SWA 6: CR Chpt. 8, #3

Pozner means that Rosie O’Donnell criticizers debate about the same sort of stuff and yet they aren’t open-minded about other views, such as Rosie’s leftist views.  Pozner considers the backlash Rosie is getting as pointless and unnecessary when you compare it with her criticizers’ “limited range of debate.”  Examples of this can be found by simply quoting what those media personalities had to say about Rosie and her opinions on America.  Such as in Pozner’s own experience when she was a guess on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes.  She said the subject was about O’Donnell’s right to talk about gun control yet they kept on wanting to discuss Rosie.  I think that Pozner’s claim is true.

SWA 5: CR Chapter 4, #9

When Alvarado writes that white women can change their hair color and not worry about “correctly” representing their community, her point is that as a Latina, she feels the need to “correctly” represent her community yet she has every right as a white woman to change her hair.  She feels that she can still be a Latina whilst being a blond.  She reconciles her desires by  actually going on with the plan of dyeing her hair blond.

SWA 4: Ex. 1a

Text

Reader/Audience

Author

Constraints

Exigence

This is an argumentative article on gun control and the gun laws in America.  It supports strict gun control for the safety of American citizens.

The targeted readers can be practically anyone interested in the topic of gun control.  It could be used to try to persuade Legislatures to adopt strict gun laws.  Other readers would also include gun owners such as hunters who oppose such strict laws on guns.

The author is a writer for a popular newspaper/magazine.  He is being informative on other incidents involving hand guns and stating how various countries found a solution to the gun problem and hence no significant gun shootings occurred there.  He is a persuader trying to change people’s opinion on the topic.

The author is constrained by the belief that anyone can buy a hand gun easily and that this needs to be changed.  He is also constrained by the belief that America should impose strict gun laws and let hunters buy shotguns and rifles with proper licensing and other various background checks.  Also another constraint of his is that if America does impose strict gun laws, there will be little or no shootings in the country.

The exigence of this article is that the author was saddened to hear about the dead students at Virginia Tech whose cell phones were ringing when their families were calling them.  They died because of a murderer who purchased hand guns easily.

Some common ground I share with this author is that I think it’s a very good idea if the government imposes these strict gun laws to prevent shootings like this to ever happen again.  I find this argument very convincing in that the author is very credible.  He is very informative about other past incidents involving hand guns and the follow ups to that.

SWA 3: Ex. 2a

I would have to say my personal argument style is rather consensual. I prefer to change my opinion if the opposition states a better one and I am also willing to cooperate to the fullest. I like affiliation and I am unaggressive. My consensual argumentative style would be best represented by a professor conducting a class discussion to help students reach consensus and write what they have discovered, or as a negotiator writing out plans to resolve a conflict. This sort of work is reasonable for my style of argument. It is solely unaggressive and I can express my views and also be flexible and change them if I do reach a compromise with the opposite party.

Which style describes me more? Lets find out.

Consensual Style

• I prefer to be indirect
• I like to give reasons
• I prefer cooperation
• I favor group consensus
• I like affiliation
• I dislike contentious argument
• I solicit many views on an issue
• I try to make connections
• I prefer negotiating
• I favor the personal example, story, or anecdote
• I want to keep the community strong

Adversarial Style

• I like to reach conclusions
• I prefer competition
• I like to fight
• I am aggressive
• I am primarily logical
• I prefer winning
• I favor abstract ideas and reasoning

 

The Consensual Style definitely is more related to me, but I can see that I also do have characteristics that are attributed more to the Adversarial Style. I still prefer to argue with a Consensual Style approach simply because I like negotiation and avoid confrontation at all costs. If I do fully disagree with a point made by the opposition, I would not give in to it though. Yet, I would try to understand why the opposition tends to think the way they do about that specific point while trying to avoid any fighting and maintaining full cooperation.

USC Guidebook on the Horseshoe

guidebook-horseshoe.doc