Paper C source RA

http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art33776.html

The source for my paper C is an article by the The Body- The Complete AIDS/HIV Resource. The article is called Policy Facts: Needle Exchange Facts. This article basically gave me a lot of information on my topic, and on my stand. It explained the statistics behind the information, and it explained that clean needle exchange programs work, and they work without increasing the drug population. The argument is basically what I will be proving in my paper as well- clean needle exchange programs do work, and they do not increase the drug user population. The target audience is either citizens or health care workers that are against these programs for one reason or another. Either they believe that the programs are ineffective, or they believe that the programs will increase drug use because of the lessened chance of blood-borne disease transfer. The goal of this source and my paper is to prove that this is not the case. It is to prove that the exchange programs are safe, and that they do reduce the risk of blood-borne disease transmission. The argument is made by ethos, and logos. The ethos comes by the authority of statistics and numbers. If enough data is produced to prove that the programs are effective, than we should believe it. The argument is made by logos because after the data and statistics show what the programs can do, it is logical to agree with a system or program that works. I believe that it is sufficient- it explains everything in detail, and it proves some important points within the article. It is typical for this type of article, and it is relevant for the audience.

Speech RA

A Time to Break Silence speech by Martin Luther King-
August 28th 1963


This is an amazing speech that has an amazing message. It is a call to recognize what our world has become, as well as a call to action to change it. Martin Luther King starts off by expressing his feelings toward the war in Vietnam. Most of the speech is about how the war needs to end because it is unnecessary and we are causing a conflict where there should be peace. I believe that the intended audience is to the people of America. It says a lot of things about how the government should change, and what should be done to fix this conflict, but I believe that it is more of a call to action from the people. The speech brings out the conflict that is raging, and lets the people become aware that these terrible things are happening, and why. He then calls them to action by opposing the government, and by banding together. He talks about the heavy sacrifice and burden that is being placed on both continents, and that we are doing more harm than good. After his point about the war is made, his real argument is that we must end the violence and hatred that pollutes our world. He goes on to say that without this brotherhood and unity, our nation and our world will fall apart. He tells the people to set aside race and class and become banded together. He wants the government to change, but his true argument is to convince his audience, or the middle-class patriotic citizens, that we need a world revolution of values. His goal is to convince them to take action in this movement. This argument is definitely made through Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos because as a minister and a social figure, he has some credibility in what he says. Pathos because the emotion he conveys in his speech will draw people in, and will bring them to action. Logos is also used a bit because he uses the logic of war and that it does not fix anything. I think that it was sufficient, effective, accurate, and relevant. It was pretty typical of this time period- when the war was going on, many speeches were given, and many of them were like this one. The speech got a response out of me, and I'm not even the intended target. I think it was effective.

Music Video RA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLkcPhVi9w&feature=channel

Only One- Yellowcard

This music video is interesting to me because of the message it conveys. The song is obviously sung to the boy's girlfriend. He sings the song basically telling her that she is his only one, and he can't be without her. That is what the majority of the songs now days are, but the music video on this one is particularly interesting because half of the video is shot at a yellowcard concert, while the other takes place at a peace rally. For the most part, we don't know what the rally is for, but we do know it is for peace because of the girl with the flowers, the police, and the bubbles. I think the song is a bit of a testimony to how love conquers all. The very end of the video is the main singer with his girlfriend spinning in circles and looking at each other, right in front of a tank. It is a bit extreme, but it shows that even when the world is in turmoil and everything is in chaos, the love that you have will carry through and make it better. The audience I think is to young fans, but specifically to lovers in general. The love that they have can make a difference. I think that he was singing to his fans of course, but he also may have been singing to that one special girl. This was a girl that wasn't just a pretty face- they had a deeper connection, and they shared common beliefs and practices. The goal is to entertain of course, but it is to share the message of the song, and to promote love I suppose. The argument is made by ethos and pathos. Ethos because as entertainers, musicians have some sort of authority. People compare songs to themselves, and we sort of trust that musician in some way to show us things about ourselves that we never quite thought about before. With give them that authority and credibility. It is also made through the emotion of the song. Everyone is looking for love, and the song conveys the love that can bring peace to all. For the target audience, it is sufficient. It gets the point across, and it conveys the emotion. It is relevant, but it is not very typical. Not every relationship is will be tested at a peace rally- but it is a nice touch for a music video. I think that it is effective for the target audience as well.

Paper A RA

The argument for this particular paper is geared toward current high school students, who are working a part time job. The argument is that if they don't work at all in high school, they will be able to get into a better college, and ultimately have better college success. My goal was to convince my target audience to quite the jobs they are working right now, and to focus more on the academic side of their lives. We made the argument in terms of scholarships, paying for college, and getting accepted. If the high school students were to focus completely on academics, they could solve the expense issue by receiving scholarships. If they were able to achieve those good grades while getting involved in other extracurricular activities, they are more likely to get into a good school, and hopefully get a scholarship to pay for this good school. The argument is made mostly by ethos or authority, and logos or logic. It is made by authority because the paper is supported by sources and studies that show the benefits of focusing strictly on school and extracurricular activities. It is made by logic because we focused the entire paper on the logic behind doing it our way, and by not working in high school. I believe it was relevant- it was a specific point that was specifically geared toward our audience. It was accurate, and typical. I don't believe it was quite sufficient, however. I feel like we weren't able to go as in depth or specific as we could've, based on how long the paper was and the information we had. There could've been more information to make it more sufficient. I believe that it was effective for our audience as well. I worked all through high school, and I can definitely see the benefit of focusing strictly on academic and extracurricular activities.

"All About Steve" RA

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/allaboutsteve/

All about Steve is a movie that is specifically geared toward single women, looking for a partner. It is a romantic comedy which can appeal to all sorts of audiences, but I think the main audience they are trying to sell tickets to are the single women that are looking for the perfect man. In the movie, Sandra Bullock's character is an ordinary woman who goes out on a blind date, and falls in love with Bradley Cooper's character. He, however, does not fall in love. In fact, he really doesn't want to see her again, and gets freaked out by her intensity. As the story progresses, ultimately he begins to see that he loves her for who she is. He loves the fact that she is genuine, and that she can just be herself. The goal for the filmmakers is to sell tickets. They sell tickets by making the movie relatable, and by appealing to the specific audience. This goal is met through the emotional tie that we place in the characters. Many women place themselves in the character's shoes, and relate the entire movie to themselves. It is accurate to not all women, but a pretty good population of them. It is relevant, and sufficient. I believe it is a story that any woman can relate to initially- it starts as a situation that we have all been through, but it progresses to the point that she finds love by just being herself. I believe that it is effective, because many women want to find that perfect man out there who will love them for who they are. This is why the movie sold tickets- we all love it.

Persuasive Sales RA

Today I went to 24 hour fitness to ask about a membership. I actually already work out at Gold's Gym, but I thought it would be interesting to go to a competing gym to see if they would try and have me switch to their gym. Sales men are VERY persuasive. I asked them the differences between the two gyms, and why I should switch over. Their argument was that I definitely should switch. They made this argument by saying that if I signed up with them, I wouldn't have to pay a sign up fee, I wouldn't have to pay an activation fee, and that I would get better rates with 24 if I switched over. The audience was of course, me. They specifically played to the fact that I was A- a student and B- a woman. They made this point be telling me that as a student, it was important for me to pay the lowest rates, and to get the best benefits. At this point, they listed off the different benefits they have over Gold's gym- full access to all amenities, classes, and lower rates. The argument was being made by ethos and logos. Ethos because as professional trainers, they know what works for each individual; they know what will draw a woman my age to the gym, and they know what will draw other types of people as well. Logos was also used in their approach- it is logical for me to pay less money to go to a gym, and it is logical for me to get full amenities at the gym that I use. The information was sufficient because they explained the benefits, and even lowered the price of my contract when I seemed hesitant. I believe it was typical for the audience they are playing to. Anyone who comes through those gym doors is looking for some sort of contract, and they are there to sell it to them. I think that it was relevant, and effective. They didn't sell me this time, but two years ago I was sold on Gold's. I almost walked away, but they made me an offer that I really couldn't refuse, as cliché as that sounds. When you learn how to sell, you can persuade just about anyone. I was a struggling freshman with literally no money in my account, and they sold me.

Visual Art RA

I believe that the argument here is pretty clear- it is most definitely an anti-smoking add. I think the argument here is directed toward the tobacco company. It is specifically for those who market and sell tobacco to the general public. I think that the goal here is to mostly persuade the audience or the tobacco company what a terrorist act it is to sell and distribute these lethal weapons. The argument is mostly being made by pathos, or the emotion, but with other aspects tied in here as well. The emotion of the piece is tied to the emotion felt from the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Those who were directly involved in the attack or even those who are patriotic and want the best for their country will have a say in this argument. Some of those who are a part of the tobacco company may have had a big part, but at least a small part in the devastation of the attack. To relate the distribution of cigarettes to the terrorist attacks that killed thousands, it hits home to many, including those on the tobacco side. The argument is also made by logos, or logical. It relates perfectly to one another because tobacco is killing thousands every year, while the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center killed thousands in a single day. Both are preventable, and both are wrong. I believe that it has sufficient information. It was maybe a little farfetched, but it still got the message across. Tobacco isn't necessarily a terrorist attack, but it does show the message that this is a mass killing that is wrong. I believe that it is accurate for the audience. It may be a little farfetched and they may realize that, but they may understand that it is taking people's loved ones away from them and that they are taking part in harming people. It is relevant as well. It draws the point, right in the time that we need it the most. We still have many people dying each year from the affects of tobacco consumption, and this ad is geared towards the audience that kills these people. Hopefully it can help the target audience to rethink what they are doing, and help in the war against tobacco.

Song Analysis

Since today we have a BYU football game, I thought is was only appropriate to analyze the BYU fight song. The argument in this particular song, is that as a school, we need to be unified in our cause and spirit for BYU. With the students and the fans all unified, we can fight day or night, rain or snow, and come off victorious. The audience here is the BYU student body as well as BYU fans, mainly attending the BYU football games. The goal of this song is to excite the students, and get them to support the cougars and fight for our cause in football. The argument in this particular song is made by pathos, or the emotion. As students, we are emotionally bound to our school, and our football team. With this song to unify us, the emotions run high and help us to support our school. With songs, the main argument is made by the emotion of the piece. With most songs, they have a particular audience, and that audience relates to the song with experiences, feelings, and thoughts. With our fight song, the argument comes from the emotion that bonds us together with spirit and enthusiasm. I believe that it is effective- the fans go crazy with excitement and support for the team they love, and the song has done its job. It sells the team, and it sells the unity of the school, and the student population as a whole.

Commercial RA

My commercial was on a new product from Hot Pockets. It was a supreme pizza that was enclosed enough in a crust to be portable. The commercial was funny. It showed two single guys walking around town with Hot Pockets in their hands. The people they came across were all shunning them, and didn't accept these "free eaters."
The point of the commercial is to say that now with these Hot Pockets so portable, you can take them anywhere, anytime, and with any busy schedule. The audience is young, single men that have busy, active lifestyles. These men all live in big cities, and all don't have enough time to cook for themselves, and they don't have wives to cook for them. The goal of this ad is to basically promote these Hot Pocket "pizzas" as the easiest and most efficient way to eat a pizza.
The argument is logos as well as a small portion of pathos. The logos part of the argument says that it is the smartest way to eat a pizza. For this audience, they need something that is fast, easy, and they can take on the go. This is the perfect product! It is aimed to sell. The pathos comes a small part from the comedy of the commercial.
I think this is effective. It looks like a delicious product, and it is easy to carry with little or no mess. People want to eat pizza. People are in a hurry, and people want little or no clean up. This really is the perfect product for the audience it is selling to.

Advertisement Analysis

The argument in this advertisement is that parents need to be saving for their child's future, because before they know it, the time will come that the child will have to grow up and go to college. The advertisement shows the importance of saving. With the tagline of "Don't Blink!" it shows that time flies, and that something needs to be done today for the future of their children.
The audience is middle to upperclass parents, who are thinking of their child's future. These types of people will be the ones to target because they will be thinking of their child, and their investment in the future of this child. The goal of this advertisement is to have the parents start up a saving plan with this particular company.
This certain advertisement uses Pathos as well as Logos, or emotion and logic. The emotion is of course tied into the fact that the parents will watch their little boy or girl grow up too fast, and they want to have the best possible life provided for them. The logic is that like it or not, the time will come for their kids to go to college. The best thing to do for them in this case is to start saving now for that time.
I believe it is effective. It grabs hold of the readers by the emotion, and it keeps them interested by the logic of the savings plan.