This is a world war two poster that is obviously against communism.

Argument: We must fight communism in order to stop it from spreading to, and destroying American.

Target Audience: Patriotic Americans that have some sort of ability to support the war/anti communism effort.

How is this argument made?

Ethos-credibility of the American flag. It is published in a comic book by an educational society. Published in a successful and popular work, but a credbible society. Realistic looking uniforms of some of the people in the picture.

Pathos- The American flag is a very important and well loved by the American people. This picture shows the American flag being burned and destroyed. This provokes emotions: fear (huge oddly colored fire destroying what is good) and anger (the pride invloved in the flag and what it represents). The picture is also very violent. In the forefront there are scenes of enemies killing peple. The one that is especially frigtening is the man in front that is strangling someone. He looks kind of like a monster because his skin is a pale greenish color, and there seems to be blood on his face. There are also lots of people in hoods and cloaks in the background. They look like they are protesting, or doing violent things. The picture makes it look like communism is somthing that is terrible because it will bring chaos and murder. Everything will be destroyed. Right above the burning flag it says "is this tomorrow." This is also an emotional statement because it causes people to look at the future in the context of the terrible things that the picture shows.

Logos: It was created in 1947. People had many valid reasons to fear the war and communism (considering that it represented the enemies that they were fighting). Overall it is more of an emotional argument rather than a logical argument.

Star criteria

Sufficient: It is effective, but it only shows one side of the argument, and it is presented in a very unbalanced way.

Typical: It was typical for many of the arguments made during this time concerning communism and the Red Scare, but what it is arguing is probably not all that likely or realistic.

Accurate: This is not a very accurate argument because it is very dramatic, and not showing a very likely scenario. It is manipulative an depends more upon evoking emotions of fear and anger rather than educating or giving facts.

Relevent: This was an argument that was relevent, and probably very effective at the time. It was relevent because it dealt with many of the fears that Americans had during the time--even if it wasn't that accurate.

Cooking With Heidi

I really always hated cooking when I was younger. Cooking is still not one of my favorite things to do, but it is a lot more tolerable, especially now that fires and small explosions are becoming less and less frequent when I attempt to wield a spatula, or some other cooking tool. I remember that there was not one thing in the kitchen that I could not spoil. One Weekday afternoon I decided to make cookies...not just any cookies, but triple chocolate chunk cookies. Even these wonderful bits of chocolatey goodness I was able to destroy. The worst part is, it was pre-made cookie dough from the fridge--all I had to do was scoop it out and bake it on a cookie sheet for twelve minutes. I went ahead and scooped out all of the little cookie dough balls, taking care in making sure that each one was in a 1 inch sphere and placed in 2 inch intervals on the cookie sheet. With two inch intervals, and one inch diameters, how could I go wrong? I put the cookies in the oven, and all went surprisingly well. When the timer rang telling me that 12 minutes of baking time was up. I went ahead and peered into the oven at the cookies. They looked really good, but not done all the way. My friend (German exchange student who lived with us at the time) disagreed with me. She told me that the cookies definitely looked done, and that I should go ahead and pull them out. Of course, I new best, afterall, these were American style cookies, I would know more about cooking them better than a German would. The cookies looked really good, but they were a little bit crispy on the edges when I finally pulled them out. Not to worry, a good glass of milk would fix that. I passed the cookies out to my family and to the two missionaries who were visiting at the time. Everyone took big bites, and then oh, the transformation that took place on their faces was really something to see! First happy and smiling, then surprise, finally surprise turned into disgust and illness, which obviously gave way to that expression one has when looking for a garbage can...How did this happen? I would never have imagined that a few extra minutes in the oven would have made a batch of cookies so disgusting! Obviously my family had no problem with spitting the cookie bits out of their mouth and teasing me, but oh, those poor missionaries! As much as I insisted that the cookies really were in fact terrible, and that they would not hurt my feelings if they decided to spit them out, they continued eating the cookies stoically, even though I am sure that they really had to be suffereing. I later decided that those boys were extremely polite (almost to the point of stupidity--I am sure those cookies made them sick), or they really were like garbage disposals, no tastebuds and always hungry. I shall never know.

Vote!

Today while walking around campus I noticed that it was election week for BYU. I noticed this because of the fifty people around the wilk stuffing flyers in my hand, wearing bright "vote for___" shirts, and telling me of my duty to vote. Here is a break down of what I noticed in what they were arguing, and how they did it.

Argument: Vote for Amanda and Steele. They will make BYU a more spiritual place with a highlight value each week, and they will make it so that students can become more involved @BYU.

Target Audience: BYU students that have not voted, but want to.
How is the argument made:

Ethos-They had very official looking banners and posters up, and they dressed very well (business attire). They could have done a little bit better if some of their handouts didn't have spelling errors...ooops.

Pathos-They wanted to appeal to the emotions of a very religious audience by talking about values, and their plans for having a value focussed on each week. They argued that they wanted everyone to have an active role in the goings on at BYU. Appeals to people who want to get involved, or who have opinions about their school. They were both out there in the courtyard shaking hands and trying to make things personal for potential voters.

Logos: They were all out there among the students, shaking hands and getting involved. If they care enough about students to get to know them, they will find a way for student voices to be heard-representation. This might have been some of the logic that people could have picked up if all of the other candidates were not doing the exact same things. I gues though, if students really wanted the chance to be heard and get more involved, they are already doing something about it. IE. voted, or they themselves are involved in the election.

Star criteria

Sufficient: Not a lot of proof, we had to take their word for it.

Typical: Yes

Accurate: Some of their claims or plans seemed a little unreachable, but overall, things were ok. I suppose most of it was accurate though, because he told me about the specific plans they had to put everything into action.

Relevent: Relevent in subject, argument, and audience.

Possible enthymemes for paper #2

Enthymeme 1: Increasing and standardizing incentives given by the federal government to private companies and landowners investigating windmill technology will make America more competitive in foreign markets, and will make America less dependent on traditional resources which are harmful to the environment.
*Yes, I am now noticing that this enthymeme will not really work.

Enthymeme 2: Increasing the incentives given by the federal government to companies investing in windmiss techinology will make the united States less dependent on traditional energy resources that are harmful to the environment because developing energy source companies will have the funding neeeded to start their own windfarms as well as the financial motivation to do so.
*Ok, I know it needs a little work, but it is a start.

Pros and cons for my argument.

Pros
-Traditional resources are running low. We need to investigate and take advantage of other resources.
-America has great wind power potential.
-No pollutant side effects.
-Many European countries very successful with this technology. We are falling behind.
-Later when we are forced to invest we will have to depend on other countries for supplies and technology. Better to take care of the issue now rather than try to catch up later. Preperation.

Con
-Expensive
-although windmills are clean sources of energy, there are pollutants involved with the construction of windmills.
-Other forms of energy are possibly more productive and efficient.
-Countries with windmill energy generally pay more.
-Standards of windmills-people putting up cheap useless ones just for the gov check.

*The motivation of profit vs. financial motivation (ability)

Audience ideas paper2

Potential audience #1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Things I know about FERC
-Composed of up to five commissioners
-they serve five years
-Members: Jon Wellinghoff, Mar Spitzer, Wuedeen G, Kelly, Philip D. Mueller, chariman Joseph T Kelliner
-Appointed by the president of the United States (suggestions made by senate)
-Goals: Energy infrastructure, competitive markets, enforcement
-Responsible for PURPA 1978 and the revision of PURPA in 2005
-No more than three commissioners may be part of the same political party to avoid political pressure.
-FERC remains independent-decisions not reviewed by the President or congress.

Possible WATCO 1: Increasing federal government incentives for windmills on international competition and jobs in the united states.

Possible WATCO 2: Federal incentives for developing windmill techinology on U.S. dependence on traditional energy sources.

Other possible audiences: Landowners and farmers. Local communities, state government.