In
the article “TAKING NOTE; So Many Screeners and So Little
Shampoo, but Are Our Planes Safer” by Juliet Lapidos in the New York Times, she
writes a short review on airport safety and how she feels about all of the
changes that have been made in the TSA system. To support her opinion and to
try to make us support her opinion, she uses a few components of the rhetoric
system. Her use of detail, language, and syntax help convey her ideas to us
readers.
The first
element, detail, helps us think the writer is more reliable through the facts
that they provide us with. For example, when Lapidos talks about how “the TSA employs roughly 62,000 people, including 47,000 screeners, at a
cost of more than $3 billion a year in payroll, compensation and benefits” (The
New York Times), she is including facts to make her sources seem dependable and
to help support her opinion and make it seem dependable.
The next
element that is used, language, is the way in which a writer conveys ideas to
make the reader feel a certain way. How an author constructs their writing and
the certain details they choose to use or not to use is what creates a certain
feeling in a piece of writing. In this review, Lapidos is trying to persuade
her readers that what the airport security has been doing to keep safe is
unnecessary. It would be better for the TSA to ban obvious weapons of
destruction, because “banning lighters is just security theater-it just makes
airports seem safer” (The New York Times). It doesn’t actually do anything.
Throughout the article, we are being told how much money has been wasted on
machines that haven’t done much, like the “puffer” machine. All of these
negative views on what could be helpful machines make us side with her
throughout the time we are reading her writing.
The final
use of the rhetoric that is being used is diction. Diction is the specific
words that are being put to play throughout a text. They help the reader to
really visualize what is being said, and the use of good, strong words will
help them believe in the same things that the writer believes in. During this
editorial, Lapidos helps us envision what the TSA is doing by saying; “the TSA
seems like a caricature of a wasteful bureaucracy, spending astounding amounts
of money even during a sluggish economic recovery” (The New York Times). Instead
of simply saying the TSA spends a lot of money on unnecessary things in hard times,
they use strong words such as “wasteful bureaucracy” and “astounding amounts”.
These words really deliver the point that the author is trying to get across to
the readers.
The
editorial shows components of the rhetoric in action. Without these minor
details, the piece wouldn’t have as big of an impact as it does on the reader.
They all come together to create a specific feeling and to develop a common
opinion. After learning about the five parts of the rhetoric situation, I have
learned how to further read into pieces of writing and to take notice in the
small words formations of sentences to convey certain meanings.
You have a really good start on this essay. When you're talking about the different elements, however, I think you should cut out the definitions/explanations of diction and language. It should be assumed that your audience already knows what these words mean. Also, you shouldn't include what you learned about the rhetoric in your conclusion. This essay is supposed to be a formal piece of writing, so you should be focused on analyzing the article, not discussing what you learned in class. Finally, I think it's important to state at some point what the author's opinion on the issue actually is. You allude to it, but never come out and say "the author believes x about this issue". In your three body paragraphs you analyze how she thinks airport security needs to change, but that is never stated in your introduction. I think it's important to put that sentence there (maybe even in the thesis?) in order to let the readers know what you believe her opinion on the issue is, and how she uses the rhetoric to get this message across.
ReplyDeleteJulia, great job on the response. I think you clearly backed up your stated thesis and had excellent examples from the text to support it. Your paragraph about details could use some more elaboration. I think you have a great start to this part of your response, but need a few more details to really "sell" your point to the reader. In contrast, your last two paragraphs, about detail and language, are very well developed and constructed. They both have a good amount of detail included. I actually disagree with Haley about the explanation of each of the elements you talk about. I believe it is a good way to lead into each paragraph and to really clue your reader in to what you will be talking about. Great Job Julia!
ReplyDeleteGood job on your response, Julia, there are some things though that I wish you did differently. I do like your second paragraph, and the information that you provide. I do wish that for all of your examples that you would list some more examples, they don't need to be as specific as your first ones, but they need to be there, at least in my opinion. I think the definitions of the different rhetoric tactics can be cut out, as you are writing to your peers,and we know them all. You never actually list the author's opinion, you just jump into the essay, with that, it would be a great essay, but you're definitely on your way.
ReplyDelete