Ryan Donnelly wrote this Rhetorical Evaluation for Brenda Martin’s ENGL 200 class.

From Practice Stems Success

Occupations in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) are becoming ever-increasingly important in the modern world. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average projected growth for all STEM occupations in the U.S. from the years 2014-2024 is 6.5%, which will add on to the nearly 8.6 million jobs already out there (Fayer, et al.). And, parents who want their children to have the option of pursuing STEM careers should be aware that succeeding in STEM requires a solid foundation in mathematics (“Building…”). Considering this, it is worth knowing that girls face a disadvantage when compared to boys in securing this strong base in mathematics.

In her editorial “Make Your Daughter Practice Math. She’ll Thank You Later,” Barbara Oakley shines light on this issue and offers a solution to the problems girls face. She claims girls can become discouraged at their skills in mathematics because girls “are often relatively better at [reading and writing] than they are at math” (par. 4), resulting in girls thinking they just aren’t good at math. And, “thinking you’re not very good at something can be a quick path to disliking and avoiding it,” which leads to “a genuine lack of competence” (par. 6) in the subject. So, Oakley argues that parents of daughters should have their girls practice math routinely if they want their daughters to have STEM career options in their futures.

Throughout her editorial, Oakley successfully convinces her audience that they should have their daughters practice math more. She does this through her strong appeals to ethos and logos, despite her lesser appeals to pathos. This is primarily because her editorial is focused on being logical and rational; a large amount of appeals to pathos is unnecessary. Additionally, her appeals to ethos and logos are strong enough to successfully convince the audience of her claim without a similar amount of appeals to pathos.

Oakley’s appeals to ethos are by far her strongest rhetorical device. Oakley’s goal is to convince parents to have their daughters practice more math (even though they might hate math). What better way to establish credibility than how she does when telling parents to “[t]ake it from someone who started out hating math and went on to become a professor of engineering” (par. 12)? Even though she started out hating math, she tells parents specifically that practicing math has immense benefits, the proof being she is now a professor in engineering. Additionally, it is mentioned under the title of the editorial that she is also an author on a book of learning, lending more credibility to any claims she puts forward. Who better to listen to than someone with enough knowledge to write an entire book about how children learn when you’re a parent interested in helping your daughter become a better math student?

Oakley also establishes ethos with her audience throughout her editorial by providing her audience with a wide range of sources for any claims she makes. This demonstrates to the audience that she is a trustworthy source of information, as all her claims are backed up and well-researched. For instance, Oakley references the international PISA test to back up her claim that “the United States ranks near the bottom among the 35 industrialized nations in math” (par. 10). Another example can be found when Oakley is demonstrating to parents that repeatedly practicing math truly makes you better at it, rather than just understanding math conceptually. She cites researcher K. Anders Ericsson for this claim, giving it substance. By backing up her claims with viable evidence, Oakley proves her trustworthiness to her audience, increasing the likelihood of convincing them to listen to her.

Oakley’s appeals to ethos do not end here. Oakley appeals to ethos yet again by showing she genuinely cares about girls’ futures, making her appear as a good person. In the beginning of her editorial, she writes “to create a full set of options for [girls] in STEM is to ensure she has a solid foundation in math” (par. 2). This quotation shows her audience she truly wants girls to have the best set of options for their futures, causing her audience to realize that she has good intentions and making her appear as a good person in their eyes. This appeal is an especially important one; after all, her target audience includes parents of girls. If parents believe that Oakley genuinely cares about their daughters’ success, then they will be more likely to be convinced to have their daughters routinely practice math.

In addition to ethos, Oakley also has many strong appeals to logos throughout her editorial. One important way she appeals to logos is through her use of rational thinking. Oakley allows the reader to follow along with her thoughts logically, granting the reader a better understanding of what she is trying to communicate. For instance, Oakley logically explains the problems girls face in math when compared to boys in paragraph four. Her explanation has a logical flow, includes a rhetorical question, and has “if-then” statements, all of which make it extremely easy for her readers to understand what she is saying. This strategy goes quite far when trying to convince an audience of a claim because if the audience coherently understands Oakley’s stance, her chances of successfully persuading them increase significantly (as compared to the audience not understanding what she has to say). If the audience can’t logically understand her claim, then what is going to make them agree with her?

Another appeal to logos Oakley utilizes is through the sound structure of her argument. Her claim is clear (it’s even the title of her editorial!): parents should have their daughters practice math routinely. Oakley ensures her audience is well aware of the importance of her claim by continuing to relate every topic in her editorial back to the main claim. The audience, now focused on the claim, can clearly understand her reasoning. Oakley reasons that “to create a full set of options for [girls] in STEM is to ensure she has a solid foundation in math” (par. 2) and that “some learning just plain requires effortful practice, especially in the initial stages” (par. 11).

With this, the audience creates the warrant that STEM career options are good from Oakley’s claim, based on their clear understanding of her reasons and evidence that backs up her claim. Because of Oakley’s careful attention to the structure of her argument, she increases the likelihood of her audience becoming convinced of her claim.

Unlike her appeals to both ethos and logos, Oakley’s appeals to pathos aren’t nearly as strong. This isn’t because Oakley struggles at connecting with her audience; it’s primarily because her paper isn’t meant to be emotionally appealing. Her editorial is mainly meant to logically convince her readers to act by having their daughters practice mathematics, so pathos is all but unnecessary. However, she does appeal to pathos well in a couple instances that help her persuade her audience. To appeal to pathos, Oakley paints a picture of the unfortunate scenario that girls face. Simply because girls “are often relatively better at [reading and writing] than they are at math” (par. 4), their futures can be harmed. Girls might end up disliking math, and as mentioned earlier, this could lead to a “a genuine lack of competence [in mathematics]” (par. 6), harming their total future career options in STEM fields. Readers’ emotions will be evoked due to this unfair scenario girls face. Oakley’s audience becomes compelled to act; after all, parents are the ones who have the power to solve this problem for their own daughters. By appealing to pathos even in a tiny way, Oakley causes the audience to sympathize for girls and aim to help girls’ futures by having them practice math more.

One more appeal to pathos Oakley utilizes is her use of analogies. Analogies are a great way to bridge the gap of understanding between an expert and a non-expert and elicit the audience’s emotions. Oakley does this by comparing practicing musical instruments to practicing mathematics (par. 8). It can be reasonably assumed that Oakley’s audience knows that the only way to get better at a musical instrument is by constantly practicing that musical instrument.

Additionally, the idea of children practicing musical instruments at a young age is generally seen as something positive, such as a good use of time or a good hobby to have. This positive connotation associated with children practicing instruments evokes positive emotions in the audience. This guides the audience towards seeing practicing math in the same light as practicing musical instruments. Oakley stresses “that simply understanding how a chord is constructed isn’t the equivalent of being able to play the chord” (par. 8). So, Oakley claims, why should math be any different? By bridging the gap between her and her audience in a positive way by using analogies, Oakley is able to successfully convince members of her audience who might have not thought that rote practice was the best way to learn mathematics. With this, the “why” to the “why should my daughter practice math more?” is concretely answered and the audience can readily agree with her claims.

Overall, Oakley successfully convinces her audience to have their daughters practice math routinely. By skillfully combining strong appeals to ethos and logos, Oakley gains the trust of her audience and proceeds to make the logical case that having girls practice math comes with immense benefits. Oakley’s lesser appeals to pathos also help win over her audience; she ensures the audience feels sympathy for girls who might end up disliking math, inspiring them to help them out, starting with their own daughters. Because the audience trusts her and believes she has good intentions, and because her thought process comes across as logical and well- researched, Oakley wins over her audience to make a small, but impactful, step to better her audience’s daughters’ futures by practicing math routinely.

Alex Vontz wrote this rhetorical evaluation in Molly Burt’s ENGL 200 class.

Rhetorical Evaluation of “Hey Computer Scientists! Stop Hating on the Humanities”

As data technology and analytics have developed and prevailed in modern society, so has the abilities of its users. With the help of our technological tools, humanity has been able to do amazing things like to send people to the moon, map out the entire human genome, and even record evidence of gravitational waves sent from lightyears away. These feats of such great magnitude begin to beg the question: What is to stop anybody from using the power of technology and data analytics to do things that aren’t so morally correct? The answer is virtually nothing. This rationale has sparked a debate about whether computer scientists and data analysts need to be more ethically responsible and about who should be held accountable for instituting such regulations.

Emma Pierson discusses the matter in her 2017 WiredOp-Ed article, “Hey Computer Scientists! Stop Hating on the Humanities,” aimed at computer scientists and data analysts themselves. With a background in computer science herself, Pierson highlights the raw power of unchecked information technology, noting how this power can be dangerous when combined with ethical ignorance. She argues for integration of ethical responsibility into the computer science field and cites many experiences in which she has seen ethical boundaries crossed. To back her claim with reason, Pierson suggests the computer science field lacks consideration for human implications and consequences, noting how ignorant programming is often of unethical programming.

While Pierson’s argument for more sensitivity to ethics in computer science favorably applies kairos, ethos, and pathos, her writing lacks strength in logos, ultimately yielding her argument unsuccessful to a target audience of computer scientists and analysts. Although she brings in many experiences to back her claims emotionally, Pierson fails to present empirical and credible evidence to her logic-based target audience, thereby weakening her appeal to logos.

Pierson published the article in a 2017 issue of Wired magazine, an information technology news outlet, bringing a strong appeal to kairos to her argument. Wired publishes articles across all platforms, including online, in-application, and print magazines, highlighting the latest information and ideas in the technology industry. Computer scientists and data analysts, the target audience, are likely to be frequent readers and subsequently encounter Pierson’s article. In addition, the information technology and data analytics field grew quickly as ever in 2017, making the rhetorical situation for an argument on the issue all the more ideal.

With this ideal rhetorical situation, Pierson relies heavily on ethos as a device to deliver reasoning first-hand and attempt to unite herself with the audience. While she opts out of citing outside credible sources, Pierson takes the alternative approach of building her own credibility to convey her own ideas and evidence. She clearly states her expertise to the audience and begins the article, “As a computer science PhD student.” Also, she later refers to her especially prestigious alma mater, Stanford University (par. 1). These appeals to expertise and intelligence boost her credibility, setting precedents for Pierson to present arguments about ethical responsibility in the field. In addition, she unites herself with her audience, establishing a common ground as members of the computer science community. This move communicates that her argument is worth considering because of who she is as both a computer scientist and an intellectual. She reinforces her expertise, and henceforth ethos, with her select use of elevated language and field-specific jargon. Incorporating phrases like “statistical desiderata” and “algorithmic bias in word embeddings,” Pierson delivers more evidence for her computer science credibility with purposeful use of jargon (par. 5, 6). This proves she brings more to the argument than mere academic and career titles by showing the audience she is a true member of the computer science field. When Pierson proves herself to be credible with such evidence, she invokes trust in her audience and in turn makes the ideas for ethical responsibility more persuasive and believable. Because of this strong base of credibility built by her appeals to ethos, Pierson is able to write the article in the first-person point of view and integrate her own experiences as reasoning.

Through these first-hand experiences, Pierson brings her strongest rhetorical appeal to the argument—pathos. She continuously presents personal narratives of situations that demonstrate the risks of unchecked computer science and analytics. For instance, she cites how Stanford provided her “as a teenager” with “algorithms that could pick out the terrorists most worth targeting” and “detect someone’s dissatisfaction with the government” (par. 1). The thought of an ignorant teenager possessing so much power invokes feelings of uneasiness about the current lack of ethical responsibility in the information technology field. Pierson purposely provides this specific first-hand example of just how far removed programming can feel from extremely vivid, dangerous, real-world consequences. In doing so, she allows the audience to make this emotional connection about her situation and, consequently, situations they may have encountered themselves. Feeling discomfort about the current state of ethical responsibility in the field sets up readers to be more receptive and conscious of new ethical boundaries. Pierson plays on more emotions with her specific use of word choice and juxtaposition of phrases, calling algorithms “weapons both elegant and lethal” and referring to scientists as presenting “lethal innovations with child-like enthusiasm” (par. 2). These phrases purposefully juxtapose words of opposing connotative feelings in a way that demonstrates positive feelings of appreciation for information technology as field, but negative feelings about the potential dangers of ethical ignorance. By doing this, Pierson connects emotionally with her audience with positive feelings and simultaneously warns the audience why ethical responsibility is important with negative feelings. This wording also acts to apply humanistic and aesthetic ideas like elegance and enthusiasm to analytical and scientific topics, just as integrating ethical responsibility would to computer science.

Although she targets computer scientists and data analysts, Pierson fails to bring strong appeals to logos as she crafts her argument, likely causing her audience to be skeptical of her overall claim. While she institutes a fair amount of logical reasoning, her claims can be bold and insulting to her target audience. Furthermore, Pierson provides no statistical or scientific evidence to back these claims, but rather relies on personal experiences and her own credibility. The sub claim, “Computer science is wondrous. The problem is that many people in Silicon Valley believe that it is all that matters,” is a bold, negative accusation about members of her target audience (par. 2). When Pierson presents her reasoning in these statements, she directly accuses computer scientists, representatives of her target audience, of being ignorant as logical reasoning for her claim. She moves this idea farther by incorporating a string of repetitive parallel experiences beginning with “You see this when…” and “I’ve watched…” (par. 2). Even if the reader is not insulted by the controversial initial statement, they will unlikely be persuaded of any claim solely by unclear references to anecdotes with no proof or data. A data-driven audience of computer scientists and data analysts who professionally draw conclusions from statistics and evidence likely require statistics and evidence to be persuaded in the argument. This lack of empirical evidence occurs in almost every other sub claim Pierson makes, and often, the only evidence provided is mostly theoretical. Pierson cites a string of ethical questions she’s personally encountered, asking herself whether she should download messages from a teen anorexia support website or “write a program to post anonymous, suicidal messages” on college forums to gather data. She completes the idea, stating, “My answer to these questions, incidentally, was ‘no’” (par. 5). In these statements, Pierson attempts to support her main claim that computer scientists need to be more ethically responsible with situations that were prevented by good ethical responsibility. She provides an example of ethical responsibility already preventing a dangerous situation in the current state of the field, discrediting the need for anything to change. Again, the data-driven target audience will likely identify this logical fallacy and fail to be persuaded to add more ethics into their work. These logical issues weaken the effectiveness of her claim to her target audience and ultimately make her argument unsuccessful.

In her argument to integrate more ethical responsibility in the information technology field, Pierson appeals effectively to kairos, ethos, and pathos. However, she fails to consider the target audience’s background in weak appeals to logos, making her overall argument ineffective.

The land of the United States is vast and geographically diverse, with many places having scenic appeal or historic significance. As the young nation developed, concerns arose about whether the wonders of the western frontier would be diminished due to economic exploitation. To prevent this, national parks were established by acts of congress to protect certain areas as property of the federal government. According to Terry Tempest Williams, these parks are a cornerstone of life not just for Americans, but for people the world over. Concerned about the future of these parks, Williams wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled, “Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?” which seeks to persuade her readers to take action to preserve them. Her concern, as stated in the article, stems from the state and corporate interests as well as support from the GOP that have been steadily and silently selling off the nation’s public lands, and increasingly so with the cover of noise from the 2016 presidential election.

While this opinion piece has a weak appeal to logos, it is ultimately successful in persuading an already supportive audience with strong appeals to pathos, ethos, and kairos. Terry Tempest Williams’ success in persuasion has much to do with her choice of audience and how she appeals to them. The decision to publish this piece in the Los Angeles Times is not insignificant, as the readership of the Los Angeles Times is primarily adults from metropolitan areas who lean left politically. In the United States, this group is largely supportive of environmentalism, especially notable in how they talk about the hot-button issue of climate change. It is no stretch to assume that this audience will already be in favor of protecting national reserves. Knowing this, Williams sets her sights not merely on persuading this audience to adopt her viewpoint but to persuade them to act on those beliefs and change the situation. To convince this supportive audience to proceed from belief to action, an emotional connection must first be established.

Williams’ usage of pathos as her primary vehicle of persuasion is immediately apparent in the opening two paragraphs. The article begins with a personal account of a visit to the Great Falls, which makes strong use of imagery and idyllic language to convey the beauty of nature. An example of pathos comes from the opening paragraph: “The cascading rapids and dramatic pour-offs were mesmerizing and soul-restoring in the extreme heat of McLean, Va., where high humidity and temperatures in the upper 90s were drawing larger crowds than usual at this 800- acre national park, only 15 miles from our nation’s capital” (1). Many references and allusions to history are also made, from personal childhood memories of Utah’s wildlife to significant historical figures such as George Washington. These warm feelings of beauty and nostalgia connected to history are then threatened with a hypothetical question: What if national parks and nature were stripped from the country? Williams answers this hypothetical with a world that is hollow and lonely, with no escape from the continual grind of modern life—this is very distressing for the target audience. The romanticization of history and nature, contrasted with the threat of an artificial and colorless world, is used elegantly to connect with the target audience’s value of beauty and the non-material over corporate or economic interests. Williams understands her audience very well, and she connects well with them as a fellow person who stands to lose as much as they do from the loss of natural parks.

Pathos in the article is supported and strengthened by the writer’s ethos. While not as strong or prevalent as pathos, the relationship between Williams and her readers does much to aid persuasion. Terry Tempest Williams is an established author whose work is deeply tied to national park preservation, and while this is not directly flaunted in the article, her knowledge and expertise is tastefully used to bring credibility to her argument, with a notable example being the history of the Great Falls. The personal accounts of the writer’s numerous visits to national parks do well to connect with the audience who have likely admired the beauty of a national park themselves at some point. What is also notable is the usage of “we” as Williams speaks on behalf of all people worldwide, with an example being the following: “The centennial of the National Park Service reminds us of history, both human and wild, and why we need our public lands more than ever ina changing world” (11). In the second paragraph, Williams mentions that she stood viewing the Great Falls alongside friends and strangers from foreign countries, which adds a global element to “we.” The target audience of the article values unity and multiculturalism, so creating a sense of solidarity through story and language does much to get the audience on Williams’ side.

While pathos and ethos drive the article with a great understanding of the audience, the appeal to logos is less prevalent. This is expected to some degree as the piece is clearly labelled as an “Op-ed,” and the primary audience is already supportive; however, the lack of data will limit the article’s appeal to outside audiences. Historical context is used, most notably in the reference to George Washington, although this lacks a strong follow-up point connected to any reasoning. Figures of how many people visit national parks are brought up a couple of times, with an example being “Over 300 million visits to our national parks last year tells me I am not alone” (10), which suggests that national parks are undervalued by those who seek to privatize them. Aside from these points of evidence, there is not much else to shield the reasons from counterarguments. The claim, being that action should be taken to preserve national parks, and the reason, being that natural beauty is invaluable to society and could be lost without national parks, make a solid argument so long as the audience shares the warrant that nature is integral to the emotional and physical well-being of people. Some might not share the warrant, or they may believe that benefits due to economic growth outweigh the downsides of privatizing national parks. There is no attempt to speak to those with an alternative viewpoint, and the corporatist opposition to keeping national parks public is left alone, implied to be self-evidently bad. It is unlikely this article will reach resistant readers due to its preoccupation with the already supportive core audience. Nonetheless, the weaker appeals to logos will not diminish the appeal for the primary audience as they are already supportive of the claim and reasons, even without extensive data.

What the article lacks in logos, it makes up for in Kairos or the relevance to present-day society. The cause for concern over losing national parks is what powers this article. Losing natural land to private interests is, by its nature, almost irreversible. Williams brings up recent events to animate this: “What I read are headlines like this: ‘GOP Platform Endorses Disposing of Federal Lands.’ What I find is a bipartisan outrage over the selling off of our public lands, be it to the states or the highest bidder at the Bureau of Land Management’s quarterly oil and gas leasing auctions, beginning at $2 an acre” (10). There is a sense of urgency in protecting public land, which is especially noticeable in the concluding paragraphs that put forth the hypothetical situation of a future without national parks. This is important enough to occupy even the title of the article. This “act now” attitude is vital in encouraging the target audience to act in support of public land, and it energizes an audience who, despite already being supportive of national parks, may have been inactive in advocating for their continued support by the government. Kairos is what amplifies the other rhetorical appeals, most notably pathos, to energize the audience.

Ultimately, Terry Tempest Williams’ “Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?” is successful in appealing to and persuading the Los Angeles Times’ audience to take action to preserve national parks: “Here is what we must promise the future: a legacy of care” (11). While the suggested action is left vague, the audience is animated by a sense of urgency through kairos, an emotional connection through vivid pathos, and a sense of solidarity through ethos. Nature precedes us and will almost certainly supersede us, but the lingering question for our modern world is whether we can enjoy and find solace in nature instead of wringing it out for every penny. In our fast-paced, largely digital, and currently isolated world, it can be easy to forget the threats facing the natural world, and Williams’ article sheds an important spotlight on these dangers—it is just a little unfortunate that it makes no effort to convince those complicit in the destruction through dialogue.

Jessica Smallfield wrote this rhetorical evaluation in Rachel Schaller’s ENGL 200 class.

Rhetorical Evaluation of “Is College Too Easy?”

 The general rule of thumb regarding college studying is that students should spend about 2-3 hours studying outside of class for every hour they spend in class. Many students fall short of this mark by half. In the article, “Is College Too Easy? As Study Time Falls, Debate Rises,” by Daniel de Vise, the writer discusses the recent, startling trend of study times falling in college. The article was found on The Washington Post website and published in May of 2012. The people that get their news from this source are mostly high-income earning, college and post college graduates, meaning they are smart, educated, and well off financially (“Audience Research”). The target audience for this specific article are college students but may also include postgraduates who are intrigued by the article’s title. The audience’s position will most likely depend upon their major; STEM majors tend to study more than liberal art majors. Vise communicates that students are as busy as ever focusing on school, work, and other activities, and that studies fail to address key components like the ones mentioned above. These factors explain why students’ study times have taken a plunge over the past 50 or so years. This claim is explicitly stated in the article because the writer conveys why study times have fallen while providing counter claims throughout the article. Vise logically connects the reasons to support the claim by utilizing statistics like how many students work off campus. However, he lacks ethical appeal, and his use of emotional appeal is insufficient.

Vise successfully utilizes logos and limited emotional appeal to convince the audience that college students are busier than ever. Vise uses statistics that support the claim that students are pre-occupied with jobs, commuting, volunteering, and other extracurricular activities. He provides evidence like how study times vary depending upon the major, the percentage of students maintaining jobs, and how technological advancements in recent years have made completing schoolwork more efficient. The evidence is somewhat effective; some of the audience may remained unchanged on their opinion by the end of the article. They may believe that students remained unchallenged in college and that is why their study times have fallen. The arguments presented throughout the article seem to be multi-sided; there is evidence that supports the writer’s main claim and evidence that goes against it. The writer includes opposing views throughout the article to show that he acknowledges the opposing views people may have. Vise understands that people may believe students are learning less in college and becoming distracted by campuses that resemble resorts. However, Vise refutes this claim by stating that students have better technology compared to past times which decreases study time because of how much more effective it makes completing schoolwork.

The ethical appeal is implicit in this article. Daniel de Vise is an author and writer who works for The Washington Post, but does not explicitly state that. This shows that Vise has experience in writing articles and paper and has college experience, which is important in an article involving college studies. There is no mention of his educational background within the article, so it was something that had to be searched. The credentials of the writer has somewhat importance for the claim he is making because an article about college should be written by someone who not only provides sufficient evidence but has experienced college struggles; it helps to strengthen his main claim.

Vise attempts to use emotional appeal in the beginning of the paper. His word choice suggests that he is backing the idea that study times have fell and college students have gotten lazy. His word choice in the following sentence suggests a negative connotation: “declining study time is a discomforting truth about the vaunted U.S. higher-education system.” The words “declining,” “discomforting,” and “vaunted” are used in an unfavorable way. The word “vaunted” is seemingly used sarcastically, poking fun at how the United States should have a great and highly valued education system but appears not to. The resemblance of college to a resort suggests that students have grown lazy because they are distracted by numerous activities and new experiences that deflect studying.

Vise employs logical appeal when he includes statistics throughout the article. According to George Mason University, “seventy percent of seniors hold off-campus jobs,” which is a majority of that class. What undermines this piece of evidence is the fact that Vise does not state which study the statistic came from. Having an assertion and a refutable source can make an argument stronger. In one of his attempts at logical appeal, Vise uses evidence from the National Survey of Student Engagement, which is a respected source. According to the survey, students only study one hour outside each class they take, which misses the goal by half. This shows the audience that students are studying less, but Vise provides evidence throughout the article to show potentially why. Studying can also vary by major; architectural degrees are known for being more time consuming and intensive while marketing degrees are laid back. The latter major averages 24 hours a week dedicated to studying while the former is only 12 hours. These variations in a student’s major can affect study results.

Vise provides the hourly study time for various schools in Virginia. Howard University reported as little as 13 hours a week towards studying while Sweet Briar College, a private women’s school, reported 19 hours of study in an average week. Until 2010, evidence of declining study time has been ignored; two University of California economists brought the issue to attention in a paper called “Leisure College, USA.” Vise included data from a 1961 study that shows students studying about 24 hours a week, significantly higher than what students are studying now. The writer mentions that some academicians dispute the acquired evidence of study times dwindling; they say findings are based on different surveys and the accounts given by students can be fallible. Although some people may still believe the findings are sound.

Towards the end of the article, Vise states that college students are as busy as ever, just with things other than schoolwork. This is his main claim for “Is College Too Easy?”. Students are working full time and going to college full time, so they have less time to study for classes. Vise backs up this statement with quotes from students who work and are pre-occupied with various activities. Students have also become more efficient in their schoolwork because technology makes research more effective and efficient. Instead of going to the library and looking up information in books, students have everything they need in the palms of their hands. However, this can also harm students and serve as a distraction. Study times can vary across universities depending on how committed their students are, what the majority of students are studying, and whether they work, commute, or do other activities.

Overall, Vise used many instances of logos and some emotional appeal. He ends the article in a significant way; he uses a quote from McCormick, the director of a student engagement survey, that says, “every one of these colleges has some students who are studying quite a bit and, to balance things out, students who are studying very, very little.” Ending the article with this quote leaves the audience with the writer’s main claim: that the studies involving study times are not entirely accurate and there are other variables besides students becoming lazier and studying less that affect this data.

Rhetorical Evaluation of “Is College Too Easy?”

According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the general rule of thumb regarding higher education is for students to spend about 2-3 hours studying outside of class for every hour they spend in class. However, many students fall short of this standard (McCormick). In the article, “Is College Too Easy? As Study Time Falls, Debate Rises,” Daniel de Vise discusses the recent startling trend of study times falling in college. De Vise communicates that students are as busy as ever focusing on school, work, and other activities and that studies fail to address key components like the ones mentioned above. These factors might explain why students’ study times have taken a plunge over the past 50 or so years. Undergraduates are expected to be a full-time student and a part-time employee and to be involved on campus simultaneously in order to be well rounded, which leaves less time for studying (de Vise). The article was found on The Washington Post website and published in May of 2012. According to The Washington Post, the majority of people who get news from their website are high-income earning, college and post college graduates, meaning they are smart, educated, and well off financially (“Audience Research”). The target audience for this specific article are college students but may also include postgraduates who are intrigued by the article’s eye-catching title. De Vise’s claim is explicitly stated in the article because he conveys why study times have fallen while providing counter claims throughout the article. De Vise effectively utilizes logical appeals to connect the reasons that support the claim by applying studies and statistics, like the percentage of students that work off campus. However, he lacks an appeal to creditability in the form of background and education because he does not explicitly state why he is qualified to discuss this topic. In addition, de Vise’s use of pathos in the form of appealing to the audience’s emotions by word choice is adequate.

De Vise successfully utilizes logos and limited emotional appeal to convince the audience that college students are busier than ever. De Vise uses statistics that support the claim that students are pre-occupied with jobs, commuting, volunteering, and other extracurricular activities. He provides evidence like how study times vary depending upon the major, the percentage of students maintaining jobs while going to college, and how technological advancements in recent years have made completing schoolwork more efficient. Within the article, de Vise says that “academic leaders counter that students are as busy as ever but that their attention is consumed in part by jobs they take to help make ends meet” (de Vise). So, it is not that the coursework in college has gotten easier, it is that students have focused their attention on other things such as part time jobs. The evidence and reasonings are pretty effective in supporting de Vise’s main claim. The writer is fair when presenting evidence and uses arguments that both support and counter his point of view. The writer includes opposing views throughout the article to show that he acknowledges the contrasting views readers may have. De Vise understands that his readers may believe students are learning less in college and becoming distracted by campuses that resemble resorts. In the article, De Vise says that the decline in study times over the past 50 years “has led some critics to question whether college is delivering on its core mission: student learning” (de Vise). However, de Vise refutes this claim by stating that students have more resources and better technology compared to the past, which decreases study time because of how much more efficient and effective it makes completing schoolwork.

The appeal to credibility is implicit in this article because the writer does not state why he is qualified to write about this topic. De Vise is an author and writer who works for The Washington Post, but the article does not explicitly state that. This background information shows that de Vise has experience in writing articles and has a college degree, which is important in an article involving college studies. Since there is no mention of his educational background within the article, it was something that had to be searched. According to his website, de Vise has written “more than one hundred front-page stories for The Washington Post” (“Daniel De Visé”), which means this article is not the first one he has written, and Vise has done many other articles involving colleges and universities. The credentials of the writer hold some importance for the claim he is making because an article about college should be written by someone who not only presents sufficient evidence in a concise way but has experienced the struggles of college; this background helps to strengthen his main claim.

De Vise attempts to use emotional appeal in the beginning of the editorial by articulating his diction carefully. His word choice suggests that he is backing the idea that study times have fallen and college students have grown lazy. His diction in the following sentence in the article suggests a negative connotation: “Declining study time is a discomforting truth about the vaunted U.S. higher-education system” (de Vise). The adjectives, “declining,” “discomforting,” and “vaunted,” are used in an unfavorable way. The word “vaunted” is seemingly used sarcastically, poking fun at how the United States should have a great and highly valued education system but appears not to. The comparison of college to a resort suggests that students have grown lazy because they are distracted by numerous activities and new experiences that deflect studying. The use of these words draws readers in to see where the rest of the article is going. Towards the end of the article, de Vise chooses to use a specific quote from a college sophomore, who exclaims, “My planner is a wreck” and goes on to list why. De Vise continues this fraught mood in the hopes the audience will sympathize with her by mentioning that students from a couple other colleges report the “same stressful pace” (de Vise). Dixon is a tourism major, works 23 hours a week at an information desk, volunteers at church, and commutes up to two hours a day to and from school (de Vise). Her college experience is similar to others mentioned in the article and students from universities like Kansas State.

De Vise effectively employs a logical appeal when he includes statistics from various sources, like George Mason University, Sweet Briar College, and DePauw University, throughout the article. According to George Mason, Virginia’s largest public university, “seventy percent of seniors hold off-campus jobs,” which is a majority of that class (de Vise). When students hold part time jobs and take a full load of courses, that leaves them with less time to study throughout the week. In another one of his attempts at logical appeal, de Vise uses evidence from the National Survey of Student Engagement, which is a respected source. The national survey was devised in 1998 as a new approach to gathering information on the quality of universities. Since 2000, approximately 6 million students and over 1,650 schools have participated in the survey (NSSE). According to the survey, students only study one hour outside each class they take, which misses the goal by half (de Vise). This statistic shows the audience that students are studying less; however, de Vise provides evidence throughout the article to show potentially why this is. He includes data on how study times can vary by major; architectural majors are known for being more time consuming and intensive while marketing majors are laid back. The former major averages 24 hours a week dedicated to studying while the latter is only 12 hours (de Vise). These variations in a student’s major can skew a survey’s data. If a school is known for its liberal arts program, they are more likely to report less study time than a technical college. De Vise also provides the hourly study time for various schools in Virginia. Howard University reported as little as 13 hours a week towards studying while Sweet Briar College, a private women’s school, reported 19 hours of study in an average week (de Vise). Depending upon the school and what they offer, students’ weekly study times can differ. Apparently, until 2010, evidence of declining study time has been ignored; two University of California economists, Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks, brought the issue to attention in a paper called “Leisure College, USA” (de Vise). De Vise includes data from a 1961 study that shows students studied about 24 hours a week, significantly higher than what students are studying now (de Vise). The logical appeals the writer presents in the article are concise and effective in convincing the audience how much study times have dropped and why.

Overall, de Vise effectively utilizes several instances of logical appeal in the form of statistics and data, and somewhat effectively uses emotional appeal in the form of carefully chosen diction. He ends the article in a significant way; he employs a quote from McCormick, the director of a student engagement survey, who says, “Every one of these colleges has some students who are studying quite a bit and, to balance things out, students who are studying very, very little” (de Vise). Ending the article with this quote leaves the audience with the writer’s main claim: that the studies involving study times are not entirely accurate and there are other variables instead of students becoming lazier and studying less that affect this data. Students are working part time, or even full time, and going to college full time, so they have less time to study for classes. Study times can also vary across universities depending on how committed their students are, what the majority of students are majoring in, and whether the individuals work, commute, or do other activities.

Works Cited

“Audience Research: Demographics.” The Washington Post, WP Company, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/mediacenter/html/research_demographics.html. Accessed 24 April, 2020.

“Daniel De Visé, Author and Journalist.” Daniel De Visé, www.danieldevise.com/articles. Accessed 24 April, 2020.

De Vise, Daniel. “Is College Too Easy? As Study Time Falls, Debate Rises.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 21 May 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/is-college-too- easy-as-study-time-falls-debate-rises/2012/05/21/gIQAp7uUgU_story.html.

McCormick, Alexander C. “It’s about Time: What to Make of Reported Declines in How Much College Students Study.” Association of American Colleges & Universities, Liberal Education, 10 Mar. 2017, www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/its-about- time-what-make-reported-declines-how-much-college.

“NSSE – National Survey of Student Engagement.” NSSE About NSSE, 2020, nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm.

In addition to her description of learning loss, Evans notes that different countries, like Germany, where there are significantly shorter summer vacations often have more “high academic performers” in comparison to the United States (par. 4). These countries also tend to have the same amount of break time as one whole summer vacation; however, they spread these periods throughout the year in order to provide students with more opportunities to refresh their minds. Not only is Evans appealing to fellow educators’ desire to see their students achieve academically, but she is providing the audience with a logical alternative to summer vacation.

Instead of ridding students of an 8-week period entirely, she is suggesting that this period be adjusted in order to provide students with more opportunities to get away from school. Evans continues to draw on the idea of adjusting student break periods by establishing her main claim in the next paragraph. She writes, “I think that shorter 2-4 week breaks, spread throughout the year, would give students a balance of time to rest, reflect, and experience enriching activities without the potential harm of undoing the work of the rest of the school year” (par. 5). By further clarifying her alternative suggestion, Evans is reasonably addressing the circumstances educators might be concerned about. While most educators want time for students to rest, they also want break periods to be times of enrichment that will further student educational abilities and comprehension. Through this claim, Evans is addressing the main issues of summer vacation by appealing to the particular goals of educators and providing suggestions that will still foster student improvement. Even though Evans does not include much research, her references to her own opinions and experiences make up for what would, normally, strengthen the argument further.

While there are numerous additional appeals to logos throughout the remainder of her argument, one of the strongest comes in Evans’ last two paragraphs. Up to this point in the essay, Evans mainly discussed the positive aspects of changing summer vacation. Here, however, she addresses the limits of policy changes and solutions, especially when most school districts continue to value a traditional vacation policy. In paragraph twelve, she mentions that there needs to be a foundation for national dialogue and a start to “conversation around summer vacation.” In this sense, Evans is rationally putting forth a call to action that educators will be able to slowly start implementing in their own schools and districts.

In addition to her effective appeals to logos, Evans utilizes ethos by establishing her credibility as an educator and showcasing her understanding of educator emotions. Evans states that she “often feels as if [she] is teaching in an age of uncertainty,” which falls directly under the description of her as a secondary social studies teacher in Maryland (par. 2). While her statement is personal, the intended audience of fellow educators have, more than likely, had similar experiences related to this feeling of uncertainty, which somewhat contributes to another overlap with pathos. For example, even though the article was written in 2014, it serves as a very timely resource for many who have had to learn to teach in the pandemic and transition from their main role as educators to their additional role as learners. Because of this timeliness, the audience is most likely intrigued by Evans’ standpoint on summer vacation. While she strongly appeals to her own experience as an educator, she also relates this back to the fear or anxiety most educators have in times of uncertainty.

Furthermore, Evans’ use of pronouns such as “we” and “our” places her and fellow educators on the same playing field. Due to this, both Evans and the audience are able to take into account the similar choices or beliefs they share. By using her credibility in such a way, Evans is showing the audience that their experiences are not that much different from each other and that they may have similar thoughts for change. She writes, “Changing the school calendar is one of many potential reforms that could have big positive impacts for our students” (par. 11). In this example, they are not just her students, but the audience’s as well, making ethos successful in its depiction of Evans’ character and her, overall, understanding of the audience. By providing this example, Evans is convincing the audience to do what is most beneficial for “our” students as a whole compared to a singular sector of students.

“The Case for a Universal Basic Income” Rhetorical Analysis

Alex Bartlett

Alex Bartlett wrote this evaluation argument in Riley O’Mearns’s ENGL 200 class.

A universal basic income is the idea that the government should provide all its citizens with enough money to meet their basic needs, and accessing these funds doesn’t come with any stipulations. Due to its controversial nature, the subject of how to implement a universal basic income has been transformed into a hotly debated political issue as time has gone by. In his 2017 article published by the LA Times, “The Case for a Universal Basic Income,” author Sebastian Johnson’s overall argument is that implementing a universal basic income (UBI) will stabilize and even improve the lives of the American people on average. Johnson encourages progressive states to set the trend in adopting this idea for their own betterment. He claims that a UBI will stabilize the job market, provide better conditions to those in poverty, and give American workers more time to spend with their families. Johnson utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos to bolster his claims, making the support for his overall argument well rounded. But due to the nature of the reader, the most effective appeals to his audience are pathos-centric. By the end of the article, an audience of progressives should take away that instating a UBI will be revolutionary in bettering the lives of Americans overall. This impression is key since a core value of progressives is being the trailblazers in launching positive change in a kind and mutually beneficial way. By imparting this feeling to the audience, Johnson drives his argument home effectively.

Johnson demonstrates how the rhetorical appeals of logos and pathos can be blended to make his overall argument about UBI persuasive for his progressive readers. At this moment, the American job market hangs in a precarious balance. Johnson points to what economists call the “rise of the precariat” as evidence to this claim (2). A category of workers who rely on odd jobs and have minimal benefits, Johnson relies on the audience’s fear of becoming one in this growing number in order to strengthen his overarching argument. This use of emotional manipulation is very effective, since fear is arguably one of the strongest emotions a person can feel, and everyone relates to it. Johnson goes on to bolster his claim with an alarming statistic: “47% of Americans are at high risk of losing their jobs to automation,” as stated in an Oxford University study (2). This verifiable stat puts a number to how any American, through no fault of their own, can lose their job at any given moment. Though it’s not implicitly stated, Johnson assumes that his audience realizes how easily this can become themselves or anyone they know. It leaves the audience wondering: if they lose their source of income, what options are available to help them provide for their loved ones? In turn, how will their loved ones be able to cope if they themselves lose their jobs? If a universal basic income is established, that will significantly reduce the amount of pressure for anyone who finds themselves in this situation. Therefore, through this statistic specifically, his argument resonates soundly with his entire audience. This use of logos is doubly effective, as it’s also an appeal to pathos. The senses of fear and insecurity provided by this statistic will ultimately force Johnson’s audience to put themselves in a financial predicament. Empathy is another emotion brought out by this claim, which is an emotion that the assumed “more humanitarian” progressives will latch on to. The thought is that a universal basic income will provide Americans with an additional sense of stability, which improves their overall quality of life in the long run.

Johnson continues to demonstrate his ability to bring logos and pathos together to persuade his readers. At the beginning of the article, there’s a picture of a homeless encampment in Los Angeles, California. The tag underneath the photo says that these people are going about their “daily lives” in their community under the First Street Bridge (Johnson 1). The implication that the lives of these unhoused people could be dramatically improved if they had the money to take care of their basic needs is obvious. This image serves to make the audience think about how implementing a universal basic income will not only be potentially beneficial to them, but also how there will be immediate relief from suffering for many other people—further supporting his underlying argument. Johnson mentions how child poverty experts are urging the government to “consider a child allowance” in increasing numbers (3). The use of the phrase “child poverty experts” adds significant weight to the rest of the claim: a universal basic income for kids will “help level the playing field for low-and middle income-families” (3). Johnson relies on the value of wanting to help and protect the most vulnerable population— children—being universal, which is almost always accurate regardless of political party affiliation. America as a country has a very family-centric culture, the idea of a nuclear family specifically, so this is a logical assumption for Johnson to make about his audience. The appeal to the audience’s sense of empathy is very proficient in bolstering Johnson’s claim, especially to what is commonly—and stereotypically—known as a “bleeding heart liberal.” Pathos is once again used very effectively in this manner. It also helps that by appealing to the audience’s sense of justice, the audience feels secure in the belief that a universal basic income will improve lives. A common stereotype of progressives, for better or worse, is that they tend to have a stronger than average sense of justice, so much so that it occasionally borders on self- righteousness. Humans like to think of themselves as good people, and Johnson, under the assumption that this feeling is stronger in more liberal people, uses this human condition to strengthen his argument in the mind of his audience.

Johnson is very tactical in getting his audience to trust his word and, despite a few missteps, shape his ethos. As a senior consultant at Freedman Consulting, a firm that develops new technology for the public interest, Johnson is an influential figure and no stranger to advocating for the average American. Having given a TED Talk, which has the same title as this article, on the premise of instilling a universal basic income, the audience can trust that Johnson has done his research and is well versed on this subject (Johnson 4). Although not directly, he’s backed by household names such as Elon Musk, who stated to world leaders in Dubai that “some kind of universal income is going to be necessary” (Johnson 2). Surely if someone as successful as Elon Musk is in favor of a universal basic income, it can only be a net benefit to society, right? Johnson relies on the audience’s respect for Musk in order for this association to benefit his argument. But Elon Musk is somewhat of a controversial figure. As of late, people are starting to find some of his views, such as his stance on pronouns, offensive. The idea of respecting pronouns is a key pillar of progressivism, so bringing in Musk may have hurt Johnson’s claim more than it helped it. Johnson recovers the respect of his audience, somewhat, by bringing up how Martin Luther King, Jr., an obviously highly respected figure, supported the idea of a universal basic income in an attempt to fight poverty (2). In mentioning Martin Luther King, Jr. in this way, Johnson connects a figure known to the public for overwhelmingly positive, revolutionary change as a supporter of a UBI. As previously stated, a huge factor in swaying this particular audience is making them feel as though they are pioneers in an exciting, beneficial new endeavor. Therefore, Johnson’s allusion to Martin Luther King Jr. and his stance on a UBI is highly effective at convincing his audience. In order to show that universal basic income is not a new concept, Johnson brings up the fact that “a basic income for poor families almost became law under President Nixon” in 1971 (2). Key word: “almost.” He fails to elaborate on this any further, which leaves several important questions—such as the potential governmental and economic benefits of a universal basic income—unanswered, undermining his argument, especially in the eyes of progressives who are known to want broad, wide scale change. All in all, however, Johnson uses ethos in an effective manner in convincing his audience to trust his opinion.

Johnson’s article, “The Case for a Universal Basic Income,” presents an argument that is on the whole cohesive by appealing to his audience’s strongest emotions. He himself is also a very credible source, which helps his argument significantly. The only potential flaw is that in his use of appeals in his argument, he is relying heavily on his audience being able to interpret various pieces of evidence, which can be difficult to do objectively with a controversial topic such as this one. Overall, his claim that a universal basic income will stabilize and improve conditions for Americans nationally is fairly well supported and can ultimately shift the opinions of his audience.