ENG 111 Inquary 2

ENG 111 Inquary 2 - Cap and Misdirection 1 This turned into...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cap and Misdirection 1 This turned into an interesting paper. I really think I chose a very interesting example of rhetoric because in the end neither side was really going for or against global warming, in fact it was not even really the focus of either side. It is in reality a struggle for power, both fiscal and political. Glenn is scared of what would happen if this were to become a reality and he tries to convey that. Soros and his pals are still hiding behind cloudy climate science. I think that this is dangerous because of rhetoric becoming a distraction from the truth. And the stakes on this one are pretty high, the American Economy, the envy of the world (when properly maintained by capitalism). I also stumbled onto something that I called anti-ethos . It came to me as I was trying to define Glenn’s presentation. This is interesting because it is not specifically directed at the audience but rather at breaking the tools the opposition has. I think that this is very powerful and would appreciate your incite on this. I think I realized before that science has been replaced by opinion but this is the first time that I have written down and organized that thought. My next paper should show a little more about what and why I prefer science over rhetoric. As for now that will only show up in my light (or perhaps heavy) use of sarcasm when referring to climate change in general. I do lean a particular way politically but I hope that this paper remained neutral and placed the opponents on equal unbiased footing while I analyzed their rhetoric. It did just so happen that the side I support had better (even if it is not correct) use of rhetorical tools. Let me know if this conclusion is in error. I would also like some input on what you thought of my conclusion. I think that the third to last paragraph concludes the analysis of the two parties, the second to last concludes the idea of rhetoric overshadowing science, and the last concluded with the ramifications of that fact. I think that the final sentence is the absolute single most important part of the entire paper.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cap and Misdirection 2
Background image of page 2
Cap and Misdirection 3 Cap and Misdirection Tom Hohman ENG 111 Professor Andrew Buchner October 6, 2010
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cap and Misdirection 4 Climate change is a big issue for everyone that pays attention to it, regardless of what side they are on. The debates are heated and fiction far dwarfs fact as a viable weapon. It has become a rally cry for candidates on both sides and has become a sort of trophy to be won by ideologists. Each group has an opinion, a graph to prove their point and a scientist on the payroll that can use his PhD endorse their opinions. As each side moves further from scientific fact and digs their heels firmly into the realm of philosophical and political debate the format of the arguments have taken on an interesting new shape. It may be impossible to know the real facts or which side to believe on the surface, however, by analyzing the rhetoric and strategies implemented by the
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/07/2011 for the course ENG 111 taught by Professor Patterson during the Fall '07 term at Miami University.

Page1 / 8

ENG 111 Inquary 2 - Cap and Misdirection 1 This turned into...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online