http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012124019.htm
The article I read was about an experiment to see if violent video games made people want to be just as violent in real life. Their studies showed signs of the video games making the participants "emotionally desensitized". By this they mean that the participants who played the first-person shooter games did not respond as strongly with a fear element to the image shown to them because they were so used to seeing images just like it. The source of this article is sciencedaily.com. This site is a very popular website for up to date news for research that has been conducted. It establishes its credibility through referencing the University of Bonn's experiment and explaining it well. Outside of this piece, there are many arguments going on about how violent video games corrupt children and make them want to kill people. This is why this article was written. This piece wants to give the reader the true information about how these video games affect an individual. This article was written for all who relate in any way to the violent video games that this article is talking about.
The main rhetorical element in this piece was the use of logos. The majority of the paper was about the study that was conducted by the University of Bonn. Another element I saw was ethos. The author established his/her credibility through referencing and explaining the experiment. The pattern of development that this piece used mainly was exemplification. It worked well with what the article was trying to do. In the end, I believe that this article achieved its purpose because It gave the straight facts about the effect of violent video games on an individual.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Open Science Now! AOW #26
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now.html
This video on ted.com is of Michael Nielsen trying to persuade people to join in the Open Science Project. This project is trying to make it so that the scientists who make discoveries do not hide them from the world until they can get credit for everything that they have researched, but post their findings on social networks made for scientific studies. He talks about a similar project called the Polymath Project, which was a blog in which mathematicians posted on in hopes to find a solution to a very complicated problem they faced. On the 37th day that this blog was online, the creator posted that they had found the solution and the polymath project had been a success. Michael Nielsen, the speaker, is a Fulbright grad physicist who has published several books pertaining to quantum physics and, more recently, the Open Science Project. The context of this speech is that many scientist are hiding their discoveries from the public because they do not want to risk losing credit for their work. Nielsen perfomed this speech in hopes that these scientists, his audience, will join together to change the culture of science and share their discoveries as they find them. He uses all three appeals to help prove his point. He uses logos through examples of what worked and what did not work. Also, these examples along with diction and style were used to develop his persona, or ethos. And his and our wish for science to move forward to appeal to pathos. I do not think that he reached his purpose because this may sound like a great idea, but the scientists would put way too much at risk and would not want to lose credit for their discoveries. We will just have to wait and see if the Open Science Project is a success or not.
This video on ted.com is of Michael Nielsen trying to persuade people to join in the Open Science Project. This project is trying to make it so that the scientists who make discoveries do not hide them from the world until they can get credit for everything that they have researched, but post their findings on social networks made for scientific studies. He talks about a similar project called the Polymath Project, which was a blog in which mathematicians posted on in hopes to find a solution to a very complicated problem they faced. On the 37th day that this blog was online, the creator posted that they had found the solution and the polymath project had been a success. Michael Nielsen, the speaker, is a Fulbright grad physicist who has published several books pertaining to quantum physics and, more recently, the Open Science Project. The context of this speech is that many scientist are hiding their discoveries from the public because they do not want to risk losing credit for their work. Nielsen perfomed this speech in hopes that these scientists, his audience, will join together to change the culture of science and share their discoveries as they find them. He uses all three appeals to help prove his point. He uses logos through examples of what worked and what did not work. Also, these examples along with diction and style were used to develop his persona, or ethos. And his and our wish for science to move forward to appeal to pathos. I do not think that he reached his purpose because this may sound like a great idea, but the scientists would put way too much at risk and would not want to lose credit for their discoveries. We will just have to wait and see if the Open Science Project is a success or not.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Is There a Link Between Cell Phone Use and Brain Tumors? AOW #25
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020191848.htm
The article that I read this week was about a study done in Denmark that tested one of the most widely believed myths. They tested to see if there was a connection between mobile phone use and the risk of getting a tumor. This was claimed to be the biggest study ever, with about 360 thousand test subjects. The results showed that the same percentage of people who got a brain tumor between those who use mobile devices frequently and those who rarely use them were the same, proving that there is no correlation between the mobile device usage and the risk of tumors. The author of the piece was sciencedaily.com. This website offers up to date articles on all topics under the science category. The audience that this was directed to was those who believe that using a mobile device increases the risk for cancer. The purpose was to inform people that this myth was proven wrong and to tell them to live their life without worrying about how much they use their cellphone because of a believed risk of cancer. The piece accomplished this because it gave all of the information it needed to using logos and ethos. The piece used logos by going into deep detail about the experiment that proved a widely believed myth wrong. An appeal to ethos was made through the use of logos and the diction of the speaker.
The article that I read this week was about a study done in Denmark that tested one of the most widely believed myths. They tested to see if there was a connection between mobile phone use and the risk of getting a tumor. This was claimed to be the biggest study ever, with about 360 thousand test subjects. The results showed that the same percentage of people who got a brain tumor between those who use mobile devices frequently and those who rarely use them were the same, proving that there is no correlation between the mobile device usage and the risk of tumors. The author of the piece was sciencedaily.com. This website offers up to date articles on all topics under the science category. The audience that this was directed to was those who believe that using a mobile device increases the risk for cancer. The purpose was to inform people that this myth was proven wrong and to tell them to live their life without worrying about how much they use their cellphone because of a believed risk of cancer. The piece accomplished this because it gave all of the information it needed to using logos and ethos. The piece used logos by going into deep detail about the experiment that proved a widely believed myth wrong. An appeal to ethos was made through the use of logos and the diction of the speaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)