Commentary 4 Chelsea

For the proposal essay I peer reviewed Chelsea Goossens paper. She wrote her proposal on finding a solution to end hate crimes. I thought she did a great job with the introduction, it was engaging and clearly stated the problem. When she provided a fact on how hate crimes are a “symbolic law,” it was a perfect way to lead into her solution. The thesis gave a direct solution; “To break the barrier between consequential meaning and true enforcement the United States should develop a task force with the focus of identification and prosecution of hate crimes.”

Chelsea’s first reason to support her proposal in solving the problem of hate crimes is to get stronger support from law enforcements. I agree with her reason and believe she did a good job directing the readers towards her belief. There was great information on how hate crimes fall through the law and how she gave a resolution to help improve law enforcements focuses on the crimes. The only thing I would fix is to present a clearer reason.

I thought it was a smart idea to show the difference between America and England hate crime laws. Although, she did not present a reason to try and solve hate crimes. Comparing the two could be a perfect way to lead into a strong reason. She could go into something about America not being as effective as England.

Next, Chelsea provided another reason to fund money to the biased-based crimes task force. She explained why the Government should fund, yet I think she should go in a little more depth of what the task force is and how it would help.

She had an overall strong proposal in trying to solve hate crime laws. Her paper had great facts from a few different sources, so all you need is a peer-reviewed source and one other source. Also, she need to look over some grammar. Other then that I think everything was good! GOODLUCK with the rest!

Commentary 3 Chelsea Gossens

For the ethical argument, I peer reviewed Chelsea’s essay on prejudice hate crimes. She began her argument with good facts and background information that gives us the readers an idea how she feels about prejudice acts. Then she gave a clear understanding on how she believes government needs to take more action in recognizing and reducing prejudice hate crimes while maintaining policies that allow for prosecution in her thesis statement. She did a good job showing the readers what she feels the government should to do about hate crimes. However, I think you need to state your opinion stronger and say you are against hate crimes, so the readers are fully aware of your position.

Your first body paragraph begins with a really good statistic that shows the high numbers of victims for hate crimes. Starting off with that statistic makes a visible strong point for the readers to see how common hate crimes are, which supports your argument well.

In your second body paragraph, your criterion says hate crimes are targeted based on a specific aspect of their life. Then you gave some good examples to support, but I think you could use a few stronger points to support your criterion better, which will make readers accept your argument more. Also, you need to add a few more criterion in your essay then argue to make your opinion/argument look correct.

Each paragraph has a lot of good points on what you think should be done about hate crimes, but if you provide examples, evidence, or reasons you will make your argument stronger. Your conclusion sums up your argument perfectly and gives the readers a last few points on why we should be against hate crimes. Your essay has good organization and has the correct format. All you need is to add a few more criterions and your good to go!

Good luck with the rest of your paper J

Vivisections

Are Vivisections on animals right or wrong?

What are vivisections on animals used for?

What are alternatives to vivisections on animals?

“The rarest thing in the word to hear a rational discussion of vivisection.” That was a great statement to start this chapter, because I agree that vivisection is a rare conversation to hear people talking about. Vivisection is the practice of operation on live animals for the experimental purposes. This chapter taken from “God in the Dock,” is a discussion mainly about pain being evil or not. The author states, “if pain is not evil why should suffering be reduced?” “Now if pain is an evil then the infliction of pain, considered in itself, must clearly be an evil act.” After reading the chapter, it made me think a lot about the circumstances of pain and live animal testing. Honestly, I have never thought to deep about all the animal vivisections that go on. It makes me wonder if it is right or wrong to vivisection? I believe it can go both ways, so it is hard for me to have a strong opinion about it being fully right or fully wrong. However, I would definitely lean more towards the side of it being wrong. First, animals are not humans and have different metabolisms and different anatomical and immunities etc. Even though certain animals and humans can share similarities, I still think it does not make sense for them to be related to one another. For instance, how would animal testing be valid to the human body? Testing something on an animal then giving it to a human will most likely have different reactions since we are a completely different species. Second, it is so sad and wrong to know the animals are being tortured. Thousands of animals are being cut open, starved, drugged, or froze to complete vivisections. There are many alternatives to test drugs and what not, or at least there should be restrictions and rules before torturing the poor innocent animals.

Shooting an Elephant

1 Why do the Buramese resent the British?
2 Why did the British officer kill the elephant?
3 Why did the older and younger native men have opposite views on the killing?

“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, tells the conflicts and inner insecurities of a British colonial officer in a poor foreign country, Moulmein Burma. The story begins with directly telling the readers how he is hated by large numbers of people and the anti-European feelings were bitter. However, the officer was secretly against the British and was for the natives. He could never reveal that, because he knew he would never fit in with the Burmese culture and could not betray his own country.

The British officer got a call about an elephant on the loose that is “ravaging the bazaar,” his duty was to capture and shoot the elephant. While trying to find the elephant, he struggled making a decision if he should or should not kill the animal. Many of his insecurities got the best of him when he faced the elephant. I think his biggest insecurity was the huge crowd of the excited Burmese people. “But I did not want to shoot the elephant” said the British officer, yet he knew everyone would laugh at him for going all the way to the elephant with the rifle in his hand. Then the officer said, “It was perfectly clear to me what I ought to do.” This comes to my question; why did the British officer kill the elephant? I believe he felt completely obligated and forced by the crowd of natives to shoot the elephant, as he said, “pushed to and fro by the will of these yellow faces.” The officer did not want to look like he could not do his job and then have all the natives laugh and call him a coward. Also, he knew it was his duty as an officer to kill the elephant even though he felt it was wrong. I believe he felt really guilty at first killing the elephant, because it was minding its own business eating in a field when he first came in contact with it. When he ended up shooting the elephant it took him awhile to accept it. Soon enough it gave him a sense of power as an officer, also showing that he was legally in the right.  

Commentary 2 Chelsea Goossens

Starting from the title, you state that you wrote about Susan Sontag’s “9/11” and “The Day After” articles, for a correct rhetorical critique essay title you need to have your title reflect the content of your analysis.

I enjoyed your introduction; it provided just enough background information on the 9/11 attacks for the readers. You gave a really strong thesis that identified your position on Sontag’s article with telling how she had an “overall misuse” and “lack of attentiveness,” for the appeals of ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. I think your introduction was really good and had all the important points you needed.

Starting off with your examples of Sontag misuse of logos, you start off your paragraph with a good transition word. Then you provide a quote to show how she tried to guide her audience to think negatively about the government and media, well done. Also, you provided some words she used like “unanimity” and “unanimously” to attract in her audience, but I think those would go under ethos more then logos. However, you made a good point about her word choice being “stylishly appealing” to overlook that Sontag does not give any facts for her case.

Next, your paragraph on pathos appeal did not have a lot of detail. You took some great examples out of the article to show her emotion of anger and forcefulness, but you should explain those words more and tell the readers how or why they fit under the pathos appeal.

When you wrote about Sontag’s use of the ethos appeal, you did a good job explaining how she builds a bridge with the readers through her use of inclusive words “our” “we” and others. I thought it was good how you said her inclusiveness was negative at the end from her quote “But lets not be stupid together.”

You did not mention the appeal kairos, which is not required. Although, you could write about how Sontag strongly misused it by writing this article way to fast.

For your next half of the essay, you wrote about Sontag’s other article “The Day After.” I liked how you wrote about this article, because you gave the readers a different view of Sontag using the appeals. You took some important quotes out of her redeeming herself with the use of pathos.

Overall, I thought you wrote a great rhetorical critique. There were only a few minor errors with punctuation and grammar that can be easily corrected. I like how you organized your appeals and ended with the second article. My only problem would be fixing your title and being a little more specific when explaining the point and critique of your body paragraphs.