<p>OK what about essay 2? Rhetorical strategies one.</p>
<p>I have a ? about that one (essay 2).</p>
<p>Twice in the essay he said “Ultimately…” and I wrote that it was ironic that he would say something with such certainty, when the whole passage is about the importance of uncertainty. I didn’t write exactly that, but it was along those lines. </p>
<p>That was just one small part of my essay, but I was wondering if it made any sense.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about that, I mean it could work. Definitely, the whole passage had the atmosphere of “uncertainty” - I used repetition of the word uncertainty as one of the rhetorical strategies.</p>
<p>Yeah. It was just something I mentioned.
I remember talking about parallel sentence structure, repitition, and metaphor. I know I had more… I just can’t remember right now… I’ll have to re-read the passage when I have time.</p>
<p>including the rhertorical strategies, how was your essay overall structured and how did you say he characterized scientific research or what his purpose of this thing was?</p>
<p>I said he characterized scientific research as a difficult, uncertain task. He used rhetorical strategies like analogy (the wilderness metaphor), insightful diction (he uses words like “uncertain”, “grunt work”; plus he describes what qualities a scientist must have to do research: “courage”, etc.), and rhetorical question (he involves the reader in the scientific method when he discusses how a scientist finds the right tool for the job: “Will dynamite work?”, etc.)</p>
<p>i said purpose was to convey the hard job scientists have and show respect and bring admiration for the scientist - said that in intro</p>
<p>then 3 paragraphs on repetition of uncertainty, emotional response in reader, short sentences for emphasis / choppy syntactical structure –> starts and stops of scientists’ work, and metaphor (wilderness, so that the average reader can understand the complexity of scientific research and analysis)</p>
<p>I talked about how he used …
- Non-scientific metaphorical imagery to make the passage accessible to those outside the realm of science
- Parallel sentence structure to compare/contrast stuff (said this more eloquently on the AP though haha)
- References to respected scientists (i.e. Einstein, Bernard) to give his argument credibility</p>
<p>EDIT: and for the first essay I said the whole penny issue was classist because wealthier individuals both are more likely to favor getting rid of it & have more access to the media/politics so the representation of the issue is sort of skewed…but that the majority of the public (lower/middle-ish classes) largely favor keeping the penny so that should determine the resolution. I think I backed this up rather well, actually. (I could go into more detail if anyone is actually interested…?)</p>
<p>Last essay was total BS. Pretty good BS, but by far the worst of the 3…</p>
<p>what do you guys think about this argument for the rhetorical analysis (Essay 2)
i said that the guy characterized scientific research as a difficult task that only the persistent could succeed in. and i also said that the reason he presented that scientists had it hard for themselves was to clear their name for the 1918 flu epidemic (as it said in the intro)
can anyone give me any input on that last thing i said? (clearing the scientists names)
im nervous because it nowhere said that i just thought about it when i was writing and put it in. does it make sense? is it good or bad that i said that?</p>
<p>About the penny, I said how the chart was inaccurate because it only took 2000 people into account.</p>
<p>stueydue: I never thought of that, but now that you mention it, it sounds more interesting than what I put (respect for scientists)… I’m sure its fine.</p>
<p>I thought the penny scans were hilarious. (Penny Visual) LOL. I said basically that getting rid of the penny would be way more of a pain than keeping it. They made it sound like it was an unbelievable pain to carry around pennies…what the heck? So I said we’d have to make all new price tags, restructure computer pricing systems, round up all prices so consumers would end up paying up to 4 cents more for everything, and what about taxes? Like WV has a 6% sales tax…how can you do that without pennies? It would mess up a ton of stuff in finances. And I said that setting the minimum coin at 5 cents was really arbitrary.</p>
<p>tlesc01, I also mentioned the 4 cents thing: how prices ending in 99 are a big consumer psychology thing for advertising/marketing people, and prices with 95 are not as appealing; I kinda made fun of Jeff Gore and his calculation thing, suggesting that he should calculate how much more consumers would have to spend if prices were rounded up (those 4 cents add up fast…)</p>
<p>Ugh, it was an annoying prompt; it felt so trivial.</p>
<p>i stated that the arguments by the anti-penny camp were fallacious and biased as they stood to benefit financially from the change in monetary policy. i think i used the first doc to back this up. and then i talked about William Jennings Bryan and the election of 1896; the people who supported the increased use of silver and gold would benefit financially as silver mines had just been found. yeah APUSH!</p>
<p>^^ but the whole prices ending in .99 thing isn’t a psychological thing; it was originally done so that clerks couldn’t simply pocket the money, they would have to punch in the amount to make the change so that the store would have a record of each transaction. anyway im sure that wont be a huge issue after all we’re being tested on our rhetoric not our knowledge of trivia but yeah i was reluctant to use that argument as ive heard its actually a misconception. </p>
<p>anyway i argued against the penny; i said that idle pennies in piggy banks or gutters are simply taking money out of the economy, which causes more to be minted, contributing to inflation, etc. and that they are a major waste of time in daily life, etc. i refuted the historical argument stating that it is not practical, and making the somewhat humorous point that classic literature is far richer in symbolism than is a penny, yet we as a nation seem to be discarding that with much gusto</p>
<p>stueydue-
“the guy characterized scientific research as a difficult task that only the persistent could succeed in. and i also said that the reason he presented that scientists had it hard for themselves was to clear their name for the 1918 flu epidemic (as it said in the intro)
can anyone give me any input on that last thing i said? (clearing the scientists names)
im nervous because it nowhere said that i just thought about it when i was writing and put it in. does it make sense? is it good or bad that i said that?”</p>
<p>I like your line of thought. I replied first then read this…I think you see the depth of his thought, and you should be rewarded for it.</p>
<p>Did you use other “outside examples” for support? This could be very strong if you tied it to a “pioneer in the field” example</p>
<p>Hey guys, what do you think I made on the last essay? And yes, it was just about as onorganized and sucky as this, I pretty much ran out of time:</p>
<p>"It’s stupid to hide kids from advertising and kids might as well get used to it. Corporate sponsorships are great for poorer schools because it gives them lots of money while giving kids a great education. The only time where this would be a problem is if Phillip Morris or something sposored a school, giving the football the name “The Cigs.” But, this is just a digression because no school would be that stupid, and this is to show how one-sided the argument is. Go Capitalism and Utalitarism.</p>
<p>I would love if Red Baron would sponsor my school, he could be our mascot, we would all get free pizza, and a great education. And advertising in schools? So what, it’s not like kids don’t go home and watch television (after doing homework, of course.) And Channel One is a great news program, I used to watch it at my school all the time.</p>
<p>By the way, I would love if the College Board would sponsor my school. Please sponsor us, thanks!"</p>
<p>probably a 1…</p>
<p>The whole argument that abolishing the penny is a ploy for one state is a double-edged sword. While it may help one state, it helps another (in this case Tennessee). No matter what, someone will or will not benefit from the abolishment of the penny meaning the argument, functionally, goes away.</p>
<p>Hey, does anyone have the scoring rubric for the AP english language exam?
I want to determine my score.</p>