I believe in having dicipline in everything having to do with sports. I have realized recently that no matter how much of a jerk a coach may be, you have to do what they say no matter what the case. If you dont, then your pretty much screwed. I once witnessed this at work. At a duel in wrestling you are sometimes given a choice on position. Ususally the coach makes this decision for you. A wrestler decided to go completly against what the coach had told him. Making this choice made the coach feel disrespected and the wrestler then had to complete the match by himself with no coaching at all. The act of disipline comes in all sports and all ways. It connects in a way as to listen to what your coach is telling you. If you are not disiplined and dont listen, you will do crappy in whatever sport you do. For example, for the many strokes in swimming, if you do not do the stroke correctly you will either lose very badly or get disqualified. That is where the coach comes in. I believe that in all sports there needs to be dicipline in everything done and I learned the hard way. I started doing sports only a few years ago. I wish i had started earlier because i have so much more respect for people higher than me. The lesson of dicipline in sports goes so much farther in life than you would think. In a way it teaches you many life skills and helps you become a better person. Having disipline can teach you other skills as well like how to have drive and motivation because if a coach tells you to get better at something then you take the time out to make it right and do what they want. It all adds up in the world of sports and all because the simple action of disipline.

Discussion

Scientists think that all the answers they are looking for have to do with physical characteristics.

Rhetoric and Style

• he does it in paragraph ten and weaves it by his own ideas and the actual facts
• he makes a point of what was studied and his argument on it. He develops this by going in and out of the point and his opinion
• he thinks that it is all physical therefore going through all the ways it can be physically measured
• he again mixes his opinion with the facts and the facts back up what he states as his opinion

Using Sources

1. Putnam get his credibilty in his appeal to ethos by using a lot of statistics. This helps his argumen way more and also makes him sound like he knows what hes talking about.
2. i honostly just dont understand this question
3. It shows that he isnt making anything up and that he is right to site these sources. It definatly boosts his ethos
4. He wants to show he cited his stuff
5. it showed that he is right in his argument and that most people agree with him

Autumn of the Multitaskers

• The first drop cap is a anecdote telling a story about his accident that happened while multi-tasking. This sets up for his all together claim of multi-tasking being bad.
• The next drop cap is asking all the questions that in a way qualifiy his claim asking why all of it happens.
• The next drop caps claim is a whole bunch of stories that in a way have a statistic in them and it is backing up his main claim. This is his credibility proof.
• The next drop cap is all the smart scientist work that proves that it is very bad for your brain.
• the next one is back to his anecdote explaining him getting a new phone and not wanting all the cool stuff that goes with it. he want to break a habit of multi-tasking with his phone
• this one is about how multi-tasking is everywhere in out world even when we dont notice. also more stats to support
• the next one is somebodies elses story about how multi-tasking affects others and not just the person doing it.
• the next one is about how much money it costs. this is mainly to support the main claim

JFK Questions

1. It sets a tone of strength and wisdom. He wants his audience to believe and know that he is smart for his young age. Depending on how old whoever it is he is talking to, he is sending the message of either i know what im talking about or that im so good dont even try to understand.
2. metaphor; “in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside” personification; “we dare not tempt them with weakness”
3. “let every nation know, whether  it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” He means that with him as any leader he is going to make all the change in the world and do exactly what is means. He sort of uses the anaphora method with this saying he can break anything. This is a cliche because everybody that comes along thinks they are going to make the world perfect when really they either fix nothing or make it worse
4. I honestly didnt know what the speech was like back then so i couldnt say if it was archaic or not…. But i definatly think that if he was using archaic word that its purpose would be to sound old and wise and prove himself and that he is ready to lead a country.

Do’s

• fully understand the sources and questions
• using the sources adequately; explaining their reason for using that source
• going into full details; examples; in depth
• staying on subject
• credible data

Dont’s

• not answering the prompt completly or not using the number of sources asked for
• summarizing or repeating the source
• plop quotes; barely relevant
• not staying on topic “birdwalk”
• repetition

He doesnt Like to Watch

1. It does addressa  threat. That people should watch and enjoy their t.v. privelages while they can because who knows when they will get their t.v. shut off. It could take the reader in the direction of anger if they are a t.v. watcher. It could take in a direction of greatfullness for breaking of a habit.
2. She likes the device. She thinks when used correctly, it can be a real impact on society in a posative way. It is apparent because she urges the use of and selling of this device.
3. The tone of the interviewer is very monotone. He just wants the info. The interviewee has a very matter-of-fact tone. She thinks she is all right and has it all down
4. It is against t.v.s and is for t.v. turnoffweek. They want people to stop watching television

TV Turnoff Week

1. The purpose is to try to get people off t.v.s but in a funny way. He thinks that t.v. watchers are stupid and need to have pictures to figure it out. So he is also making a mockery of them.
2. It creates a tone of kindergarden kids. The author thinks that t.v. watchers are stupid and he needs to hold their hand and show pictures to get his point across……hes a gerk (ad hominum). The words arent really necissicary
3. No. It is a poster that is to make  fun of those airline posters.

Toulmin

• Data/Facts–at the end a lot of stats; throughout article a lot of stats;
• Warrant–it makes you stupid
• Backing–because its a stupid thing to do and wastes time
• Qualifier–”MTV-addicted, Jerry Springer loving mall rats”
• Reservation–you might think you will get bored but you can find plenty to do
• Claim–T.V. is bad for you

Questions

1. In a way he is being condesending making it seem like he is assuming out audience is stupid and that he is going to have to explain everything nice and slow.
2. He makes it seem like this is something apocalyptic and will ruin everything. The affect is very dramatic and in my opinion quite stupid. If you read that paragraph only and read the last sentece you would think it was much more. I totally disagree with Trubey because he is crazy haha (ad hominum)
3. I think almost anybody can relate because almost all people watch t.v. We all know it. It can affect this relationship posativly or negativly. I personally took it very negativly. He is trying to make t.v. watchers feel bad and those who read and agree start turnin off their t.v.’s.
4. huh???…on #4
5. I think it affects his credibilty a lot. He could be making up everything just to get his point across.  Honostly I am very biast because I really dont like this article and i would take any attack i can get to call this man a liar and crazy. I definatly think this affects his credibility.
6. I think it does strengthen, but i think it is badley placed. At the end of the article i was upset at this attack so i didnt wanna read any more than i had to. But i definatly think that pairing up the stats with posative and negative helped him a lot.

1. By using these to make his argument Johnson is giving a backup for his argument. This is saying that he isnt just raving about t.v. He has evidence, and a good source at that.
2. I personally found the charts confuzing, but I think that if you understand the meaning of the threds that it helps you to undurstand what he means by the shows that he uses as evidence. By using these it helps prove that certain shows have a different attention span demand and how people could follow therefore making them think or not. It is important to know the shows talked about so you can know what the show is about and how much intelligence is needeed to undurstand the storyline. If you compare Spongebob to CSI, there is a definate difference in the “smartness” in it. I dont think the charts could stand alone because you really have to know what your looking at.
3. Depending on the show, you need different arrows and such. They definatly match up with the amount of intelligence a person has. If somebody who is a critical thinker who is very detailed wouldnt need those arrows but an impatient non-thinker wants those arrows so they can follow the story easier. If a impatient person is given these arrows they have an easier time following the story and keeping attention to it. These both are the same in the fact of actually paying attention to the storyline and kinda sorta knowing what is goin on. It may be more or less of critical thinking but thinking none the less. They are differnt in the point of intellectualness. A stupid person isnt going to notice details if they arent paying attention to details and thinking like a smarter person would do.
4. He challenges reality t.v. by saying “oh you think I forgot.” He definatly wants to argue it though because it would probably be thought of as the dummest kind of show either but shows that it isnt dumb by his argument. i think as a sidenote that he was excited to counter-argue that point because usually people cant. He also counter-argues by challenging to actually watch a stupid show and see what you get out of it. All together i think his strategy is to challenge as i stated above.
5. Ummmm, im not sure about this one. I dont see how “economically” it is but i can try, haha. I think it is more demanding because more smart people watch and maybe people want to make it more harder to figure out so they can stump their audience. When they do that, they get friends to watch and try to figure it out, making more people watch.

I think there is a real connection between what the speaker is saying to the audience and what affect it is having on the audience. There are many messages that can be taken from it. They mainly want to put out that marketing is bologna and is changed everytime to be fake like others. I really wants to stand up for those that are in the mind games that these people play through tv and advertising. By talking about the situation it makes somebody who, for example, might be in ICP, to think about what they are as people and maybe change their minds. I dont see a way to change it. I saw more of informing people of it. I honostly dont think it can be changed…