Chad+Salswedel


 * Chad's page**

P3 2/17/08

Journal #3 2/5/08 In my second paper on the definition of a word, I used induction, comparison, and description as my argument strategies. These were the strongest strategies that best fit my word: luck. I compared the right and wrong times to classify a person or event as lucky or when they actually earned it through hard work and not luck alone. I also described several examples where I experienced so-called luck and even times where I was not so lucky. My examples of being lucky included the time I won on a slot machine at the casino, my place of birth, the flip of a coin, and the weather for a particular day. Additionally, my instances of achievement through hard work included my friend’s dad making a solid living out of the stock market and my superior knowledge of college basketball which gained me a victory in the March Madness basketball pool. I believe these arguments helped my paper out and made it easier to organize my argument; however, I was probably going to use types of these strategies as a guideline anyways because giving examples was the best way to describe my word. I think that I appealed to my reader's logos, pathos, and ethos better in this paper than I did in my last one. I was very sensible in distinguishing a difference between luck and skill or hard work which made my logos pretty credible. Also, I gave actual examples that I experienced to back up my pathos and ethos. I made the reader believe my viewpoint since I have been through a horde of situations that deemed to have luck involved. Overall, I think I wrote a quality paper that used sufficient argument strategies and was well-balanced throughout with logos, pathos, and ethos.

P2 2/2/08

A3 1/30/08 After reading the story 'Brute' and listening to the debate in class, I have a better understanding for what makes up a brute and how one is defined. I feel that a brute is an irrational, insensitive, and uncaring individual that does not care what others think of him/her. From the story, I think that the patient is more of a brute than the doctor; however, the doctor shows at times that he can be pretty brutal, too. Even though the patient was completely intoxicated, a brute does not have to be entirely oblivious or stupid to necessarily qualify as one. Obviously, school bullies are brutes yet they know exactly the situation and what they are putting other kids through. Therefore, the idea that brutes are clueless can be thrown out the window. Several quotes from the reading back up the thought that the patient is a greater brute than the doctor. For instance, the brute needed to be "escorted by four policemen into the emergency room" and four men is surely a lot to grab hold of one man. Also, the patient is described as "hugely drunk - toxic, fuming, murderous - a great mythic beast broken loose in the city". The man continues to fight while drunk and even with a giant laceration on his forehead. This shows how irrational the patient is throughout the story. The part that captured me the most in proving that the patient is the greater brute is when he said to the doctor, "You fuckin' hold still." The doctor was trying to stitch the man's forehead and he insensitively muttered these four words to the helpful doctor. If someone said these words to me it would drive me up a wall without a doubt. Because of these reasons, the patient is more of a brute. There is only one instance where I think that the doctor becomes brutal. This occurs when the doctor sews the patient's earlobes to the stretcher, wipes away the blood from the patient's eyes, and gives him the "cruelest grin of his life." Needless to say, I would probably feel the same way due to the fact that the patient was being completely unreasonable. This was a brutal act but it does not make the doctor entirely a brute. The patient was acting like a brute all throughout the whole story; therefore, classifying him as the brute would deem appropriate.

P2 1/27/08
 * word:** lucky
 * definition:** Adjective - having or marked by good luck, fortunate; happening fortunately; bringing or foretelling good luck, or supposed to do so
 * alternate:** occuring by chance; presaging or likely
 * origin:** 1495-1505
 * related forms:** luckiness, luckier, luckiest

P1 1/24/08

A2 1/20/08 [|WTF? Swearing at work is good for business] Written by Dennis Baron


 * Summary:** Written by Dennis Baron on October 22, 2007, “WTF? Swearing at work is good for business” defends the idea that cursing at work builds team spirit, camaraderie, and actually causes workers to be more productive. Swearing is ‘neither negative nor abusive’ as long as it is not meant to intentionally scold someone. However, swearing should only be condemned around friends or people that you are comfortable with. When cursing is not used in this context, it is deemed inappropriate and downright unnecessary. Baron made me think about how commonly swear words are used in today’s world and I realized that students my age use them more than they should.


 * Analysis:** I believe that this article was attended for college students and younger employees to read. Baron claimed that ‘younger managers were more tolerant’ of cursing in the office and it was also a more common practice amongst them. Although I think that Baron used an even amount of logos, pathos, and ethos throughout the entire article, he appealed to my logic the most due to the fact that he stated many examples and made me think about how much swearing actually goes on in the world today. Since his logos appealed to me the most, this was also the most persuasive attribute of the article. The weaknesses of Baron’s argument were that he often jumped around and it became choppy at times. Baron also defended swearing at first, but near the end he seemed to be against it and this caught me off guard. Baron’s strengths included the plethora of examples he used in his article and how he appealed to my logos, pathos, and ethos. The website had a picture of the death of Julius Caesar which depicted the opposite of team building and how Caesar used the equivalent of ‘WTF’ when he was stabbed by Brutus. This caused me to have mixed emotions about the article since I thought it was supposed to be about the benefits of swearing. However, besides that, this article was a very interesting read about a pretty dicey topic.

Journal #1 1/14/08

In the past, I have never really thought about writing to my readers' appeal through logos, pathos, and ethos. I have usually written just to get an assignment done or to get a point across. Now since I'm taking English 101, I am beginning to understand that writing can also be art and art can affect people through logic, emotion, and character. I now have a basic sense of how to appeal to my reader. I need to show visual examples in my writing that my reader can relate to. To enhance my use of logic in my writing, I need make my writing more believable, avoid generalization, and be fair minded. I would like to be more descriptive and use past experiences to appeal to my readers' emotions. Also, I need to show that I know my information and appeal to my readers' ethos by showing that I understand what I am writing about. I think that I need to work on my pathos the most. I feel that if you connect to a reader emotionally, then you will be able to better persuade that person. I am fairly decent at giving examples and I think that I am definitely a logical person. I know how to sound like a good, moral person to an extent, but I wish to improve in that area. The article that I am analyzing is "In Plain English: Let's Make It Official" by Charles Krauthammer. I can relate to this author through the fact that he doesn't really connect to his readers by pathos. Krauthammer uses sufficient logic and states his credentials but fails to associate the reader emotionally. I also have the same problem while writing. I need to use more pathos in my writing and that is surely what I need to work on.