*Review* Les Mis.

Singing? In a movie? What? Yes.  It is true! Les Miserables is a re-creation of a classic.  With a cast of A-list stars out the wa-zoo to help the story along, it leaves you with a mix of emotions only a musical of this esteem can.  All you Sun devils who say musicals are to 'girly' or un-cool, you need to rethinking your opinion! The filming is sensational and adds even more to the thrilling scenes and amazing songs.  Although remarks can be made of one persons less than thrilling singing voice, there are ten other stunning performances to offset his mistakes.  Overall the movie is spectacular with an air of surprise and awe.  Moments of tears! Triumph! And Agony! All of my male Sun devils out there, it the perfect movie to show your sweetie that you have a soft side! All in all the movie is beautiful and comes highly recommended not only by myself but reviews everywhere.

Looking from Multiple Perspectives

 

STEP ONE: IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS: In order to write a successful proposal, you need to you need to examine multiple perspectives: you’ll want to represent as many people’s interests as possible as you describe your problem and solution, and you’ll want to understand your resisting audience’s inclinations as you pitch your solution.

For the following arguments, identify different people who are involved in the issue,  people who are directly impacted by the problem posed, people who officiate the policies involved, people who have legitimate concerns or investments in the conversation, or other kinds of stakeholders. 

 McKemy Junior High must reconsider its decision to cut music programs.

 a.       Directly impacted – Students, Faculty

 b.      Officiate the policies involved – Principal, the school board for their district

 c.       Legitimate concerns/investments – Students, Teachers, Parents, as well as the principal and school board. 

 

* ASU’s dry campus policy is injurious to the students and should be amended.

 a.       Directly Impacted – Students

b.      Officiate the policies involved – School governing board

c.       Legitimate concerns/investments – Parents, students

 

* I propose that the ASU adopts a stricter campus security in order to keep vagrants and other potentially dangerous individuals off the school grounds.

a. Directly impacted – Students, homeless people, security guards

b. Officiate the policies involved – School governing board, Tempe police, voters

 c. Legitimate concerns/investments – Security Guards, parents, Students, teachers.

 

STEP TWO: Develop Context: how do these stakeholders interact with one another? Do they have the same interests, attitudes, or ideas? What do they agree on and what do they disagree on? Pick one of the debates from the first page and develop a profile for each stakeholder: what are their commonly held values, objectives, or beliefs? What kinds of information or experiences get factored into their decisions?

 

 

#1 - The students who are dealing with the homeless people do not have the same views as the homeless people themselves.  The homeless are just looking for a place to sleep and mind their own business where as the students might like to study or take a nap right where they are. 

 #2 - The school board believes that students safety is number one, as do security guards.  But the Tempe police might not want to invest into something that is not directly causing a problem now.

 

 #3 - Parents want their students to be safe. so they will be for whatever the school board says.  But then the students might not like it if that means that living and tuition goes up.

 

 STEP THREE: Research: What would be the best method to represent or address these perspectives in a proposal essay?

 

#1

 

 

 

 

 

#2

 

 

 

 

#3

 

Homework 4?5?

 
For this assignment I read the second proposal that was posted and I actually found it very interesting. I had not known how much a class was so it was a rather eye-opening essay/proposal for me to read. When reading I found many many points that I agreed with and by the end of the proposal I was sold. I thought it was a well-made argument which had many details and facts but was not too overwhelming with knowledge. Also, the argument was on a topic that could have gone many different ways, but the writer took a good stance and stayed with it throughout the paper, which I enjoyed.

One thing I did notice that might be able to strengthen the writer’s paper were some grammatical errors. Other than that I found the argument to be precise, to the point, and well written. Sometimes though, I wish there had been a little more defining, when the writer was talking about all of the classes and the bulk of the argument I found repetition and some circling happening. Although I do not think it took away from the overall paper it was just something I thought of.

I did not find a 'resistant' audience that was being addressed in the argument. But, the writer did address all of the possible objections to their plan throughout their piece. If any objections were to come about I believe it would be from those who read this that are members of the SRC but are not students. This might be the resistant audience and I believe that this would be so for many reasons. One being that the proposal is for students only and there would not be any benefits for those in the community who are members. This could be looked at as not fair and I think this might be an area the writer might also want to review and see if there are any options for those in this group to make a deal that is beneficial for all.

I would rate the writer’s ethos a hard 8 put of 10 this is because it was above average, but it might not be applicable to everyone. If someone who was not a student was to read this and they were a member of the SRC they might not like that they would not be getting the same benefits that were being proposed for the students. But other than that, it was solid through the argument and the writer’s use of ethos was appropriate as well as needed in some aspects.

I do believe that this is a good model for our assignment because it cover the material, as well as was professional and I believe that it could be an actually proposal that should be considered.

Writing 1 Draft

 

ENG 102

1-25-12

 

The article ‘Where Have the Good Men Gone’ should be placed in your book under the second chapter; Poorly made arguments.  The arguments made in the article were not fully convincing and they are also not made in a good manner.  The author uses Ethos and Pathos, but Logos in her argument is hardly able to be found.  In order to fully be able to write a knowledgeable and believable the author must incorporate all three (Ethos, Logos, Pathos) into his/her argument. 

The article has a point that all men in their twenties are now in a state of life that she calls ‘Pre-Adulthood’.  The author explains that before, more men were married by the age of 25 than in today’s society.  Her definition of pre-adulthood is none the nice.  She says that men who once brought home flowers to a wife, are now bringing home chips and beer to their band mates in a flat.  Then, she mentions how women are now beginning to climb even higher, and closer to the men, on the ladder of success.  Now, more women are graduating, getting higher GPA’s, and even earning more than the men in their lives.  She states many facts, and in the middle switches to how and why the men are entering this state. 

Now, the author states that men that are in this ‘Pre-Adulthood’ are unpredictable, and writing their own stories, which is a major change from the men in earlier generations.  Before, men were settling down with women and making families before 30.  And now, the author says men are just starting to consider marriage by 30.  All in all, she makes an overall point leading to her thesis, that this new found ‘Pre-Adulthood’ might not be the best thing for society and for men in general.

In her fist couple of paragraphs the author starts by saying the men in today’s society, who are in their twenties, are now experiencing a ‘pre-adulthood’ part of their lives, which differs from previous generations.  Along with this she states many statistics, but all of them are just dealing with GPA’s and the percent of married men now as compared to in 1970.  The amount of emotional appeal in the first half of her article is impressive, but it lacks any logic.   To be more specific, much of the article had logical fallacies.  Once, when the author was expressing that all men are now among this new breed, and all of them are generically the same.  But, no actual surveys were quoted to back up these statements.

The author goes further into detail by saying that this new era of men has already been happening around the world, and we are just playing social catch-up.  But, if this is so, then where is the evidence to make this a sound judgment.

Continuing to go down the article more you are able to see the mention of women and the changes they have come upon in the more recent decades.  She says that women are now doing better in school than men, as well as earning more.  But, she also says that it is the man’s own fault that they are not as ‘empowered’ as they once were.    Emotionally, for women this sticks.  But, for men, it is about as clear as mud. 

The topic of the essay was how men today are not up to the standards of the men before.  So, when deeming the men of today as ‘children’ in men’s bodies and saying that they are the ones who need to change.  I don’t believe that that will necessarily help her call to action.  Men, in character, do not like to be told what to do directly.  But, in subtle ways of encouragement are able to be persuaded in to being what is proper.

Throughout the paper, the author gives many appeals, but most do not translate in the ways I believe she intended.  The article does indeed have a strong argument in it, but it does not translate within the way this author chose to write.  This article should therefore be published in Chapter Two: Poorly written essays. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homework 2

In my English class last semester we had three main papers and all of them seemed, to me, to revolve around Ethos, Logos as well as Pathos.  In our first paper of the semester the topic was to write about a space.  And how this space is either functional/dysfunctional. But, also were instructed to write about who the intended user of the space is and why.  Logos and Logical go together like peanut butter and jelly.  And in the paper logic was used in almost every paragraph.  When I was talking about specific why of how is space was dysfunctional I used percentages, and statistics in order to clearly get my point across.  Also, without the use of logic or Logos I believe the paper itself would have not had the same merit as it did when it was used.  Now another was that my paper was able to keep its credibility and clearness was through the use of Ethos.  Although I did not have a full understanding of this I still used citations.  But I was able to get interviews with the staff of the space as well to make sure my paper was very secure in my argument.  Last but not least I used Pathos in my paper to make sure that the reader understood the point of view of the current user of the space and why it was not made for them.  I think that all of these put together really made the paper for this class overall more understandable. As do I believe that without any use of Ethos, Logos, or Pathos my paper would have been un-creditable as well as mediocre at best.