Source 4

This article can be used in our argument because it contains information about what Homeland Security has assured are its goals with the new immigration policies. Andrew Rosenthal (author of the article) goes on to say that although the new policy is supposed to focus only on immigrants with criminal records there is no assurance  that this will be done. “How will they find these people” Rosenthal questions when referring to the flawed policy.  My team and I can use some of the same assertions Rosenthal makes while focusing on how the Alabama immigration law is violating immigrants’ civil rights.

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/will-they-stay-or-will-they-go/?scp=2&sq=will%20they%20stay%20or%20will%20they%20go&st=cse

Food Inc.

Central Argument:

Today the food system has become corrupted because of the greed that exist to produce food fast and in large amounts. The food that is produced is harmful because of the way it is engineered and the short-cuts that are taken to make sure enough of it is available. The food companies often abuse the animals (who are raised only to be slaughtered), as well as the farmers that have no option but to go along with the system.

Assertion:

• ·         Now there are a handful of companies controlling our food system.

• ·         If you could grow a chicken in 49 days, why would you want one that takes 3 months? (Companies’ point of view)

• ·         Today we are engineering our food. (This is mostly due to the mass production of corn)

• ·         We put faith in the government to protect us, but we are not being protected in the most basic level.

• ·         When the food companies have a problem they don’t use the solution that could fix it, they look for high-tech substitutions that will allow the system to survive.  

Opinion:

I think this topic is a tricky one. It is obvious that the food system is flawed; however the answer to the question of how to fix it is one that is not as straightforward. It would be easy to say that the currents conditions the system it is under should be reversed at once, but the effects of such actions are ones that cannot be predicted. The way I see it is that there should be a gradual return to a safer, more efficient system that does not enforce policies such as the ones that are popular today. I think this would allow for a better system to take place without compromising the production of food and therefore allow for food-shortages to take place.  It would be great if such measures were beginning to be enforced; however truth is that the system will not change unless we want it to. While the food companies are the ones that control the food system, we as consumers have the ultimate power. If we want things to change we have to take charge and make those changes happen because at the rate things are going these changes will never take place.

Source #2 Critics See “Chilling Effect” in Alabama Immigration Law

Summary:

Alabama’s immigration law has made it its goal to make every aspect of an immigrant’s life difficult. The school clause of the law however, has become clouded, especially with the mixed signals that the creators of the law are sending. While they claim that immigrants will not be denied a free education, their attempts are still part of a larger scheme to topple the 29-year-old ruling guarantying free public education to anyone, regardless of their immigration status. Critics argue that the law is driving immigrants from schools. Still, the true effects of the law are harder to measure than they seem.

Central Argument:

“The champions of Alabama’s far-reaching immigration law have said that it is intended to drive illegal immigrants from the state by making every aspect of their life difficult. But they have taken a very different tone when it comes to the part of the law concerning schools.” 

The Article’s central claim is that although supporters of the law, have openly talked about the true goals of the law, they have been rather shady when it comes to the effect it will have on children in schools.  While they claim that a free education will not be denied to anyone, they still expect parents to disclose their immigration status as well as their child’s. In the long run, they want to make education a privilege for those with papers and an unachievable dream for those without.

Assertions:

“It is, however, a first step in a larger and long-considered strategy to topple a 29-year-old Supreme Court ruling that all children in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, are guaranteed a public education.”

This assertion strengthens the author’s claim because it supports his claim that although the creators of the law are trying to say that education will continue to be accessible to everyone, in reality, their secret agenda involves destroying this right. 

“Whether the critics are correct in arguing that the law has created a “chilling effect,” inducing families to pull their children out of school, is harder to measure than it may seem.”

This assertion strengthens the author’s claim because it shows just how muddled the law has become. It neither agrees with the critics, nor does it criticize their assertion. It simply argues that the true effects of the law will be harder to measure than previously thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/alabama-immigration-laws-critics-question-target.html?pagewanted=all

Huddled Masses, Turned Away

Summary:

·       With increased removal cases of immigrants promising to rise to historic levels, and the majority of those deportation cases involving only procedural---not criminal- --wrongdoings one thing is certain: The deportation system is not only flawed, it is damaged. With his article, Robert Morgenthau examines some of the flaws that today plague said system and even shares a personal experience to show just how corrupted the system really is.

Central Argument:

·       The article’s central argument revolves around a quote from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet-“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. In the article Morgenthau claims that today, “those words, inscribed at its base [the state of liberty], have been turned on their heads”. He adds that today, the immigration laws are not only bad because of the effects they have, but because of the way they are administered as well.

Assertions:

·       “Though it has assured Congress that it concentrates on those who pose a danger to public safety, the agency often deports immigrants guilty only of technical violation of the immigration laws”

This assertion strengthens the claim made by Morgenthau because it validates his claim that today immigration policies are being administered in the wrong way.

·       “Our restrictive immigration laws are bad enough­---separating families, sending refugees like Haitians back to devastated countries, denying jobs to foreign students---but how they are administered is even worse”

This assertion strengthens the claim made by Morgenthau because it supports his argument that these policies are ludicrous, sometimes even leading to the denying of civil rights to immigrants being imprisoned in detention facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/opinion/huddled-masses-turned-away.html

Acknowledging the Trade-Offs

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/02/are-top-students-getting-short-shrift/acknowledging-the-trade-offs-in-differentiation

Summary:

·         Acknowledging the Trade-Offs deals with the disparities that exist in education when it comes to educating both the middle of the pack students and the advanced ones. The article claims that America’s education system is leaving advanced students to “fend for themselves” while most of the attention is focused on closing the achievement gaps and helping struggling students.

Central Argument:

·         The passage’s central argument is a bold one: “We are shortchanging America’s brightest students, and we’re doing it reflexively and furtively”. In the article the author claims that today, we are forgetting about advanced students’ needs and ignoring them. He states that we are doing this automatically and in secrecy. 

Assertions:

·         “Truth is, few teachers have the extraordinary skill and stamina to constantly fine-tune instruction to the needs of 20-or- 30-odd students, six hours a day, 180 days a year. What happens, instead, is that teachers tend to focus on the middle of the pack. Or, more typically of late, on the least proficient students.”

This assertion strengthens the author’s claim by explaining what one of the main problems is on classrooms and how that in turn affects the advanced students.

·         “In the past decade, would-be reformers have focused relentlessly on closing the “achievement gaps,” leaving advanced students to fend for themselves.”

This assertion strengthens the author’s claim by giving what the root of the problem is for leaving top-students to “fend for themselves”: the desire to close achievement gaps.

Rhetorical Strategies:

·         Logos

In Acknowledging the Trade-Offs the author uses Logos to strengthen his claim. Through the use of facts he is able to point out the disparities that he claims exist within the education system.

Ex. “The Brookings Institution’s Tom Loveless has reported that, while the nation’s lowest-achieving students made significant gains in reading and math between 2000 and 2007, the progress by top students was ‘anemic’ .”

“In 2008, a survey of the nation’s teachers found that 60 percent said struggling students were a “top priority” at their schools, while just 23 percent said the same of “academically advanced” students. Eighty percent said that struggling students were most likely to get one-on-one attention from teachers; just 5 percent said the same of advanced students.”

·         Counterargument

The author has one specific paragraph in the passage where he brings up a point that could be used as a counterargument to his claim. In this particular paragraph the author summarizes a previously determined claim by the RAND Corporation: low achieving students benefit when placed in mixed-ability classes, but then also uses the data to strengthen his own claim.

Ex. “RAND Corporation scholars have previously determined that low-achieving students benefit when placed in mixed-ability classrooms (faring about five percentage points better than those placed in lower-track classes) but that high achievers fared six percentage points worse in such general classes.”

Logos

Logos-Appeal based on facts

This chart represents logos. The use of statistics makes the argument have a powerful impact on the audience. The chart appeals to reason through the use of facts. From the chart the audience will use inductive reasoning to draw conclusions about the data presented. From there they will make broader assumptions based on deductive reasoning. 

Ethos

Ethos- Appeal based on credibility

This picture represents Ethos. Martin Luther King’s authority and credibility are evident in this picture. In the scene depicted in the picture, King appeals to the audience not only through his knowledge, but by the sharing of his own experiences. Showing empathy for the audience as well as acknowledging opposing views makes King’s argument one that is not only directed towards the audience in front of him, but to everyone who might listen to it at a later date. 

Pathos

Pathos-Appeal to the heart

This picture represents Pathos. The bruises on the woman’s face are evidence that she has been the victim of domestic violence. Her facial expression- which reveals deep internal conflict-indicates that she needs help. This picture is designed to strike a cord with the viewer’s emotions and thus cause them to want to take action. Pathos is very effective here because it completes it’s goal:  it appeals to you (the audience) by making you feel what the woman is feeling.