Cora

• Blog – Is Cora Tucker successful? By what definition?

In my opinion, yes, Cora is very successful because she was born to a poor family and was able to make something of her self. Even if she never reached a place where most people think success is (big house, married, kids, good job, etc), she was able to do something she thought was important, and do it very well. By a lot of standers she was still quite successful, coming from nothing and being able to 'raise hell' the way she did, in many opinions is a success in itself. But when it's factored in that Cora is black, the opinions of success may change for far to many people. They may view Cora as more successful then if they had assumed she was white, due to the fact that society has set the bar so much lower for blacks as opposed to whites. If someone were to hear the story of Cora, without knowing the color of her skin, they may think 'Well that's nice. Good for them', but when informed that Cora was black, the thought process all to often seems to shift to 'Damn, a BLACK person was able to start with nothing and make something of themselves. Kudos to them.'. The bar being set so low is something that is recognized in society, due to unequal opportunities. However at the same time, no new opportunities are presented, so the bar is incredibly hard to raise. Society must first address finding a way to give more opportunity before expecting to see the bar raise, only then can any mindset be changed at all.

• Blog – In what way does Cruz’s story contrast the idyllic themes of Alger? Are they also similar in some ways?

In Alger's story, it takes hard work and being a good person for Dick to get somewhere in life, while in Cruz's story, it merely takes the color of his skin. The story of Ragged Dick never touches on the ideas of the other factors that play in to moving up in society, such as race and education, it only says that being a good, hard working person will move you up, regardless of other factors. Cruz's story is in great contrast to the ideal Alger sets.

Rich//Poor

I don't believe that the article claims that the rich exploit the poor, to me it seems they more so just don't recognize or acknowledge them. The facts laid out on the table are not only a tad bit misleading, but also are contorted to work with the point that Mantiois is trying to make. The fact that the artical IS mostly facts is another reason I believe it doesn't really make the case of exploiting the poor, there are facts, but they don't seem to show the rich exploiting the poor, just that the poor and rich exist.

Lazy but compassionate? Okay!

Blog – Dick is essentially rewarded for his actions with the job opportunity of a lifetime. What implicit argument is the story making about what it takes to be successful?

Many children stories lead to the idea that if you are a good hard working person, good things will come to you. The story of Ragged Dick is no exception to this idea, Dick is a low class working scuff who works hard and is just able to get by, he maintains his hardworking ethic and still has a hard time getting anywhere. In the end it is the fact that Dick is a good person that ends up getting him somewhere. His morals get to him and he can not leave the little boy to drown, which is in the end what gets him somewhere. It almost seems like being a hardworking person doesn't actually mean anything, but the fact that he is a good, nice, caring person does. The implicit argument in the story actually seems to come out and say that if you are a good person, with lots of compassion, you will find a way to get far.

Visual

I do believe that a visual argument is more persuasive then a written one. Visual arguments have the ability to tap into the viewers senses much quicker and have a much more lasting impression. If someone was trying to protest against the war in Iraq, writing information on it may sway some people, but showing pictures of dying solders would appeal to the senses of the audience and more then likely they would hold the image in their minds for much longer. It’s all to easy to read about something going on in the world and forget about it, but when pictures are presented that appeal to your emotions you could feel disturbed, inspired, or amazed for a long time, and feel the need to spread the word about the event. Pictures and videos make it easier to connect to the subjects in them quickly, and a lot of times, make a stronger connection.

Ethos//Pathos

I believe that all writers have a responsibility to utilize ethos, but not to the point where the reader is left without a unique or different thought in their head. Using ethos as a writer is a powerful and dangerous tool, the ability to sway ones audience is something to be cautious of. If an ethos argument relies on the reputation of the writer, then it could also be a factor of the readers relationship with the writer.
On the flip side, the usage of pathos is, in my opinion, more powerful then ethos. When you appeal to someone’s emotions the right way they become very easy to sway. Going back to ‘A Case for Torture’ that argument could be personalized to someone who lost a family member in 9/11, making the argument much more emotional, saying that ‘If torture could have saved _____ would you do it?’ making it nearly impossible for whomever the argument is directed at to say no.

Skateboarding

One of the most powerful pieces of this article are the real world examples that David Langley gives to the readers, showing how skateboarders have been treated by society not only helps tap into the emotional side, but also sends the emotion that he wants you to feel. This is very well backed up with personal stories and testimonies, which also play to the emotional side. David Langley also shows the positive side of skateboarding, it’s good exercise, and environmentally friendly. Compared to ‘A Case for Torture’, this argument is much better supported, and more convincing. ‘A Case for Torture’ is almost completely hypothetical, and the facts that are presented are weakly supported. Although ‘A Case for Torture’ does tap into the emotions of the reader, it does nothing to support the argument.