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. 

TOW #24: Visual Text

Drinking and driving has been a huge issue in America for many years. Due to the amount of car accidents that driving while on the influence of alcohol can cause, many car companies and other organizations have created advertisements to help discourage drunk driving among the American population. These advertisements typically have a strong appeal to pathos and a demonstration of the consequence of drunk driving. This advertisement is no exception and certainly creates a strong message against it.
       This ad uses a statistic paired with shocking imagery to show that drinking and driving is an unacceptable behavior because of the damage it brings to the quality of life of people. The statistic that this advertisement uses is that every forty-eight seconds, another person if affected by a drunk driver and becomes handicapped. That is a lot of people to become handicapped and it shows that it is unacceptable to have so many people be handicapped.  With this irrefutable evidence, this advertisement not only appeals to pathos, but also logos. Someone looking at this advertisement logically will know that drunk driving must stop because it happens to often. In addition to statistics, the advertisement also uses a imagery to show Americans that drinking and driving is wrong. The image that this advertisement uses is a handicapped parking spot. By itself the image is not very shocking, but paired with the words that a drunk driver "makes another person eligible to park here" creates shock value. The image of the handicapped parking spot makes the viewer see will happen to someone if they are hit by a car caused by a drunk driver. 
        By combining an appeal to logos and pathos through statistics that pair well with the image, this advertisement successfully achieves its purpose of making people aware of the consequences of drunk driving. By stressing how often it happens, it is very effective and makes the audience really think about the effects of drinking and driving. 

TOW #23: Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys by Sally Satel

Modern technology has enabled us to fix many of the ailments that had previously been a death sentence. Organ transplants are a prime example of the strides the field of medicine has made, but there is still a large number of people in need of an organ. In an article entitled “Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys”, Sally Satel explains the growing problem with finding donors, and offers a solution to solve it. She opens by explaining how requiring a purely altruistic donation is not enough to meet the growing demand of kidneys, citing statistics and referencing federal law. Because this was published in the New York Times, Satel’s audience is probably made up of educated adults, who would expect specific evidence to support a claim. 
      The author then proceeds to lay out her solution, which involves giving third parties the chance to provide benefits for donors. During the argument portion of this article, Satel addresses a counterargument that the law prohibits this, saying that lawmakers are not sure of exactly what the law states. She substantiates this claim by quoting The 2007 Department of Justice memo, which states that the bill in question “does not suggest any Member of Congress understood the bill as addressing non-monetary or otherwise non-commercial transfers.” Finally, Satel supports her argument by referencing Al- Gore’s call for a similar change. 
      Through her well-structured article that provided both an informative overview of the subject and a coherent plan to fix it, Satel was able to effectively argue for a change in organ donation. Because of the New York Times’ national reputation, there is a good chance that Satel will reach many people, some of whom are lawmakers capable of sparking an interest in addressing this issue in Congress. As for the rest of her audience, her sound argument will hopefully persuade some to take action, either through contacting their state representatives, or donating an organ themselves.

TOW #22: Income Gap, Meet the Longevity Gap by Annie Lowrey

The growing gap between rich and poor in America can also be seen in the growing gap between longevity. With many new political plans out there like Obama Care, can an increase of money in your bank account mean an increase of years to your life? In Annie Lowrey’s “Income Gap, Meet the Longevity Gap”, the idea that life expectancy correlates with income is defended. Lowrey uses juxtaposition and statistics to defend her position of the strong connection.          

        Juxtaposition is used to reveal the effect money can have on life expectancy. Lowrey uses two counties that are only half-a-days travel apart: Fairfax County, VA., and McDowell County, W.Va. Fairfax county has, “ample doctors, hospitals, recreation centers, shops, restaurants, grocery stores, nursing homes and day care centers, with public and private entities providing cradle-to-grave services to prosperous communities” (Lowrey), while McDowell is painted as, “Government assistance accounts for half of the income of county residents. Social workers described shortages of teachers, nurses, doctors, surgeons, mental health professionals and addiction-treatment workers. There is next to no public transportation. Winding two-lane roads, sometimes impassable in snow and ice, connect the small population centers of trailers, small homes and the occasional minimart” (Lowery).  This drastic difference between the two counties supports that the ability to make money in each of the counties differs, with Fairfax clearly above McDowell. This relates to life expectancy because, “other residents have multiple woes: “Diabetes. Obesity. Congestive heart failure. Drug use. Kidney problems. Lung conditions from the mines”. With disease running far more rampant in McDowell, it shortens the citizens lives and supports the correlation between money and life expectancy.          

        Compelling statistics are used to shed light on the growing problem of life expectancy and money. Lowrey compared the two counties life expectancies to two countries and that, “residents of Fairfax County are among the longest-lived in the country: Men have an average life expectancy of 82 years and women, 85, about the same as in Sweden. In McDowell, the averages are 64 and 73, about the same as in Iraq”. Although the populations of county to country differ, the statistic still holds weight to the hard life of living in poverty. This statistics shows that with higher income, high life expectancy follows. Along with that statistic, Lowrey also states statistics regarding the obesity rate and percentage of smokers. Health and life expectancy and be agreed on that they have a correlation as many studies have shown that health choices directly impact longevity. By comparing the ability to better life choices like doctors, healthy foods, fitness centers, smoking, etc, Lowrey shows that without access, due to lack of money, the life expectancy decreases. She supports her position that money impacts longevity using statistics.      

       Lowrey utilizes juxtaposition and statistics to defend the position that income can have an impact on life expectancy. She adds to this idea the political aspect of pushing for Obama Care because this may be able to close the gap by offering better health care access to lower income individuals. As the gap keeps widening, more solutions to this growing problem need to be set forth to balance the issue in America. 

TOW #21: Visual Text

If you are someone who watches TV, chances are you have seen at least on of Snickers' “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” advertisements which have been airing for awhile now. They’ve created both magazine advertisements and commercials that have employed famous individuals from high-profile celebrities such as Betty White, to historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln. One ad in particular features Godzilla himself. Through ridiculous humor and stark juxtaposition, this advertisement effectively achieves its purpose of selling Snickers candy bars within the “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” advertising campaign.

          The commercial begins with a bunch of friends and Godzilla simply enjoying themselves on a sunny lakeside beach while happy feel-good type music playing in the background, when an attractive woman walks by and waves hello to Godzilla exclusively. His friends around him then take turns giving him high-fives and congratulating him for gaining the attention of the attractive young lady. Aside from the obvious humor of a woman being attracted to Godzilla, the purpose of this scene was to paint him as someone that everyone admires, which is also the theme throughout this commercial. 

         Godzilla is then playing ping pong against one of his friends with the rest watching, and when he beats him, everyone begins cheering. Following that we find Godzilla dancing at a party while two guests comment on him saying that, “Godzilla’s actually pretty cool,” to which his friend responds, “Except when he’s hungry.” The feel-good music is then replaced with screams as commercial then cuts to a classic Godzilla scene with him destroying a city at night when one of his friends manages to throw a Snickers bar into Godzilla’s mouth. Finally, feel-good music begins to play again and the commercial cuts back to another scene of Godzilla and his friends at the lake water skiing and having a great time. 

       This commercial was successful by utilizing humor throughout and first painting Godzilla as the cool guy that everyone admires and wants to be friends with. Then it cuts to a dark scene depicting how different Godzilla acts when he’s hungry, and then after eating a Snickers bar, how he instantly becomes fun and cool again. This not only makes us want to eat Snickers because the commercial was funny and Snickers satisfies enough to even tame Godzilla, but eating Snickers will also make us likable and fun to be around.