictive behavior. By reconstructing this image in such a way, the image could be successful in its motives to ward against doing drugs.
The analogous relationship between drugs and sports would further destigmatize the use of drugs because of an athlete’s pressure to succumb to performance enhancements. This is true due to the widespread news of athletes being disqualified from athletics by using performance enhancements like steroids. We know the consequences of using drugs that result in unfavorable outcomes, but is it only unfavorable when someone is caught? Assuming the steroids helped boost an athlete’s performance, then the drugs worked in a favorable outcome for themselves, their coaches, sponsors, and fans. The same could be said about the use of cocaine. What if a student deliberately used cocaine for the sole purpose of its stimulant effect to stay awake and study for tests? What if the end result was accomplishing high grades? If drugs were not deemed as taboo and unethical, then recreational drugs like cocaine would be no different than pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors. This image could be reconstructed to present the favorable outcome of using drugs such as those used to improve athletic and studious performance.
The advertisement itself had ethical intentions of raising awareness against drugs, but its message was lost with the wrong choice of visual rhetorical devices. If it had been reconstructed in a way that enhanced its message, rather than weakened it, it would have been stronger in that former regard. The association between something as serious as drugs and playful as sports does not scream the fact that one should not partake in drugs. It actually elicits the opposite response from its target audience. With stronger regard to composition, word choice, and placement, the advertisement could be strengthened to convey the message it is set out to do.

The above image was created by the “Diamond Ad” advertising agency for the Anti-drug Campaign Center in South Korea. It was published in February of 2002. With the use of context clues, it’s obvious what the ad’s intention is from the get go. However, knowing that this image was created to raise awareness against drugs makes it easier to infer that the white substance is some type of drug, maybe cocaine. The fact that the drug doesn’t neatly represent a check mark could mean drugs make people sloppy.

The intended message is to stop people from doing drugs and persuade non-users to never start. We know this because the ad explicitly states, “Just Don’t Do It”, next to the white substance we know is a drug. The creators of this ad purposely picked the shape of the drug to resemble Nike’s logo for its relevancy. They even adjusted Nike’s famous slogan from “Just Do It” to “Just Don’t Do It”. The reasoning behind this is to draw attention to it’s message because most people are familiar with this brand. Maybe it would attract people into thinking it’s an advertisement for Nike, since most people don’t think to search up anti-drug ads. Maybe it was so people would stumble across this image when googling Nike. The image also draws an association between sports (Nike) and using drugs, since they are both activities that people are drawn to together. It’s a societal perception that drug users use drugs as a past time, similar to how sports fan turn to sports as theirs. Knowing that this ad was used in South Korea, it is possible the creators intended for a wider audience. Nike was founded in the United States and spread globally, so most people across the world can understand the meaning of this ad without having to come from a specific region.

The image is persuasive to an extent, but it might be too simple to garner the attention it aims to capture. If someone lived a sheltered life or didn’t partake in consumerism/the media, then they might not completely understand the origin that influenced the ad (Nike). If they had no idea what drugs looked like or didn’t happen to read the fine print in the bottom right corner, the message might have gone over their head. The image heavily relies on the audience’s ability to infer and assimilate prior knowledge into a new one.

ETHOS: The image relies on society’s perception that drugs are bad for us and can do harm. It doesn’t exactly explain or depict why drugs have this effect, but we know that drugs are against the law, lead to addiction, and overdose=death. For the most part, this is knowledge that someone would need to learn beforehand to understand the purpose behind the campaign.

PATHOS: I don’t believe the ad does anything to elicit an emotional response from the audience. If anything, I think comparing the drug to a successful brand like Nike defeats the purpose of the ad. I understand the black backdrop is meant to convey an ominous and serious tone, but the shape of the drug substance seems too playful.

LOGOS: Similar to ethos, the ad relies on the audience’s ability to reason that drugs pose negative consequences. The ad fails to provide evidence on why this is true, so it is weakened in that regard. Therefore, the logical argument is missing. We know they want us to “Just Don’t Do It”, but why should we not?

Sex sells. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard that phrase and I’d bet it’s the same for you. The amount is infinite. We hear it when watching movie trailers, clothing commercials, and even adverts for food. Specifically, fast food commercials. An interesting observation is that many advertisements depict women sexualizing food, rather than men. This leads to the hypothesis that men are the target audience, but only if we lived in a heterosexual society. This isn’t the case, but it’s the common inference.

The article “Having It His Way” by Carrie Packwood Freeman and Debra Merskin dissects the construction of masculinity in fast food TV advertising. The introduction expresses an anecdote of a commercial where a man’s masculinity was in question based on his diet. Because he ate a plant based diet, he felt inferior to the man ahead of him purchasing meat at a grocery store. Already, I feel that this article is outdated and stereotypical because the current generation is evolving into a more environmentally conscious society. Our current generation is very gender fluid, despite our parents and grandparents instilling gender roles into us at a young age. That’s not to say all people don’t base sexual energy on trivial things, but I’d like to think the up and coming generations have the ability to question the status quo. At the same time, it isn’t “feminine” to care about the planet. It’s called being a decent human being.

But, I digress. The authors drew this inference from the anthropological era of hunters and gatherers, where men hunted the gain and women gathered the plants. Freeman and Merskin often make reference to the use of animal meat to empower the strength associated with masculinity in mens. Personally, I find this to be a biased and one sided perspective, but I suppose it had to be for the purpose of their article. They did point out examples of Egyptian kings and cowboys to demonstrate the association between meat and its historical association to male aggression. However, there are also women known to have done far more gruesome things to animal meat than just eat it. Some women eat animal placenta as they believe it has anti-aging properties. Placenta and sheep cells can be found in MANY anti-aging beauty products. There is even a vegetarian model, Chanel from “True Life”,  who swears by bathing in pig’s blood to remain young. Despite dietary restrictions and regards to animals, some women will still take advantage in the name of vanity.

Freeman and Merskin advocate that women and animals are placed in a patriarchal society through “media images that consume women and other animals like pieces of meat”, supported by the “ecofeminist” perspective. Again, I have to disagree because women are guilty of objectifying men and animals, just as much as men do. Feminism doesn’t mean we bash men in favor of women. Personally, I believe feminism is achieving equality among men and women both. However, the authors are using this statement in relation to the media’s portrayal of food sexualization. I still disagree that we live in a hetero-normative society, because we don’t. Maybe some would like to believe we do, but it’s a very far cry from the truth. The target audience could be other women sexualizing women, but “ecofeminists” wouldn’t know how to respond to that, so we can pretend the audience is men for the sake of the article.

Masculinity and femininity are essentially social constructs and figments of societal imagination. For some reason, people look to history to conclude facts that have been extracted and partially fabricated to classify our needs and confirm our bias.

Freeman and Merskin proceed to provide examples of fast food companies that have “objectified” women and “sexualized” the act of eating meat such as Carls Jr., Jack in the Box, and Arby’s. They describe commercials that insinuate a sexual connotation that women perform for men. Again, I feel the authors’ argument is weakened since various self-proclaimed feminists posed the “Free the Nipple” movement. This movement was the right for women’s breasts to be normalized and treated no differently than a man’s. Naturally, then a woman’s body would be just as casual as a man’s, but this doesn’t alter sexual desires. Women sexualize men when they attend male strip joints, hire male strippers, and watch pornography. Men are sexualized in clothing ads and commercials for fragrances. If we’re going to keep assuming gender roles for the sake of the authors, then men have been sexualized and objectified for the purpose of female enjoyment, since women enjoy clothes and perfumes. 

Overall, I understand that the authors wrote this article to express the construction of masculinity in fast food advertisements, but their beliefs are SO outdated, hypocritical, and biased. Because of this, the article was quite painful to read and their message was lost on me. There are just too many contradictions and fallacies presented in their work.

Part three of “They Say, I Say” is titled “Tying It All Together” and focuses on integrating the first two portions in the book that have been taught this far. Graff and Birkenstein have separated this section into four chapters: “As a Result”, “Ain’t So/Is Not”, “But Don’t Get Me Wrong”, and “He Says Contends”.

Part 3. “Tying It All Together”

“As a Result”: Connecting the Parts

Graff and Birkenstein introduce this section with an anecdote about a former student who struggled with connecting sentences. Despite being a focused student, he had trouble demonstrating a relation between two occurrences in his writing which resulted in disconnected sentence patterns. They proceed to point out the errors in their students’ writing processes. One common mistake that writers make is not reading their own work and connecting the pieces, rather isolating each piece alone. The authors advise that writers converse with themselves in the writing process and establish clear relations between statements. The authors emphasize the problems with disconnected writing, such as forcing the reader to make up their own assumptions, rather than giving them a clear representation of your own. Graff and Birkenstein offer four crucial pieces of advice to aid with writing flow: use transition terms, add pointing words, develop key terms, and repeat yourself. They offer templates of transitory words such as “furthermore”, “ultimately”, and “for example”, so that readers can follow a continuing train of thought. With these words, readers have a better understanding of comparison/contrast, causation/effects, etc. By utilizing pointing words, the authors explain that a writer can refer back to a concept that was previously introduced. In doing so, they can use terms like “such”, “those”, and “their”. Repetition of key terms and phrases is the third strategy favored by Graff and Birkenstein and describes the process of reusing key words that reiterate the purpose of the text. These key terms may include “criticism” and “answer”. The last strategy is similar to the previous one, just in a less monotonous and obvious way.

What I learned: I was reminded the importance of connectivity for fluid writing. I realize that repetition can be a useful tool in writing, as long as it’s done masterfully.

“Ain’t So/Is Not”: Academic Writing Doesn’t Always Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice

Chapter nine is titled perfectly to allude the content of this section. Graff and Birkenstein introduce with a personal appeal to the audience by asking the reader questions on their writer’s voice. They express that writers can use their every day voice, such as the one used while texting or speaking to family, to advance their academic writing. The authors emphasize the importance of balance and demonstrate how to mix academic and colloquial styles of writing. In context, the academic and colloquial terms should bounce off one another and read smoothly to the audience. The authors provide excerpts of passages to point out how a writer can make these smooth transitions and blend formal writing with informal. Graff and Birkenstein explain that it’s important to know one’s audience and the purpose of the writing to determine when a work calls for blended writing styles. They recommend sticking to conventional academic style when writing for occupational purposes, but there’s room for experimentation in other environments.

What I learned: Formal and informal writing can be blended together depending on my audience and purpose for writing. I know this doesn’t happen too often, but my blog posts allow me to exercise that skill.

“But Don’t Get Me Wrong”: The Art of Metacommentary 

Graff and Birkenstein introduce this portion of the book by defining what metacommentary is. According to the authors, metacommentary is “a way of commenting on your claims and telling others how–and how not–to think about them”. They create an anology between metacommentary and the chorus in a Greek play/ voice-overs to simplify the meaning of this term. They further explain that the main text says one thing and the metatext tells readers how and how not to think about it. The authors inform us that metacommentary is useful in lengthening a paper and reemphasizes the significance of the writing to the audience. Metacommentary can also be used as titles and helps answer the infamous “so what?” factor. The authors provide templates on how to use metacommentary to advantage in formal and informal writing. They conclude that metacommentary strengthens writing and prevents potential misreadings the reader may encounter.

What I learned: I learned what metacommentary is, though I have heard the word used before. This chapter gave me a more developed understanding and I appreciate the analogies the authors provided to grasp the term.

“He Says Contends”: Using the Templates to Revise

In the final chapter of part three, Graff and Birkenstein emphasize the importance of revision in the writing process. The authors understand the difficulty in critiquing one’s writing for errors, so they have provided much needed guidance through the use of templates. This section is rather short and reflects on everything that has been taught this far in the book. The authors highlight the important aspects one should look for during revision and provide the page numbers of the templates that help demonstrate like so. Some aspects include: representation of opposing views, representation of your own views, introducing naysayers, using metacommentary, tying it all together, and the “so what?” factor. Graff and Birkenstein conclude the section with a revised essay by a student who uses all of these techniques.

What I learned: I liked that the revised essay was included in this section because it gives examples of what to look out for during the revision process. It also demonstrates how each technique could be executed in writing.

What is an open letter? According to Wikipedia, they are letters intended to be read by a wide audience, often published publicly to address a particular person or group of people. Open letters can be scavenged across the internet and serve a purpose in cultivating awareness toward a specific topic. These topics are often argumentative and persuasive in nature, attempting to garner public support in the writers’ favor. I will be criticizing the argumentative/rhetorical nature of an open letter from a critic. In this case, internet blogger and talk show radio host: Matt Walsh. Follow this Huffington Post article link for reference.

Brief Summary: Walsh responds to a reader’s dissatisfaction as a waitress, specifically when customers tip poorly, or not at all. He argues in his open letter that people who can’t afford to leave a gratuity when dining out, shouldn’t be going out at all. He also addresses the principles of people who don’t believe in leaving tips, despite their financial situation.

Rhetorical Situation

Author’s Background: Matt Walsh is a self-proclaimed writer and speaker. He was a talk show radio host, before pursuing blogging solely. He is a devout Catholic, a husband, and a father of twins. He’s most known for his highly opinionated responses to controversial topics.

Target Audience: Walsh titled his article, “An Open Letter to Bad Tippers”, specifically targeting people who tip poorly when eating out. His secondary audience would include his preexisting fan base and readers of Huffington Post. The title, language, and introduction demonstrate like so.

Context: The article was published in 2014, the U.S. economy’s breakout year. Job expansion grew strongest in 2014 since 1999, and the unemployment rate was lowest since 2008.

Argumentative Elements:

Main Argument: Non-tippers are the lowest, most shameless customers and need to start tipping their servers from a moral standpoint.

Claims: 

• A person who thinks they can afford a meal, but not the tip, actually can’t afford to eat out at all.
• People who don’t tip are not civilized or decent members of society, but rather deceitful and manipulative ones.
• Non-tippers are hypocrites who reap the rewards of a tip system, while pretending to protest it.
• Non-tippers are motivated from being “cheapskates” and blame customer service workers to validate this.

Evidence: 

• Anecdote provided by an anonymous reader under the pseudonym “MJ” that expresses the effects a non-tipper has on servers.
• Writer argues hypothetical that people who can’t afford to tip need to hire a financial adviser and learn to manage money smarter.
• Uses personal anecdote to demonstrate that Walsh lived modestly and within his means when he couldn’t tip, by eating home meals.
• Uses faulty analogy between tipping and kind gestures, such as holding the door open for an elderly woman and offering a beverage to a thirsty house guest.
• Argues, “Most of us partake in these conventions because we’re civilized and decent”. Uses appeal to the crowd.
• Engages in ad hominem, “You’re lying. You’re being manipulative”, “They’re hypocrites”, “lowest, most shameless sorts of customers.”
• Slippery slope: If restaurant owners paid servers more, so that tips weren’t customary anymore, then happy hour would be gone and restaurants would close earlier.
• Either/Or Fallacy: you either tip like the rest of civilized society, or you don’t tip and live uncivilized.

Evidence Appeals: 

Logos: Walsh’s appeal to the crowd weakens his argument because he’s using his perspective to generalize the whole and represent himself to include “most of us”. The faulty analogy between holding a door for an elderly woman and offering a beverage are different scenarios compared to tipping. Tipping is generally customary in the U.S. and a means to acknowledge someone who has serviced you. In the previous analogies, a service isn’t being provided. Slippery slope: because people don’t tip, then negative consequences will occur.

Ethos: The author uses his repertoire in blogging to be featured on Huffington Post and talk shows. By introducing the letter directed to him from a reader, it indicates his feedback holds importance and suggests a fan base. He has a platform in which he can garner attention and support for his viewpoints. He’s a father and a husband. His evidence can work in his favor, since his he is trusted and paid by the media for his insights. It can contradict him by representing him as an average person with no substantial merit. He doesn’t outright indicate any evidence of social status or education level, rather letting his reputation speak for him. This isn’t always enough, as reputation is subjective.

Pathos: His hypothetical scenarios are exaggerated and indicate a sarcastic tone. (“The horror!” “My meal was late by like a thousand hours!”) Reflects mockery toward non-tippers. “Now, to speak directly to a certain terrifying subset of this species. These are the lowest, most shameless sorts of customers. Their existence is a constant, chilling reminder that evil exists in the world. They are the non-tippers.” This language is quite descriptive, negative, and biased. It’s meant to make someone who doesn’t tip feel bad about themselves, and motivate them to tip out of fear of societal criticism. The author’s language is consistent to his perspective throughout, however “immature” and “extreme” his language may be.

Definitions: The author utilizes rather simple terminologies, but he is sure to elaborate on his choice of words with examples and reasoning of his own. He does tend to use terms out of their original context to frame his agenda, such as referring to non-tippers as “tyrants” and “egomaniacs”.

Arrangement/Organization

Consistency: The author is a little inconsistent in his argument because his introduction indicates he’s arguing against non-tippers for the sake of receiving justice for those in the service industry. However, his open letter is addressed to non-tippers specifically. His outro demonstrates his motive to compell non-tippers to tip. I think the author loses focus because he starts to go on his own subjective tirade against non-tippers, rather than objectively educate non-tippers to persuade them to tip. However, I don’t think his point was to actually persuade, rather than denounce a group of people. In this case, he was consistent in denouncing non-tippers.

Arrangement: The claims are presented in a way that the author’s message is very clear, however it’s presented in a way that reveals inconsistencies in his reasoning.

Would you throw out all preconceived notions of the sky being blue if our President said it was really yellow? Would you trust all medicines manufactured by the pharmaceutical company because they’re legal? Your doctor wouldn’t prescribe something that could harm you, “evidently”. If your math professor said new evidence indicated 2+2 is actually 5, would you believe it?

After reading Evidence by female author Schulz, I’ve been given new insight into the human cognition. According to Schulz, the human condition is wired into believing what we are told from those in authoritative position. Judge Stoughton’s ruling in determining what evidence he found permissible in the court of law is one example the author produces to demonstrate authoritative influence. Because a venerable lawmaker stated a piece of evidence is admissible, then the jury is forced to oblige and come to a decision based on the newly viable evidence. In this case, Stoughton allowed visitations by evil spirits to be permissible evidence over the Salem witch trials. So what makes evidence admissible? This reminds me of the Milgram experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram measuring obedience to authority. In the experiment, the majority of results yielded that people will abandon their own morality to appease the orders given from authoritative figures. Do we have a tendency to obey authority against our better judgement? Do we fear stepping away from the status quo and rebelling against power?

Akin to the judicial system, the author points out that concrete evidence is important when forming a belief system. We form beliefs much like a verdict is found in court. Beliefs are formed when judges form opinions that are then the basis for decision making by the jury. However, the author states that our beliefs aren’t always accurate and aren’t always based on good evidence.

Descartes is a famous philosopher that the author references in the reading. Descartes was a rationalist and engaged in skepticism as a tool for finding a concrete foundation of knowledge. He believed we couldn’t rely on senses alone because our senses could deceive us. An example of this would be ice. We can visually see what ice is and we can see what room temperature water looks like, but we need logic and reasoning to tell us they are the same thing in different states. Descartes was willing to expunge every bit of knowledge he was taught in order to find new concepts to base his knowledge around. This meant questioning everything he knew thus far.

A problem that is inconsistent with Descartes’ rationality is the way humans form opinions today. Schulz emphasizes that people will believe what they want to believe despite lack of evidence. Humans are able to assimilate prior life experience to draw conclusions on subjects they might be clueless about. This leads to inductive reasoning, strategic guesswork based on past experiences. This can lead to the logical fallacies that Descartes was trying to warn future civilizations about. This is especially probable because human memory isn’t always accurate, as memory changes as we change. So in some cases, our recollection of the past has been warped and this would hinder our ability to make justified conclusions in the future. Sometimes we believe something to be so true, we ignore evidence that contradicts our current belief system. This is a term we call confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is defined as the tendency to seek evidence that aligns with our current belief system, rather than integrating evidence that might prove one wrong. An example the author introduces is an anecdote of a woman named Elizabeth. Elizabeth is involved in a heated debate with her friend on whether the constellation Orion is a winter or summer constellation. She believes it to be a summer one, even as she points at the sky incredulous to why Orion is out in December. In my opinion, I believe confirmation bias occurs when people feel too prideful to admit their current belief system is flawed. In efforts to protect their ego, they must prove they are right with whatever evidence logically proves their belief. This is especially the case when people feel there is a division between “winners” and “losers”. This is reinforced in the education system, specifically when educators do their grading.

Inductive reasoning is a belief system that proves to be both helpful and hurtful. We can reason from past experiences that belligerently drunk men who catcall women late at night can harm us, so we make efforts to create a safe space for ourselves. We separate the distance between us and someone who exhibits predatory or risky behavior. But this reasoning can harm us, such as the instances in the news where unarmed black men are shot because of wrongful racial profiling. Inductive reasoning can make one’s trust in their religion stronger. They might have interpreted random occurrences in life to be “signs of God” to validate their belief in God’s existence. They might respect a priest for having an authoritative position and obey their advice. However, the news have also showed us that many priests have been found guilty of committing child sexual abuse. Despite this evidence, some will continue to worship the church and stand by their priest in solidarity because of their shared beliefs.

Evidence alone isn’t enough to shift the reasoning behind perception. History has proven that people will believe what they want to believe no matter what. As with everything, the consequences will always come.

The second portion of “They Say, I Say” focuses on the writer’s point of view and how it influences a reader’s interpretation. This section is all about how “I” dictate my writing and why it’s important that others pay attention too. It’s split up into four sections: “Yes/No/Okay, But”, “And Yet”, “Skeptics May Object”, and “So What? Who Cares?”.

PART 2. “I SAY”

“Yes/No/Okay, But”: Three Ways to Respond

Graff and Birkenstein open this section by emphasizing these chapters differ from their predecessor because they focus on the argument writers have. This chapter concentrates on agreeing, disagreeing, or a combination of both in response to someone else’s thesis. The authors advise that writers make their perspective clear on a subject before exploring different perceptions, so that the reader has a concise understanding of what the author’s idea is. Using phrases such as “I agree…” or “I disagree with…” helps clarify what the reader will be looking for and builds appreciation as the response unfolds. When agreeing with a viewpoint, Graff and Birkenstein inform writers that they can be original and authentic in their stance as long as they aren’t just reinstating the same view as the original author. It’s important that writer’s include their own twist on why they agree with examples they have drawn from their own scenarios, subjectively or observationally. When disagreeing with a perspective, the authors implore writers to offer persuasive reasons why they disagree to persuade the reader to stand with them. When writers simultaneously agree and disagree, the authors explain that they can emphasize one end of the spectrum more than the other to highlight their main stance. This version becomes more of a speculative investigation and leaves the reader with a decision to make on their beliefs. Finally, the authors say it’s okay to be undecided, but the ambivalence may frustrate readers and possibly weaken an argument. In all three responses (excluding indifference), the authors provide templates on how the writer may approach.

What I learned: I learned the different approaches I can take when addressing a preexisting perspective, while providing my own insight on the topic. Ambivalence may frustrate my audience, so it’s best to avoid unless crafted masterfully or utilized in an objective research paper.

“And Yet”: Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

Graff and Birkenstein introduce their next topic on distinguishing between a writer’s view and someone else’s in writing. They explain that rhetorical devices such as “it would seem” can help smooth the transition between expressing one’s own view and the latter. These rhetorical devices are later described as “voice markers”, subtle transitory words that provide distinction in separating opinions. Without voice markers, readers would have a difficult time with reading comprehension, since they can’t determine what the author’s point is in an argument. Graff and Birkenstein address the usage of “I” in academic writing by highlighting a common misconception. The misconception is that using “I” statements discredits a well-grounded argument, which is untrue. The authors inform that if the pronoun is used with the intention of persuasion, then it can be supportive in writing. They just advise that first-person assertions have variation to ward off monotony. According to Graff and Birkenstein, voice markers can be especially helpful when embedding a reference to someone else’s view, rather than coming out bluntly with it. They explain that when writers fail to use voice markers, their voice gets lost within someone else’s and lost on the reader as well.

What I learned: With the templates provided by the authors, I learned new techniques to differentiate my viewpoint from another’s in my writing. I also used to believe that I couldn’t use “I” statements because they were self-indulgent. The authors proved me incorrect and explained why.

“Skeptics May Object”: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

Graff and Birkenstein further elaborate on how a writer can approach their perspectives by providing an anecdote that highlights the dilemma of contemplating criticisms that weren’t introduced in ones’ writing. In their story, a woman lies awake at night thinking her writing is complete, yet she forgot to address criticisms the reader may have. Her first thought is that she will have to completely reconstruct her writing, but she realizes she just has to smoothly integrate in into her composition. This resulted in a stronger, more interesting piece. The authors advise writers to anticipate objections the audience may impose after reading. The point is to enhance writer credibility by disproving the objections one may have. The authors explain that it expresses respect for the reader by entertaining counterarguments which people tend to enjoy on an intellectual level. If counterarguments aren’t entertained, then a writer may appear close-minded and extremely biased. They inform the writer to represent objections as fairly as possible before answering these oppositions to deflect too much bias. Again, they provide extensive templates on how a writer can represent and approach a “naysayer”.

What I learned: I knew it was important to critique the critic to form a well rounded argument that can satisfy all parties in the audience. I just learned even more why it’s important to represent a level mind that is open to counterclaims and how it can strengthen my argument.

“So What? Who Cares?”: Saying Why It Matters

Graff and Birkenstein conclude section two by wrapping up with the “so what” factor. This factor helps shape the importance of one’s writing and why the audience should care to follow the writer’s composition. The authors express that too often this final conclusion is forgotten and left unanswered. It’s important to leave the audience with answers because the writing could be quite impactful and produce real life consequences if not hindered. According to the authors, when answers are provided, a clear claim is highlighted with an intentional response in mind. This is especially important to grasp the reader’s attention and investment in following a writer’s claim. Graff and Birkenstein implore writers to make a connection with the audience about something they already would care about. This assemble a bond between the writer and the audience, making it a smoother transition into a conclusion. This way, the reader is actively engaged in cerebral discussion with the writer on what they are saying and what they should believe.

What I learned: By forming a bond with my audience, I have a greater chance of accumulating their attention to my topic. In return, I will be meet with a higher success rate of persuasion and my writing will be more meaningful. Mental stimulation is much needed when it comes to formal and informal writing.