Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Arguing for a Change
I think arguing for a change and arguing for a position are a lot alike. In both of them you are arguing for something you believe in. In arguing for a position you are wanting people to believe you and why you think that way. In arguing for a change you are explaining to the people why a change needs to occur and what they can do to help the change. Jefferson has to convince the people of a change so he lists complaints about the King and tells how badly the King treats his people. In Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto, Johnson is arguing a poistion against Hillary. He thinkings video games are helping the kid's cognitive development and hand-eye coordination. He stats some facts like SAT scores and some studies but is mainly saying that kids are learning from video games.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that in both you argue for something you believe in. Jefferson, in arguing for a change, has to convince everyone not only to believe what he was saying but take action. His best support was citing all of the things that the king did wrong which would make his audience see his point clearer.
After reading your post, it has become more obvious to me that the main similarity between arguing a position and arguing for a change is the support. In both cases, there is oodles of support to convince the readers of their viewpoint.
I agree with your description of the difference in the two types of arguments. Arguing a position is more like a telling of facts and sometimes statistics, to convince someone's beliefs. On the other hand, when arguing a change the author must tell why the change needs to occur, or describe the complaints.
Post a Comment