One thing that really surprised me in the research for assignment two was for my topic, how many results came up for it. Things from both perspectives of my topic.

One thing that was i guess unsettling was how easy it was for the average person to find information on research topics.

Yes, I would enjoy writing about my topic for assignment 3. I wouldn’t have picked a topic i wasn’t interested in at all to write a paper about.

Someone should care about my topic because it affects the lives of thousands of people in america. To top it off, it’s not like colleges can’t afford to pay their players. So why don’t they then?

The thing I want people to understand while reading my paper is I want them to know more about college athletes other than the fact that they’re good at a sport. I want them to know and understand that colleges are exploiting their big money makers.

Inside of Julie’s paper I was able to find that she used a direct quote. The writer’s last name is brown. In this the quote talks about how even though the average household size has increased a lot, the average occupants for them has actually decreased almost a full person. The next thing I noticed from reading, she used a paraphrase in the second paragraph by calling the mansions something else. Lastly she quoted from the book “How to Build”. In it, it talks about how much wood is actually wasted when it goes into building houses and such structures. Not only do they waste a lot of wood at the warehouse but a decent sum of the wood that’s meant for the structure isn’t actually needed. Personally, I like that she’s adding quotes from the primary source and also how she adds quotes with facts inside them in order to get her argument across.

Van Rheenen, Derek. “Exploitation in College Sports: Race, Revenue, and Educational Reward.”International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 48, no. 5, 2013, pp. 550-571

This whole process has changed the way I read arguments. It makes me pay more attention to the thing they’re talking about and make me think long to try to understand the point and why it could be a valid point.

“Waking up” by Anya Kamenetz, is an article written about college debt and ways to help avoid getting into debt in general. She starts it off by starting with politics in the first few opening paragraphs basically talking about how the older people of Congress are ruling the world and how that’s “the only way”. She then goes on to talk about the sit in at Yale and includes how it was a group of students who needed to be removed by police from the financial aid office. Then she tells us what exactly it accomplished. 2 weeks after Yale passed a rule where your family has to make at least $50k a year to go there thus limiting the number of people that can actually go there. After this she goes on to talk about many different other schools and how their prices work this then leads us into her main claim of the article, in order to counter college debt, you simply join a PAC. Your voice as an individual can’t be heard but as a pack, your voice will be heard.

This statement is shown very well after she describes the sit in at Yale. She will go on to talk about other schools in different countries and talk about what they did in order to change up thing with college debt. This was very good to include in her article because the fact that it puts pressure on the US colleges. If this one school in a different country is doing this one thing that benefits the students, why can’t we? In the article she goes on to talk about PACs and how if you want your voice to be heard that’s the way to do it.

The types of rhetorical appeals she tries to get off is definitely persuasion. The entire time she’s writing the article she’s trying to persuade you to go out and make something change. Her main way of trying to get this off is by convincing people to join a PAC. But before she does this, in the beginning she was talking about the Yale sit in and had to include that they were removed from police. I think this is her way of getting the reader attached by hitting their emotions. When you read about a peaceful protest that police get called in on doesn’t that just make you angry? Doesn’t that make you want to go out and change something?

To conclude, Kamenetzs article is all about pushing toward a big change. Your voice as an individual may not be heard but if you get together with people your voice will be heard.

Find the claim – Kamenetz claim is college prices and debt is way too high, and in order to do anything about this she suggests you should be joining a pac

Qualifiers –

exceptions –

reasons for the claim – In the 3rd paragraph she talks about the Yale sit in during February of 2005. She talks about how 14 students did a sit in and got removed by the police and a week after the incident, Yale announced they won’t accept anyone whose family makes less than $45,000 a year. Thus limiting the potential kids that could go there from lower income areas and even though that seems like a bad thing, they’re trying to limit putting students into massive amounts of debt knowing they can’t pay it off for a while. Another example is in Canada, in 2004, though pacs, a group of students were able to get the federal government to adopt their proposal and made it possible for lower income students able to get grants for up to $3k.

evidence for reasons – in my first example I talked about the sit in at Yale, this could be seen as a victory for students even though it doesn’t seem like that was the outcome they wanted. The school addressed the sit in a week after it occurred and they said they wouldn’t accept kids whose family’s make less than $45000 a year. This limits how many kids in general can actually go to the college and it also helps avoid kids from going to these big name colleges and just get into financial ruin because they don’t have enough money to pay off the college. In my second example I talked about the Canadian pac that actually had a proposal make it pass by the federal government. The details on how exactly they did it aren’t explained in the document but they did accomplish something big. They were able to get the government to give out $3k in grants to students with a struggling financial situation to help them get to college.

The evidence – my evidence for this being her claim is solid. They’re both about students joining together and getting something accomplished. The only thing is my second piece of evidence may or may not be reliable. This is because in Kamenetz writing, she doesn’t list exactly how the Canadian students got the federal government to pass the bill. She lists several things that they’ve done in the past in order to get stuff done, but not for this specific example.

Unstated beliefs – the unstated principal is if you join a pac expect your voice to be heard rather than trying to do stuff individually

rebuttals – the possible side to this she didn’t address is what if people don’t want to join a pac? Then what should they do in order to do something for change

1. he’s mainly using his character against big colleges by bashing them with numbers. He believes that most colleges are setting people up for failure by putting them in crippling debt and not providing a place for people to find jobs.

2. He’s using persuasion by making “normal college” seem like it’s setting you up for failure in your life. He is also trying hard to push people into more trades by saying that you’re not going to be in as much debt and you can get a decent job

3. yes I can see him as a reasonable reasoner. He is a person who isn’t very fond of spending money and he’s able to set up this argument that “better” colleges set you up for failure based on the student debt that they put you in

4. Yes I would trust archer, he provides a very good detailed solution to big colleges by going into trade schools

1. They’re both talking about college debt and possible solutions
2. Old people ruling over the younger generation and to stop this is by joining a pact in kamentz story and in archers story, he recommends going to trade school or not going at all
3. She seems really well informed on what she’s talking about because she’s an educational correspondent and a writer and researcher who wrote a lot of books on various topics

4. her proposal isn’t too controversial other than the beginning portion where she says old dudes rule the young basically and “it’s the only way”

5. I feel like the people who would agree with her are more of the you must go to college and get a degree type of people

6. colleges wouldn’t agree with this because it’s taking away money from them

7. she’s claiming that the old people of our government are trying to rule over the youth and what comes with this is of course college pricing. She proposes a solution by saying that “young people urgently need a strong national generational movement”

8. I think, she really tries to get people to contact their emotional side when reading this. This is because she adds in politics into the reading and also includes the sit in at Yale where 15 students did a sit in and had to be removed by police. and obviously with the way police is portrayed in the media today that can spark some emotional responses today.

9. She’s trying to persuade more people to speak their minds. She’s trying to get people ready to take action as a group vs as an individual. She also says that student movements should be regulated state by state in order to pressure the governors into making positive changes for public schools.

10. Yes, she does a really good job at being a reasonable thinker. In the beginning she lists all these facts and backs them up with details and she knows what she’s talking about and at the end she also addresses the other side of the claim that makes her open to criticism thus making her a pretty good reasonable thinker.

1. The aim of argument that should’ve been used was they should’ve tried to persuade each other more with each other

2. this is my answer because they didn’t spend a lot of time arguing over who’s right and didn’t seem to be giving each really wrong points on the taxes up until the end

3. The were just rambling about what they believed in. No pauses to address certain points they just gave one side then went with the other side

4. they didn’t have a constructive argument, it was plain and wasn’t even really an argument. Gave one side, gave the other side, and then concluded that the talk never happened. They ended up getting sidetracked while talking because they didn’t focus on the topic and it changed the entire purpose of it

5. These new criteria can help me by making my arguments more argumentative. Have them be more open changes rather than just having a personalized thought

1. The main point that Johnson is trying to make is you do stuff to build from it
2. 2. One thing he says to support this is the kids in algebra class. He says that over 99% of kids won’t use that stuff in their regular lives but it’s not about learning the math it’s about building up the mental muscles in your brain

3. another rhetoric appeal he is trying to get across is the logical standpoint of things. He is quoting John Dewey saying that, you can only learn from what you’re studying

4. Yes I do, it makes sense to me because people can’t really learn what they don’t know without studying and looking into it more than just a surface knowledge of the topic

• I’m at UCBA to get my pre health degree and become a PA and it was cheap and close to where I live
• i really decided on this class because it was the first one I saw I need an English class so I chose it
• I’m originally from Florida but I moved to Cincinnati when I was 11
• my step dad had a job promotion and we moved from south Florida
• pre health
• my mom is a nurse and I like to help people
• I usually like listening to music and playing my PS4
• write with my left hand
• I can mainly just do basic technology stuff