For the weblog:

Just provide a two paragraph summary like the example in the book (82-83). As you can see, one of these 2 paragraphs is devoted to the articulation of the main thesis and the supporting reasons that are invoked to back it up. The other paragraph shall be devoted to (depending on the argument) the argument’s awareness of the opposite point of view in the form either of explicit support for its underlying assumptions or response to counterarguments. As you know some argument pay attention to this aspect and some don’t hence my “depending on the argument.”

Ask the students to find fault with the argument (to critique it from a doubting perspective: find fault with its use evidence (logos), use of pathos (appeals to emotions), and attention or lack of attention to opposite viewpoints).

Students should refer to particular parts of the passage (page and paragraph cited with direct brief examples or quotations) with specificity to support their critique (otherwise it is pointless). This will be at most one paragraph long.

For the presentation:

Establish the argumentative conversation the argument is a part of (a contextual narrative that situates its main claim in a bigger context with counterarguments). To do this, you could articulate and briefly explain the counterargument to which this argument is a reaction.

Follow that up with a rhetorical analysis of the argument pointing out both its rhetorical strengths and its weaknesses. Restate the thesis and the mains reasons supporting it. Evaluate the evidence used in terms of STAR criteria (89-90). Evaluate the reliance on emotions (pathos) or Logos (use of logical and accurate reasoning, use of credible sources etc) and how these enhance or undermine the credibility of the writer for a larger audience.

Pick two of the best responses from the weblog and explain why they were the best!

Conclude your powerpoint presentation with a list of further questions!

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

“Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment for Skateboarders”

David Langley wrote this article portraying the skateboarders’ situation in an urban city life. Being a skateboarder himself, Langley expresses his opinion in the piece by asking for the fair treatment of skateboarders in the urban society. In his view, “People in general, eye most of the skateboarders as misfit or delinquents, adult think of them as criminal types or associate skateboarding with anti-social behavior “(141). This irrational thinking about skateboarders needs to be changed, the city dwellers should keep in mind that skateboarding is just like another form of sport for the urban environment, as natural as riding a bike or ice-skating, Langley claims. There are two reasons for skateboarders to feel mistreated in the urban society that Langley talks about in the article. Firstly, there is never legitimate space for skateboarders to practice their sports. Secondly, the laws that regulate skateboarding are either highly restrictive or never clear enough. So, as Langley offers, first, the city needs to make room for the skateboarders by building more skate parks. Second, the rules and laws should be clearer and more specific so that the cop’s behavior towards the skaters to target them for tickets stops.

Furthermore, Langley does not deny the fact that the cities have tried to treat skateboarders fairly before by building parks, but he complains it still does not solve the problem because most of them are made by non-skaters. Also, Langley argued against the general people's thinking of skateboarding being the reasons for urban environment to get dirty and vandalized. He rather thinks, skaters help to keep it clean since they need smooth surfaces to skate, and they never have to deal with healing ozone, which means they are not polluting the environment.
In my opinion, there is no environmental harm from skateboarding and the skateboarders should be as admired as any other athletes. But, it’s also true that skateboarding can cause accidents by flying skateboards to windows, cars or rolling into traffic in a everyday urban-city life. So, is it really just about the image of skateboarders being rebellious, drug-users, “hooligans”, Or it’s about the safety and keeping the roads less dangerous and less occupied?