Menu
This is in the part of the play where Mrs. Putnam is trying to convince Mr. Parris that she did nothing wrong trying to get Ruth to communicate with the dead and that a witch has cursed her.
Mrs. Putnam: I have been plagued by grief and have been distraught for many of these past few years. I have birthed seven children and seven have died. My own flesh and blood, that which was a part of me, died. I sent my Ruth, my only child to try to speak with her dead brothers and sisters. Only so that I may live in peace knowing what they might have had to say (Pathos). Parris: Taken aback by the passion in Mrs. Putnam’s voice This is very unwonted of you Mrs. Putnam. I am not saying that what you did was wrong, but meddling with witchcraft is a sin. You could be in a lot of trouble. Mrs. Putnam: I am willing to accept my punishment in the afterlife but for now I want to know who has been killing my babies (switches the subject)! Parris: Now what are you implying. Mrs. Putnam: That a witch has cursed me so that all, my children will die! Parris: Mrs. Putnam. I do believe there is no element of witchcraft here. Mrs. Putnam: Mr. Parris you have known me some time now, and in that time have lost seven of my children (Ethos). Are you saying that all those deaths were natural? Don’t you think that its odd that all seven have died and now my Ruth is sick (Logos)? Parris: I think claiming that a witch did that is jumping to conclusions Mrs. Putnam. I have not seen anything that would suggest witchcraft yet. Mrs. Putnam: Then why did you send for Reverend Hale? He is the expert on these things, and you asked for him to come (Past tense to assign blame). Parris: That was only a precautionary measure. Mrs. Putnam: I don’t see the need for caution if you don’t think there is some chance that there are witches involved. Surely, you must believe that there might be witches in Salem (Logos).
0 Comments
Topic #1:
Why Loot Boxes Should Not be in Video Games Loot boxes and similar monetization schemes have been a banal staple in video games the past few years. Getting rid of them can only improve the games they are in and would provide a more enjoyable experience in the games. In most games then you can earn loot boxes very slowly through xp or earned currency or you buy them. This poses a problem because a player could pay money for the chance to receive an item that might give them an edge in competitions. This topic will be easy to argue because the loot box controversy came to a climax a few years ago when EA released Battlefront 2. In the game every part of in-game progression was determined by what items you acquired in a loot box. This caused an uproar in the gaming community. There were many articles about it published by all the major game journalists, and there is even some politicians who believe loot boxes are glorified gambling targeted towards kids and are looking to get them banned. This topic is better than other topics because to me it is very important. I would rather not write about a topic for the whole semester that I find boring. Topic #2: Should Disney Declare Their Star Wars Movies Not Cannon? This is probably a radical and extreme opinion but the Disney Star Wars movies have bad writing, bad acting, and ruin the previous trilogy. Star Wars was always about metaphors, and double meanings, and these motifs were not found in the newer movies. Its just Disney trying to get as much money from the ignorant audience who just wants to see more Star Wars. It would be beneficial to call the new movies not cannon because it would restore the balance that the other movies had and the ending of Return of the Jedi would be the end of the series again, as it was intended to be. This would be easy to research and argue because all I would have to do is prove that the new movies have bad writing and don't compliment the earlier movies. This would mean that I would have to compare the new and old movies constantly and I would have to research writing techniques. This is better than other topics because the Disney Star Wars movies are just really, really, really bad. I love Star Wars and to see Disney's interpretation of what happened after Return of the Jedi is flawed in my opinion. I also don't want to write about a topic I think is uninteresting. 1. Carol Dweck's main claim is that by focusing on the future rather than the the past you can do more and push yourself to go further in your social and professional life. This could be with friends, family, school, or even work.
2. Carol Dweck's purpose is to persuade the audience that by focusing on where your work will get you rather there where is didn't, then you can achieve more. 3. The video was made in September of 2014. Carol Dweck made her speech at a TedX conference where speakers can share their ideas on different subjects. Carol Dweck gave her speech to an audience to share her research and findings and to propose an alternate way to teach and raise kids. She wanted to share with a as wide an audience as possible to spread her ideas so that maybe more kids could be taught in a way she thinks is better. 4. Dweck uses many scientific studies to fuel her argument. On one of her slides she shows the brain of two kids who where confronted with an error. One who had a "growth mindset" as she calls it, and another who had a fixed mindset. The child with the growth mind set had more brain activity. A lot of the studies she quotes are ones she helped research so she knows all the details and evidence about those. She uses her own knowledge and evidence to help support her claim. 5. The intended audience is anyone who is looking to make a change in their life. For anyone who wants to do and be better. The audience may be students looking for a better way to study to get better grades. They may be open to the idea of changing their mindset about how they perceive their own grades so that maybe they can do better. A student who is looking for a better way to study may find this video and consider it helpful. All sorts of people can benefit from Carol Dweck's speech. The applications of having a growth mindset are almost endless, so the audience may be any one curious enough to watch the video. 6. Carol Dweck arranges her speech by first introducing the idea of "yet" and how it encourages students to do better. She then gives evidence from many scientific studies, many of which she helped research. She then describes three school districts that benefited from her proposal. Lastly, she describes a student who sent her a letter that said by thinking about the future and not about the now he was able to do better in his social and professional life. 7. Carol Dwick uses scientific studies to support her argument. These studies use facts and logic to persuade the viewer to her claim. She also uses a personnel story from a student who sent her a letter. The Letter is from a student who applied Carol Dweck's idea of a growth mindset, and he said it helped him in almost all regions of his life. This makes the viewer think that Carol Dwick's idea actually works. 8. I think that I have a growth mindset. I like to think that no matter what I do, its all leading to somewhere, and that I can learn from my mistakes and I can eventually be where I want to be. When I make a mistake my first thought isn't "oh man this really sucks", its "how can I fix this". I like to think about where my actions will lead me, and not where my past ones have gotten me. I would rather be optimistic about the future rather than pessimistic about the present. That's why I think I am a growth mindset, because I want to expand on what I've done. 1. Camille A. Langston's main claim is that Aristotle described rhetoric in three main parts: forensic, epideictic, and symbouleutikon. There are also three parts of Symbouleutikon that are ethos, pathos, and logos.
2. I think the author chose this claim to illustrate the idea that there are multiple ways to use language to get what you want. 3. The tone in the video is informative because the author wants to put the facts out there in an easy to understand fashion. 4. The intended audience is students using TedX to learn about different topics and ideas. 5. The author arranges her ideas by giving a brief history of rhetoric and then explaining the three main parts of rhetoric and then the three parts of Symbouleutikon. 6. The author establishes her credibility by listing the people that helped on the video, like director and producer, which tells me that a lot of thought and effort went into this video and can probably trusted. 7. The emotions the author wants to evoke are interest and curiosity because she starts the video by saying "what do you get what you want using just your words?" Which to me, as the viewer, makes me interested in the video so that maybe I can use this rhetoric in my life to get what I want using only words. 8. The author arranges her argument by listing the types of rhetoric and then the types of Symbouleutikon. 9. I notice that the author used logos to state facts to persuade me to what was being presented. The author also used ethos to make me interested in the video by asking a question at the beginning of the video that I wanted to hear the answer to. 10. I can use rhetoric to get what I want by stating my opinion and then following it up with facts. I have always thought Logos, the use of logic to persuade, is the best form of rhetoric because it uses the facts. Why would you dispute the facts? So I would use logos to try to persuade my parents to let me stay up longer and let me play games longer using facts and logic. |