Images for the paper...

The above image shows the statistics of cost of insurance and the average life in different countries. It could be used for whrn i discuss the cost of insurance positive and/or negative.

This image can be used for the negative or an counter arguement of universal healthcare, but may not be taken seriously even though it is a political cartoon.

The Test For CRAAP.....

I went to the http://www.dhmo.org/milk.html which talked about diary and Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) and how it is bad and we shouldn't use it. Well I went through and evaluated the website with the CRAAP Test I found something for each letter:

C- it was last updated on march 11, 2008 and seemed current current enough and the links work
R- the writting was at an appropiate level, and if I were talking about dairy and hormone use and stuff i'd feel comfortable to use this website.
A- the website was an .org, the host of the web page was Agora. net, I went to the host site and seemed to be a little sceptical. The site had sponsers but the only one I knew was amazon.com. The author is Tom Way PhD. and I found a credible site of his that had his bio-info on there
A- the site seemed to bit a little bias, also the site can be verified by to other sites.
P- the site was informative and also perssuasive and clear.

So, in general I went through the CRAAP test and I believe that this web-site is not CRAAP well maybe a very little but not all of it, my point of view of the website is that it is credible.

article and its three fallacies. . .

My Article

House OKs restrictions on abortions for minors By HOWARD FISCHERCapitol Media ServicesWednesday, March 05, 2008
PHOENIX -- A divided House of Representatives approved changes in state laws dealing with when minors can get an abortion without parental consent -- changes foes said will throw new roadblocks in the path of pregnant teens.But that claim may depend on how some of the words would be interpreted. Proponents of HB 2263 say they are simply codifying the standards the state Court of Appeals spelled out five years ago when deciding what factors a judge may consider in determining whether a minor is mature enough to decide to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. The process, known as "judicial bypass," is the only recognized exception to current laws which require that a minor has the consent of at least one parent to undergo an abortion.Central to the debate is what restrictions can -- and cannot -- be placed on minors.Federal courts have ruled that states cannot impose an absolute ban on minors having an abortion absent parental consent. That has left state lawmakers and state courts trying to balance the rights of the minor with the general premise that minors lack maturity to consent to medical procedures.In a precedent-setting ruling in 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals said a minor wanting to avoid telling a parent must prove to a judge by clear and convincing evidence that she has the "maturity" to make that decision. But because the law did not define what that means, the appellate judges said that can be measured by examining the girl's experience, perspective and judgment.That ruling then set forth factors a trial judge could consider in determining each of those factors.Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, said his legislation simply puts those factors into statute. He said that gives future judges clear guidance from the Legislature what may be considered.But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, insisted HB 2263 tightens existing standards.Sinema relies on a provision in the legislation which says a pregnant minor must not only prove her maturity to make the decision on her own but spells out that maturity must be shown "based on her experience level, perspective and judgment." Sinema, an attorney, said the 2003 ruling leaves the question of what factors constitute maturity to each trial judge.She pointed out the appellate judges said "maturity may be measured by examining the minor's experience, perspective and judgment.""This legislation makes it even more difficult for young women to solve this very difficult question and this very serious burden that they are facing," she said.Nichols, however, does not see it that way.He said while HB 2263 does spell out those factors, it gives the trial judge broad leeway in determining the how each of those factors is measured. Nichols said the legislation simply spells out those things a court may consider.For example, the court ruling states -- and HB 2263 mirrors -- that "experience" can be judged based on the girl's age, experiences outside the home, living away from home and handling personal finances."Perspective" can be measured by what steps the girl took to explore her options and the extent she considered those options. And the ruling and the bill say her "judgment" can be weighed on what she did since learning of her pregnancy.Nichols said statutory guidance is critical to ensure uniform enforcement of the law."If it's not in statute, then the judge can interject his own opinion on the matter," he said. And Nichols said having a clear state law also gives minors a clear road map of what they have to show and how they can show it.Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, said while parental involvement is preferable, there are situations where girls cannot get that permission, sometimes because a parent is an abuser.The objections by Rep. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, go beyond the debate over wording.Lopez pointed out that the Arizona Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, contains a specific right to privacy. She said she believes that the justices, if properly confronted with the question of a minor's decision to have an abortion absent parental consent, would conclude that she has broader rights than required under federal judicial standards.She conceded, though, no Arizona court has ever addressed that issue, much less interpreted the state constitution the way she has suggested.Tuesday's 36-24 vote sends the measure to the Senate.
[http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/state/20080305_arizona_news_49.txt]

The Fallacies

1. The blue sentence shows the Fallacy of Appealing to Tradition
2. The red words shows the Fallacy of Equivocation
3. And I Believe that the whole article pertains to the fallacy of Guilt by Association, in the sense that the girl or past girls did not show that they were mature so with association i suppose that the judges believe that other girls as well are immature and have to prove that they are mature to the courts.

My R.A. ...

Rhetorical analysis essays are hard in general I think. Actually according to the grades of every paper I’ve ever written, writing in general is difficult for me. In regards to my rhetorical analysis paper I did pretty much average. I’m suppose to reflect the areas of worked and did not work, what should I do and possibly figure out what shouldn’t I do for this paper and maybe even the upcoming paper.

For the R.A. (rhetorical analysis) paper there were many mistakes most of them or probably all simple grammar and organizational problems. But before I go off ranting what is wrong I’ll talk a little about what did go right, for the most part. What did seem to go right were my thesis and conclusion, rhetorical appeals, and audience awareness. With my thesis I tried to find something that was concrete and straight forward and showed what sort of order I was planning on writing my paper all together, so many idea seemed to have worked and flowed with the paper. Then my rhetorical appeals or triangle, I did somewhat okay on that as well because I have had lots of practice with this thanks to high school, and the fact that when I want to I CAN THINK, AND THINK ABSTRACTLY IF I REALLY WANT TO OR NEED TO, so I guess I was able to pull that off enough for the R.A. paper. The next thing I did alright was my appeal to he audience. I think I usually do okay in this part because I really like putting voice in my papers to make it appealing but sometime I might put to munch, but for this paper I toned it down because it was a very serious and sad topic. Now, onto the areas where I did bad and usually always do badly on. I did poorly on grammar and organization. I figured I’d do bad on both of this aspects because my mind just goes faster than I can put it down, my mind seems to be scattered each time I write a paper, so this explains my organization, and part of the reason for my grammar. My grammar is usually bad because once I have an idea I run with and continue writing till the idea escapes me, then I just press F7 (Spell Check), and assume that everything is right and coherent but it usually isn’t and I forget to re-read the paper because I rush to just finish the paper hoping that its fine and I did a good job.

However, I need to work on the whole habit(s) of just hitting F7 and not re-reading the freaking paper. And I need to have a fresh pair and smarter pair of eyes to re-read the paper , perhaps like the writing center( if they can schedule me in), or my very smart girlfriend, and or even my friends that are amazing with their papers. So I figure that I should stop these debilitating habits and figure a new strategy in writing and perhaps use it in this very next writing assignment.

synthesize...

Michael Moore and James w. smith, the writer of my article, had very similar and basic ideas for there own sort of reports. Each of them discussed a topic of which was or is a major concern during the year that produced their reports. Moore was discussing the unemployment in Flint, Michigan were as James was discussing the recession of 2008 and because of the recession there will be an decrease in jobs with the resulting increase of unemployment.

Yet another aspect in which they both sort of did the same e was attacking the corporate or federal guys for, messing up or deliberately doing what was best for them. But with that Moore did something different he obtained testimonials of people of the state he was documenting, and added a whole other area of pathos and logos. As for James, he only obtained the facts for his article leaving it in a way that it was sort of dull. But Michael Moore’s documentary was intriguing were as James’s article was in its own statistical way of being intriguing.

In regards to what both writers were trying to announce to other readers, besides my self, I believe that they came off informing and showing what each of their points were. However, Moore pulled off in a more boastful manner with intensity to really, really prove his point and in a way himself. Though, James seemed to merely just get across his point, in a more subtle, yet apparent manner.

MY ARTICLE & MOORE....

The article in which I found is based on the inevitable recession of 2008. The article, Navigating the Economic Recession of 2008, discusses the issues, the rising issues, of what is causing the recession and of job unemployment. But in regards to Michael Moore’s video, this article strictly just used Logos , I never really found any sort of specific ideas going towards Pathos, and the only thing that could be ethos is the just the fact that he, the writer, as written multiple reports and or articles before. It could be possible that the writer would assume that the \reader would some how get their own pathos from reader the article because the topic of the article is a huge area of interest lately inn the recent year. With Moore’s documentary It took place during a crisis as well but it was mainly involving one state, actually one city. But even with looking at just the city it seemed that Moore captured way more of all three aspects of rhetoric, rather than just mainly one.

Logos & Moore...

Moore’s video, what to say, what to say?? The movie was actually a documentary discussing and describing Flint, Michigan and the effects of the GM Motor factories that were there then laid of their workers and closed the factories. Well I will say that it had all three aspects of Rhetoric, it contained Pathos, Ethos and Logos. But more importantly it contained Logos. Not saying that it didn’t contain or that the other parts of rhetoric were less important, but Moore had a specific reason for doing what he was doing. Moore traveled basically all throughout most of Michigan State finding testimonies of people that were laid off, information from P.R. personal of GM Motors, and more importantly trying to about the CEO of GM motors response and/or reaction to the shutting down of the factories.

Moore went through a brief history of the city Flint, and how prosperous the city was, the amount of jobs it had thanks to GM Motor factories opening. However, the factories closed leaving the city practically jobless, and many homeless do to the lack of money. I believe Moore produced the documentary to prove to the Big Guys of the companies that the People have a voice as well. The Logos, I think he primarily used, was the testimonials from individuals who had worked at the factories and all the facts and statistics that were announced during the video. Not only did he gain testimonials of the little people of the city and state but of the Public Relations people of GM Motors, but he also pursued and tried multiple times to gain the CEO’s response.

Logos was used so tremendously I was astonished or better yet amazed at the amount of information given on top of the testimonials of the people. I believe Moore did a phenomenal job of portraying the good guys and the bad guys with the use of primarily Logos, but with the help of Pathos and Ethos.