We spent quite a bit of time in class analyzing the structure and argumentation of editorials. Now is your chance to respond to the content of those arguments. Choose one of the four editorials and write a response. Consider the argument, its strengths, weaknesses, and the kinds of evidence employed.
due 5/17
The editorial ‘Short-Term Fixes’ was an excellent, short synopsis of the college loan debt handled by tons of college students and college graduates in America. In the editorial, the writer (who is unnamed) gives background to the problem of Congress only giving five years of low-interest rates for college loans, and how, in their opinion, neither the republican party or the democratic party is resolving the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe writer acknowledges both positions, starting with the republican party. They state that the republican party, whom wants to use money from the opposed ‘Obamacare’ to resolve the issue. The writer than transitions to the democratic platform, in which democrats want to eliminate a loop hole by small corporations and tax paying, but how it would also only impact those who make over $250k a year.
The writer gives a good explanation of both sides plans, and how they both fail. They then go on to explain the numbers behind who relies on these student loans and federal aid for college. I feel that this was a good editorial because in just short time, the writer gives a background of the issue and how the major political parties attempt to handle it. In the end, the writer states that no short term fix can be possible, and the economic issue of higher education should be handled with a long term proposition.
In the editorial 'Short-Term Fixes' the author explains the rise in college student loan debt and how the Republican and Democratic parties are failing to fix the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe author establishes his/her argument by ruling out the bad behaviors of both parties, starting with the republicans. They explain that the Republicans want to use money from "Obamacare" which initially helps people in need to resolve the problem. Then the author explains that the democratic party wants to eliminate a loophole that allows small corporations to refrain from paying payroll taxes. It is obvious that neither of these so called "solutions" are a way to resolve the issue of rising college student debt.
The editorial is a very well written piece considering the author uses statistics and an abundance of evidence backing up his/her argument. They also give insight on what the future holds if nothing is done to fix the issue. The writer ends his/her argument by giving a strong and to the point statement explaining where they stand with the argument.
The editorial, “From Beijing, with Love” is a very interesting editorial. The Editoral begins by introducing the issue at hand, giving history/background information and then offering stories and examples to back up the argument being made. The editorial is concluded with the end of a story being told and a solution being offered. The strengths of the editorial, in my opinion, are the examples and stories told. In particular the story of Ms. Vlasova caught my attention. Personal stories are a great way to be persuasive. Stories allow the reader to connect with the issue at hand and allow the reader to become passionate on the subject matter and really be convinced. As far as a weakness, I feel that the editorial does not offer a great solution or offer any ways for the readers to get involved and help the situation. Overall, I think this editorial is pretty basic and effective.
ReplyDeleteWriting a editorial is quite different with writing a academic paper about an argument, even though the structure seems similar. An editorial needs more strict structure with is like a news. Indeed, an editorial is based on a news, which means in order to writer a good editorial, the first step should be aware of what the news talks about. Grasping the main point and argument of the news, then it's the time for the editorial writers to write a good editorial to persuade the readers the argument which is mentioned in the news. Thus, I think the first step we need to reinforce is the ability to understand the news, which we need to writer about.
ReplyDeleteIn the editorial "Short Term Fixes" is a very timely, well-organized editorial talking about the issue that the college loan debt. The author solidly uses concinving evidence such as the statistics to depicting the reason of the issue above. The author demonstrates that collge loan debt issue is derived from both side of two parties, who didn't plan a good budget for college student. And then, the author explains that the two parties both try to fix this problem, but they both fail. Future foreseeing is a important point for the author, also for this editorial, to draw a conclusion, if the Congress won't give out a better solution towards this issue.
Overall, the editorial is a solid one, which is with strong and varies types of evidence to explain the issue and what cause it. In addition, the author structures this editorial very well with very clear background, explanation and the final conlusion. I think this editorial is very convincing for the readers to believe what the author tries to convey.
The editorial article, Short-Term Fixes, was an argument based article produced for the New York Times in 2012. The argument of the editorial is that the college loan debt handled by the democratic and republican parties is inadequate for the increasing and overwhelming debt facing many college students and college graduates in America. The editorial is strengthen because it's framework is set on the background to the problem of Congress only giving five years of low-interest rates for college loans, and how, in their opinion, neither the republican party or the democratic party is resolving the issue. By acknowledging both positions the author produces his evidence to keep the audience engaged and thinking on the terms of his argument. Showing the reasons and as to why the parties are both failing to provide a permanent solution to the problem at hand helps explain the numbers behind who relies on these student loans and federal aid for college. The article is strong because it produces a resolution and poses questions for the audience in few words. The article is strong in creating a larger cognitive effort for the audience to think about the economic issue of higher education and how it should be handled with a long term proposition.
ReplyDeleteThe article From Beijing, With Love was one that I liked. The writer draws the reader in by giving his own personal background. His experiences make him more credible to the audience. I like the way he backs up his argument of dealing with dissidents has, is and always will be a delicate process, with short history pieces. I think this is a good way to support his argument because it provides the reader with information that they might not have known before. He sympathizes with Mr. Chen on how difficult a choice it is to choose to leave. It isn’t the black and white that some people might think it is. I personally have never been faced with such a question. Could anyone who hasn’t really understand what Mr. Chen went through in making his choice? America right now isn’t the most fantastic place to live, at the same time though he would be alive. As much as I like the history, he might have over done it just a bit. Every argument he makes is based around something that happened in the past. I get that this is to show that each case was solved differently but I think that he could have used another form of evidence. All in all I agree with Mr. Smith. This process is delicate and decisions should be made case by case.
ReplyDeleteMalia
The editorial article “Short-Term Fixes” address the failure of our political parties in regards to student debt. The writer provides relevant data showing that congress has only implemented a short, 5five-year, plan of low interest loans for college students.
ReplyDeleteThe writer show strengths understanding the arguments made by those he is criticizing and how to address them. Showing that the republicans only want to bleed dry the funds used for “obamacare” and how the democrat plan only covers a small portion of the problem.
A weakness of the writer would be the amount of passion produced by the word choice, which makes you feel that the author may be personally invested getting in the way of evidence.
The writer employs his evidence in a very organized manner, even if it seems strongly worded, the statistics are hard to assume bias (although it still may exist) and clearly supports the argument being made.
Overall I would rate this editorial as being effect, and of good quality, but still desire to see more premises on how these facts exist or maybe what lead to ‘this’(the stat number).
An editorial is generally an opinion written by just about anyone who would like to give their point of view. Each editorial is composed of several parts that can vary in length and oftentimes order. The writer first needs to clearly establish the argument so the audience knows what subject is being discussed, and typically how the author feels about the matter. Next, there needs to be evidence for the argument so the audience so the writer seems credible. This means adding details or personal accounts. Often times this is followed by what is at stake? How should the audience feel about the future? This is the call to action, and it is the writer’s last effort to explain why they have their opinion and what you can do to support their claim.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial “From Beijing, with Love” told of a recent story about Chen Guangcheng who sought refuge at the American Embassy. The writer begins by simply stating that this is a brave man and it takes courage to stand up to one’s own homeland. He finishes the intro by saying that many similar cases do not end up as fortunate. Following, the author lets the audience know his credentials, which are very impressive concerning the issue of international cases. He then explains about a few cases that concerned Russians and how they ended. I believe the strengths of this editorial are the authors examples. They were very detailed and gave great insight into the issue. The argument was very well stated about the feelings of turning on one’s country. The example I really thought was the best was the Ms. Vlasova case. The author really highlighted the emotions and feelings that went on during the 3-day stand off.
“From Beijing, with Love” is the article that I choose. In the beginning of this article JEFFREY H. SMITH sets up the background of his story. He does this by just telling the facts of the case. This is about Mr. Chen that stood up to the Chinese government over human rights and then ran to the American embassy for help. The next subject that he writes about is his credibility on the subject which sets him up for when he starts to give his examples. His credibility is he was a State Department lawyer in the 1970’s and the 1980’s and during his time in this office he had seen and took care of a lot trading from spies around the cold war times.
ReplyDeleteThe next part of his was examples in United States history that the Government has had to make some hard chooses and then watches them work and or fall. One example that he gave was a K.G. B member seeking refuge in the United States and was granted his wish; later on he was seen walking into the Soviet Embassy. Then he did talk about places that the United States government did grant people access to their embassies and seek refuge their as long as they wanted. By doing this they saved lives and at the same time took no chances of them doing anything on United States shore lines. Both of these examples were good examples to use and they supported his point that the chooses that have to be made are hard to do and they are not always the right ones.
The "Short-Term Fixes" editorial talks about the issue with student loan debt and how the Democrat and Republican parties respond to it. Good evidence is shown by the author when he produces information from both sides. The Republican party is first discussed by the author with their usage of "Obamacare" to help the issue. While on the other hand, the Democrat party only pay attention to a small part of the issue, but in the end end fail to make the wrong decision. This article is strong because it uses good transitioning paragraphs followed by background information and evidence. It is helpful for the audience that in this editorial who is affected by the issue and what is at stake are very clear. The author also mentions what the are effects and what will happen if nothing is done with this problem. It is also a strength in the end of the editorial, the author restates the argument and what is important. Statistics help to support some of the claims that were made, and overall it was a good piece of writing.
ReplyDeleteThe March 24th New York Times editorial “A Festival of Lies” is a piece that I found to be very amusing. Its subject matter consists of pointing out why the United States approach to the countries in the Middle East is not only not working, but also the fact that our approach is just plain wrong. As an American I feel like it is important to be behind this country, but I tend to agree with what is being said in this argument. The piece is very persuasive, but I found it very easy to just jump behind as well. After 9/11 I was not particularly understanding on why we invaded Iraq. It is a situation that is hard to completely justify, especially after no WMD’s were found. I agree with the writer’s statements on how it can be fixed. This to me is the strongest part of the piece. There is clearly nothing we can do about the values of the people overseas, and more war isn’t going to change that. The people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and so-on need to want the change their morals. As long as Tribalism and oil exist though, it is hard to say this will ever happen. The next solution to the problem then would be to reduce our dependence on oil. This is something that needs to be done regardless.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don’t think the writer thought all the way through were the other sides to these conflicts. It was clear that we were not ready to fight insurgents after 9/11, and as humans how can we sit back and watch genocide occur time and time again. Although many lives have been lost in the Middle East in the past ten years, many innocent lives have been saved. No I do not agree with a lot of your policies concerning war, but one needs to view both sides of the argument as well. This piece is weak on crediting some of the true justifications for our actions. It would be very beneficial to add this information so increase the credibility of what he is saying.
This article introduces the idea of government as it pertains to student loans. Both republicans and democrats simply do not seem to care that intrest rates on these loans is rapidly rising. It almost seems as if this is an issue that government just does not want to deal with. The republicans believe no taxes should ever be cut while the democratic viewpoint is almost the complete opposite. However, the money raised by democratic parties would only pay for one years subsidy of loans and they should have made a permanent subsidy in 2007. Democrates did not want to pay the high price. These two factors will only drive loans higher and higher forcing less and less students to attend college. As far as strengths and weaknesses, the editorial shows them both. The weaknesses are the lack of information given on both parties. There are a lot of opinions about the two parties, but not much data behind them. Some strengths are that the author brings up many great points about how there is still no long term solutions behind the crisis. Congress is only providing short-term fixes that obviously arnt working. There is also a few pieces of evidence to back up the authors points. One example is when the author talks about how 7.4 million low- and middle-income students rely on loans to get a higher education (college). Another great example is when the author discusses how the loophole would only affect households that pull in more than 250,000 a year. Overall the editorial is a great piece of writing that shows the outlines of both political parties on the issues of college loans.
ReplyDelete