Directions: Rewrite your blog, "Determining Arguments." Look for any elements we have so far discussed that you could improve, and also perform a read-aloud with your blog. Eliminate spelling errors, make sure that your blog is in the form of a paragraph, and take any of your peers' constructive criticism into consideration that you think would help improve your argument. Also, now that you can identify logical fallacies, please fix those errors as well.
Check points 2, 3, 5, and 7 on page 14 of Inquiry should help. Also, check out the LBH revising section of the LBH guide posted on D2L.
If you did not perform this blog, then this will be your opportunity to do so. Write a single draft first, check for editing points (perhaps share your intended post with a friend, family member or co-worker for assistance).
Due February 27th before class.
Reply: Free pass. No reply. The initial response will be worth the full 4 points of the week.
The main argument in this video is to show how sound is used for torture during interrogation. The main argument is supported and proven by the effect that different sounds have on the ear based on the decibel level. The main support is a man discussing the torture that he and other inmates endured during their imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. He goes in to so much detail that at some point during the video you can visualize what he experienced. He explained how loud the music would be played causing distortion. I was somewhat convinced by the descriptions given in the middle of the interview. More interviews by different witnesses would have convinced me ten times more. The conclusion ties everything together by proving all of the topics that were discussed throughout the entire video. Without the conclusion, the video could be looked at as nothing, but lies and opinions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe central thesis from “Massive Attack” claims that prolonged use of sound as a tactic for interrogation can have long lasting effects on those subjected to it. The introduction of the video supports this argument with facts concerning human hearing, sound, and decibels; this evidence is presented to the audience from an authoritative figure with expertise in hearing. The main support includes intervals of atrocious noises played to create a sense of understanding for the audience. The obnoxious sounds in the video allow the audience to better relate to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay by experiencing a level of torture themselves. Further evidence of torturous sounds used for interrogation, is offered by a former prisoner of Guantanamo Bay who experienced this type of interrogation first hand. The conclusion blends in with the main support because it involves more firsthand knowledge of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo as well as more annoying sounds/music. The conclusion wraps up the argument with an image of liquid bouncing on top of speakers blasting music; this image symbolizes the internal distortion and damage of the inner ear when exposed to such interrogation tactics.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up as I have in this world of technology, science grows and improves everyday. It is amazing how far we have come and how much knowledge we now know. The problem with science these days is that politics now influence science. Science is supposed to be truth because with science you are able to prove whatever discovery has been discovered. But politics manage whether or not science can be shown to the public, continued with further studies, and it also influences what the public should believe when it comes to science. This is considered consensus science. The problem with consensus science is that it does not always show the actual truth of the matter. Crichton shows many views of this in his argument. He gives examples of stories that have happened where consensus science created problems and would scare the public.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a small town in Southern Idaho that had less than 500 people. The school I went to was preschool through 12th grade and had less than 170 students. This wasn’t exactly what you’d call high hopes for going to college. I grew up on a small dairy farm where I worked very hard. I played sports and did very well in school. During my senior year I began applying for colleges. I had 2 colleges I applied for, BSU and CSI and I was accepted to both. I then had a decision to make, either go to a university and pay about $10,000 a semester or I go to a community college and pay less than $2,000 a semester. My parents may have owned a small dairy, but they didn’t have the money to send me to an expensive college. So with money being my main decision I chose CSI (the community college and hour away). I paid my tuition and books with scholarships. I took 2 semesters there and even with it being a smaller college, I didn’t get any attention or interaction from the professors I was expecting. None of the classes I took had student interaction during class. The professors stayed behind their desks, speaking with their power points or handing out papers and telling us this is what you need to do. I only did 2 semesters because of how poorly the teachers interacted with students and didn’t help them out when they needed it. My grades were not the best, but they were passing. I’d ask a question in class and most of the time the teacher chose not to answer. I then waited 6 years to go back to college. Now I am attending PPCC and am very surprised at how the professors at this college are. They are completely different then the professors I had at the last college I attended. Professors here have the students interact with one another while in class. They answer questions and help their students. Having PPCC professors teach how they do, is more motiving than the CSI professors I had. By having professors who interact with their students and have their students interact in class is not only helpful, but more motiving. With having more motivation there is a more success rate for graduating students. So therefore, having motivating teachers help the success rate for graduating students.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument of this video is how the use of sound can have different effects on humans in different situations such as interrogations. The argument is supported based on the decibel level that a human can handle. It also supports the argument by giving facts and evidence about the human ear and what sounds it can stand and essentially the effects it creates.The main support is the man conversing about his experience is prison at Guantanamo Bay and the tortures that the prisoners had gone through. He describes the pain so detailed that in one part I found myself actually feeling the pain from having different sounds play throughout the video. I was convinced by the hard evidence the author had even though it was a personal statement, I am somewhat convinced by the author. The conclusion goes along with the video because it samples many different noises and sounds proving all of the authors topics throughout the video that was being played.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument from “Massive Attack” states how sound can be used in certain scenarios to cause harm to a victim. The introduction of the video supports the argument by educating its viewers by explaining how different ranges of sound can be harmful to the human ear. The main supports in the video include the introduction about the facts regarding sound and the human ear given by an expert. The prisoner shared his personal experience of how sound/music was used as a method of interrogation against him and how it affected him personally. The visualizations and music played through out the video also support the main argument by exposing the audience to painful sounds and how it can distort and harm the human ear. The conclusion works to wrap up the whole argument by giving a visual representation on how sound can distort and manipulate a victim leaving lasting affects.
ReplyDeleteThis argument illustrates the long lasting effect of loud noise and interrogation can have over time in a hostile environment. The short amount of anguish over a two year period with sound, as explained by a personal experience, can have the capability of having ailments 20 years down the road. As scientific studies have shown, applied examples with experts on sound and demonstrations using liquid helps paint more of a mental image for the viewers.
ReplyDelete