CW 2/23

I thought the film did a good job shedding light on a subject that most of the general public know little about, tort reform. Most of the general public just believe that tort reform is in place to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits but, the film gave a different perspective to the issue than the one heard in the media. It showed the downsides of tort reform.

The film did a good job of bringing to light many of the arguments surrounding the tort reform issue, particularly arguments of definition. The first thing that has to be addressed when discussing tort reform is the issue of what is a "frivolous lawsuit"? To a large company one woman suing, over spilling hot coffee on herself, may appear frivolous. However, to the individual the scalding burns caused by the coffee have a dramatic effect on their life and health. Also the companies seem to have a much broader definition of a "frivolous lawsuit" than individuals. The companies seem to group many lawsuits, that would appear legitimate to most individuals, under the title of 'frivilous'.

HW 2/16

When reading chapter 7 of “everything’s an argument” I was able to understand the three main types of arguments the book was supporting. All three styles, classical oration, rogerian argument, and the toulmin argument, are fairly common strategies to use in rhetorical argument today. However, some of the examples the book used to shed light on the uses of the different arguments didn’t seem to make sense. For example, the book used Fredrick Douglass’ Fourth of July speech as a depiction of a Rogerian style argument. This did not make sense to me because the speech, while offering a different point of view on the Fourth of July, did not set up a context for the argument and didn’t even propose a compromise to an argument. In fact the only argument I could infer out of the speech was, Fourth of July doesn’t hold importance to African Americans. How is this an argument that both sides can compromise and benefit from?

Other than the few various examples, that didn’t make sense, the chapter overall reaffirmed many of my views on good rhetorical arguments. I noticed that all three forms of argument emphasize the notion that the alternative view must be stated and addressed in your argument. I believe this is vitally important to any argument because if you leave out the opposing view it is easy for your audience to assume that you don’t have a rebuttal to the points of that opposition. For example, if a politician made a speech on the benefits of opening the borders for immigration but failed to address some of the potential downsides, how credible would he seem? I also noticed that the three arguments are traditionally set up along the lines of deductive reasoning, with the argument being stated towards the front. However, I liked how the book showed that these arguments could be modified to be arguments of inductive reasoning as well. Due to the fact, deductive reasoning is generally more effective because you guide your audience to a conclusion rather than state the conclusion and then try to convince them.

                The chapter, while informative leaves a few questions unanswered. Why would you stick to one form of an argument when a combination of all three is potentially more effective? What do inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning have to do with the three forms of argument addressed? This concept seems to be just pasted at the beginning of the chapter as a side note.

CW: 2/7

Peer editing some of the other papers, rhetorically analyzing spaces, seemed to help me with my paper as well. Through analyzing the papers of my peers, I discovered strategies they used to convey their arguments that I thought were quite effective. It gave me a different perspective on how to right an argument, other than my own. I realized that a couple of my peers to a completely different, but equally effective route to convey their arguments. I realized, while my argument was dense in technical details, it lacked an emotional representation of my space, which some of the other papers conveyed so well. Due to this I plan on going back and embellishing certain aspects of my argument to make it a little more emotional, adding more pathos to my writing.


I also recognized some aspects in my peers writing that I found ineffective. A few of the papers, I found very dry and some others overly descriptive, lacking any real substance. This caused me to rethink my paper. I decided that in order to write the most effective paper a balance between style and substance needs to be struck, in my writing. I don’t want my paper to read like a dry description of my space but, I also don’t want my description to seem over superfluous and emotional. The bottom line is, reading some of the others papers gave me an indication of what I want to, and don’t want to, do in mine.   

CW 2/2

1.                  Who is your intended audience? Who is your actual audience? How do they differ? What larger community might you connect your essay with?

Through my paper I am trying to explain to my audience why In-N-Out is so successful and popular when there are hundreds of other fast food burger chains. Therefore I want to direct my argument at an audience of people who are interested in learning why people prefer certain product to others. This fits into the criteria of my actual audience because my actual audience is my peers in my rhetoric class and, rhetoric is essentially the art of persuasion through argument.

2.                  What personal connections do you have with the space?

Growing up in southern California I have been around In-N-Out burger all my life and have never understood the fascination and cult following behind them. When a new one opened up in fort worth it was just as popular. I want to know why a restaurant with good but not great food is so popular among so many people.

3.                  What controlling idea do you have for the space? What argument do you see being made within the space? Think about the arguments we saw within the space we observed on Tuesday.

I think the argument can be made that the environment in In-N-Out reflects a family owned and operated franchise that is more concerned about its customer and its quality than its profits. I think this can be done by reflecting on the pathos of the space by looking at everything from the menu which hasn’t changed since the 40’s to the bible verses hidden underneath the soda cups.

4.                  Choose one observation you made within the space you have observed (whether that be the library or your intended space) and analyze it. What do the various things you have noticed/recorded regarding the space mean?

The menu looks like it hasn’t changed since the 1940’s. It uses an old style block font, like you would see announcing what movies are playing at a movie theater. Also it only has three food items to choose from burger, cheeseburger, or double cheeseburger. How in a day in age where taco bell, Mc Donald’s and jack in the box have 50+ things to order on their menus does In-N-Out turn a profit with 3? I believe that this simple menu gives the feel of a family owned business that has not been redesigned by its corporate heads to turn larger profits. The menu also says that “we only have three items” but they are high quality and are popular enough that we have not had to add anything else to our menu since we first opened.

HW 2/2

Going into observe my space I was worried I would not be able to get enough observations to write a report from. However, once I got there I realized that there was so much that I could write down that I couldn’t possibly capture all that was happening in writing. In order to narrow down what I would write observations on I first started with sensory information.

                For the first ten minutes in my space I focused on my senses like smell, hearing, feeling and taste. I was able to smell the food coming from the grill and the fries in the deep fryer. I also took note of the lack of some smells. The restaurant didn’t smell unclean and the fast food smell was subtle and not overpowering. I was able to hear the orders of people ahead of me in line as well as the conversations around me. On a larger scale the steady buzz of a crowded eatery was always a constant. When I got my food I tried to record how it tasted. This was more difficult to do than any of my other observation notes because taste is a fickle sense that is hard to describe in writing.

                After I got through writing notes on all my other senses I turned to the visuals. This is where I obtained the bulk of my observation notes. I took into account everything from the number of cars in the drive through to the font on the menu. I found the visual aspect of my space the easiest to take notes on because there was just so much I could write about with it. In fact so much I think I should go back and observe my space once more before I start to write my paper.