TOW #27: SPCA Ad

Obviously, most of the ads, if not all, of SPCA's ads appeal to pathos. The image of the puppy, kitten, or another desperate animal is the forefront of the advertisement, pulling the viewer in to only get a closer look at how sad or hopeless the animal must be. While some of it may be a hyperbole, it works. Something else that is essential to these ads is the strong diction. For example, in this ad, it uses "barbaric cruelty" when describing dog fighting. I think that definitely supports the ad in the sense that people would want to save the puppy from whatever "cruelty" it's encountering. These ads definitely place a more emotional connection and even a more human connection to the animals. Many would start to feel bad for a dog in a picture. Something that also caught my eye was "as little as 60 cents" in reference to the donation that can be made to the organization. I think when using the words "as little as", it makes it seem like much less of a donation. Many people may feel obligated to donate MORE than that initial 60 cents, bringing in more money for the ASPCA. On the bottom of the ad, it states, "make a monthly gift". The word "gift" is definitely used cleverly here, because it's more of a donation, but they're trying to make the point that the donation is a "gift" to the animals.
       Overall, I think this advertisement is extremely effective. The mere color scheme adds to the sad, hopeless theme that the ad tries to convey. I think audience is definitely a factor here as well. People with dogs, in my opinion, would be more likely to have feelings toward the animal on the ad, while people without any relation to pets wouldn't have as much of an emotional connection. I definitely think that the ASPCA ads do an extremely great job of connecting to their audience because even though I don't own a pet, I still sympathize for the ones in the commercial.  While also attempting to get people to donate to a cause they are also benefitting the life of animals. 

TOW #26: Why College Football Should Be Banned

Buzz Bissenger claims that college football steers away the students from what they are supposed to be doing at college, which is learning. He says, "in more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything to do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics."  He also makes the argument that the only people who benefit from college football are the alumni and the coaches that make absurd amounts of money. The students don't benefit at all. Even the players don't benefit because they're being "exploited by a system in which they don't receive a dime of compensation". Bissinger even begins to trash talk the concept of the game of football alone, and says that it causes injuries that don't need to happen, including sever head trauma. 
      Bissenger was able to help his stance through the example about the university in Baltimore, Maryland. He claims that the school cut 8 varsity sports to create a leaner athletic budget, so that crumbling basketball and football programs would get money, and track and swimming wouldn't. He then went on to explain just how much money the school spent on football, and the numbers were very surprising. A little statistic like that can change the whole meaning of the article, which was effective in my opinion. 
        However, although his arguments were valid in some points, surprisingly, I didn't find his article very effective. This being because the way he crafted the article was extremely sloppy. He would make one little argument and only support it with a sentence or two and then rush to his next argument. This didn't allow his main arguments to stick out to the audience nor did it solidify his argument.  The essay overall brought up good points, however each point was rushed and the audience was not able to have a clear handle on what Bissenger was arguing. 

TOW #25: Even Gifted Students Can't Keep Up

In the past few decades, American education has slowly fallen behind other nations such as Belgium, Switzerland, and Japan. The New York Times Editorial Board attributes this to the lack of attention given to gifted students. The Editorial Board of The New York Times has a wide range of expertise among 19 contributors, in fields from immigration to science, to education. This article was co written mostly by Brent Staples, who holds a Ph.D. in psychology and has been on the board since 1990. They article argue that the young minds, the board argues, are the future of the nation, the driving force behind innovation and scientific progress. Throughout the article, statistics support their claim of fact that the US in behind other countries. Instead of simply identifying the problem, however, they offer some recommendations on amending curriculum and government funding to better support advanced students.

This article seems to be directed towards those involved in education. Specifically, it appears to be aimed towards politicians who have say over issues regarding the funding of schools, and those in charge of schools or districts who have say in curriculum. Since this piece was originally published in the New York Times newspaper, it is very likely that many subscribers, a portion of whom are involved in education, read it. Furthermore, since this paper is nationally read, there is a good chance that it has been received by educators and politicians across the country.

This exposure is key to this article’s purpose, which is to persuade those in power to reform the United States education system to better compete with foreign nations in accelerated learning. The reform that the article asks for will most likely take a while to become reality, so while technically the authors didn’t achieve their purpose, they may someday once their recommendations are actually applied to the country.