ePortfolio

LINK TO ePORTFOLIO!!!

Group Presentation Reviews

Group #1: Should College Athletes Be Paid by Andrew, Francisco and Ivan

There were a few strong points to this presentation that I found to be very persuasive to their argument. First, I had no idea that college athletes were officially employees. That changed my perception entirely. All employees are entitled to some form of security, especially if your mode of work is extremely dangerous and subject to severe injury. Also the fact that many athletes can't obtain proper nutrition is astounding to me considering the mass amounts of profit the NCAA receives per year. A few criticisms I have are that some slides had too much writing on them, and at times the presenters were reading too much. I don't think it was necessary to have the interview script as a slide in the presentation. I think there is a better way to present the information that was obtained from the interviews.

Group #2: Violent Video Games by David, Pavel and Forrest

I think this group did a good job of proving their question true. Knowing that mass murderers testified to using video games as a form of practice for their premeditated murder proves to me that violent video games have a negative effect on the psychology of the individual. I think it would be noteworthy to mention if in any of these incidences, the murderer had a psychological disorder prior to playing video games. That could have strengthened their argument. Their points were clear and concise and it seemed that they had rehearsed well before the presentation.

Goup Presentation Reviews

Group #1: The Truth Behind Diets by Jessica, Randee and Irania

This group did an overall good presentation. The slides contained only brief and concise points and they made good use of visuals. I especially thought the magazine covers made great visuals because most people have at one point looked at them and turned them into an aspiration or unrealistic goal. I think they made good use of logical persuasion (logos) when stating that dieting reflects our self-perception. Using Demi Lavato's personal experience was a perfect play on the audience's emotions and allowed us to witness the effects of having an unrealistic perception of perfection. By showing that dieting can also be good, the group established their credibility.

Group #2: Space Exploration by Blake, Daniel and Doyle

This group did a great job of presenting both sides of their argument on the subject of whether or not space exploration should be a private enterprise. For the pro side, I found it logical to claim that private competition would drive down prices with just a basic knowledge of economics. I didn't entirely agree that private companies would be the source of new innovations and industrial development, for government can contribute to this too. I like that they sourced the first industrial revolution and how labor and resources were exposed to very unethical practices. They made it seem practical that this could happen with the revolution of space exploration as well. I appreciated how the presenters knew what they wanted to say with minimal reading and were enthusiastic about the topic.

Group #3: Hypocrisy is a Whore by Saul, Bryan and Carlo

I was very confused by this presentation. Their argument and stance on prostitution wasn't clear from the very start of the presentation and throughout the presentation. When they would present an opposing or favoring view of prostitution, I wasn't sure if they were agreeing with the point or not. The only argument I was able to follow and agree with is that we as a society have been desensitized to sex, and I found their example of Miley Cyrus to be appropriate. At times, the group would be reading directly from their slides when they should have a grasp on the ideas they want to present.

Group Presentation Reviews

Group #1: Show Me the Money by Dana, Thor, Ben and JB

For the most part, this group was very persuasive, effective and well prepared. I found that there was too much text on the slides and that most of what the speakers had to say was written on the slides. It would have been better if the slides had shorter, more concise points. However, I think the presenters made up for this error by making eye contact with the audience and projecting their voices. I think they did a good job of relating to the audience and putting us in there point of view particularly with the editorial. It was comical, relevant, and persuasive. I'm still not entirely convinced that college athletes should receive payment, but I am convinced that they deserve financial security should they become injured.

Group #2: Fast Food in America by Matt Jose and Brett

This group was very good at relating to the audience with their anecdotal support, for example, talking about how fast food always sounds really satisfying late at night, or how one might crave fast food like they might crave a cigarette. With this anecdotal support they were able to make connections to their argument of how fast food has caused a rise in obesity. They also made a great use of visuals in their presentation. By showing pictures of the obese eating fast food, we could really picture the severity of the problem at hand. I also appreciated how their slides contained only short concise points that were supplemented by the group. They did a good job of showing the opposing view, blaming the rise in obesity on parents, but this left me unsure if I was persuaded by their main argument. I was confused too when they stated at the end that they like fast food and have no problem with it. What was the purpose of your presentation of you didn't even have an issue with the problem.

Group Presentation

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N438i8R_LTue6sT8Otsnh6xlR1oztmrmmRWEZ7VcyoM/edit?usp=sharing

Reflection:

 As a group, we were very good at distributing the workload equally and efficiently. For the content of the presentation, we divided our topic into three subtopics. We did this based off the fact that the academic sources we retrieved focus on distinct aspects of marijuana legalization. Thai's articles focused on the economy, Melissa's focused on changes to the justice system and mine were geared toward social change and the safety of marijuana use. We proceeded to do extensive research on our topics and find a way to relate them back to the same problem and question. When composing a power point presentation, interview script, and speech outline, we all contributed insightful thoughts and ideas.
I think the only challenges we faced as a group was finding a time slot to meet in person. As an individual, I struggled to find an interviewee that had an insightful point-of-view and credible experience with witnessing the impact of drug cartels and marijuana use on society. I was able to overcome that problem eventually with enough searching, but I still had a challenge speaking during the presentation. I felt confident, and I said everything that I believe was necessary for our argument. However, I have trouble with talking too rapidly. I hope that my part in the presentation was clear, concise and slow enough for everyone to receive my ideas.
As a group I believe we deserve full credit for having for having identified a clear problem with the legality of marijuana and supporting our argument and stance with credible and logical information. As an individual, I'm satisfied with the research and composition that I contributed in order to argue that marijuana legalization will increase the safety of the public. My demonstration of persuasion techniques such as credibility, logical and emotional appeals were proficient and deserving of an A on this assignment.

Response Paper #3

Annotated Bibliography

Caulkins, Jonathan, et al. "Design Considerations for Legalizing Marijuana." Addiction 107.5 (2012): 865-871.

The authors of this article have graduates in public policy, law and criminology. They aim to enlighten readers of the potential effects of legalizing marijuana and discuss possibilities for how such a law would be implemented. This article does not declare a bias, but the authors argue that legalizing marijuana would raise tax revenues, eliminate arrests and save costs to law enforcement, stop illegal trade of drugs, ensure the safeness of cannabis products, and prevent underage youth from obtaining marijuana. The intended audience is for voters considering advocating for the legalization of marijuana or voting in favor of it. The research methods used was an analysis of recent ballots proposed to legalize marijuana. The article concludes that the sale price of marijuana would go down if legalized and consumption would rise. Whether or not the tax revenues will be sizable depends on numerous variables. The article has an extensive works cited and reference page. It was very organized and easy to look for specific information. This paper is limited because it is based off of speculated effects of legalization. There is no case study or analysis of other states that have legalized marijuana.

This text was very relevant to the research needed for my paper. One of our group's goals is to demonstrate how legalization will reduce crime rates and save money for tax payers. This article is a great reference for this point. It talks about how the justice system can refocus its efforts to other more serious crimes. My reaction to this article was very positive. It does a great job of pointing out the benefits to legalization and the flaws the law can have.

Bloomquist, Edward R. "Marijuana: social benefit or social detriment?." California medicine 106.5 (1967): 346.

The author has his credentials as a Medical Doctor. The article analyzes the typological features of marijuana, the effects it has on the body, clinical and social uses of the drug and the attitudes and arguments people have for marijuana today. The author's main argument is that the attitudes about legalizing and using marijuana are flawed. The intended audience is for those who are in favor of legalizing and using marijuana; specifically people who have these attitudes but are uneducated on the facts of the matter. The author concludes that marijuana can be and is damaging to the individual and society. Issues with legalizing alcohol are still unsolved, so he asks why we should take on another unsolvable legal issue. The text has multiple reliable sources lending it credibility. 

This text is perfect for our group research project. It presents an opposing view on the matter of legalization and he gives arguments that are sometimes difficult to refute. I was able to agree with the author on many of his points, but his bias and use of charged language makes the benefits to legalizing marijuana seem insignificant. His points will help motivate our group's arguments.

Response Paper #2

Recently, over spring break, I visited the city of San Diego for the first time. While I was there, I experienced a dessert shop that's very simple but innovative and genius. It's called The Baked Bear, and you can customize and create a wide variety of ice cream sandwiches. It's located on Mission Blvd, the main street running along Pacific Beach. Surrounding the dessert shop are a number of surf and clothing shops along with an assortment of restaurants providing fast comfort food. The exterior of the shop is covered in a smooth gray stucco and bare except for the sign proclaiming "Baked Bear" with an image of a polar bear's head, wearing sun glasses and eating an ice cream sandwich. The inside of the store is a very laid back and social setting. The floor is smooth light gray concrete, and the walls are lined with rustic hardwood that looks to have been weathered by the beach. The borders and trim of the walls and menus are lined with an ocean blue color, and the counter is made of glossy metal. Right when you walk in, the ordering counter is stocked with cookies of every kind along with brownies and waffles. You can pick any two cookies you like and the ice cream you want to sandwich between them. I came here because it offered a delicious and cool snack after a long afternoon of walking along the beach in the sun. It attracts people of all demographics, from young to old. Most of the people who frequent the place are the college students who live in the fraternity houses near by, but it's also very successful at attracting tourists and local San Diego residents. I would love to go back! The sunshine and sugar are such a fun and happy combination.

 If I had a free ticket to anywhere in the world, it would be a year long travel pack to fly around the world. There's too many sites to see and cultures to experience for me to pick one place to be.

Free Jointy!

The object I've created revolves around the controversy of legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational purposes. Should marijuana be legal? The answer is not so simple to most people. My object can interpret a few of these complicated reasons. Upon first glance, it is clear that there is a very large, personified joint holding on to the bars of a cage. The joint is made with cloth, moss and rubber arms and legs from a reused doll. The green moss is used to represent marijuana and is comically placed to look like hair. Googly eyes and a plastic smile are used for the face. The eyes are half closed and bloodshot, alluding to the fact that the joint figure is stoned. The cage is constructed with a glass floor and jewelry wire for the bars and ceiling, and it's painted black to give it a serious, ominous tone. The black color of the cage resonates more with the idea of a prison.

The intended audience for this 3-D structure is for those who have a negative outlook on the use of marijuana, and especially for those who have a negative view of marijuana users. The people of this audience would look at the joint and see that he is clearly stoned. The mascot captures the stereotypical negative connotation of “stoners.” One can even make the satirical connection of calling him a “pot-head” because his hair is literally made of pot. His “chinky”, blood-shot eyes, smile and easy going attitude at being in prison have certain emotional and logical appeals to this view. Why would a person be smiling when they're in prison? The logical connection is that they must be stupid which confirms the stereotype that all stoners are stupid. It evokes the emotion of pity and shame, and one who thinks negatively of marijuana would think lesser of this person.

This joint also appeals to the voting class that would prefer marijuana to be a legal substance. This crowd would look at the structure and ask “Why is such a harmless, happy individual locked up?” Just because someone chose to use marijuana, does it make them a bad person? Does it make them a threat to society? Does it make them a threat to themselves? Many people in this community would say no. Enjoying the effects of marijuana is not a bad thing. It does not necessarily make them a threat to society, nor does it make them a threat to themselves. To legally penalize someone for simply using marijuana is an injustice by itself. However, the audience could also interpret hope from this percieved injustice. The bars of the prison are very thin and placed widely apart. It would seem that it would be very easy for jointy to escape. This could reflect the various states that have legalized medical marijuana and the two that have decriminalized it.

This idea relates directly back to Campaign Flyer #1 from The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. This political organization would argue that marijuana is used for the same purposes as alcohol: to have a good time in a social environment or unwind after a long, stressful day. They give statistics to show that alcohol is also dangerous to the user and possibly more dangerous than marijuana, but alcohol is legal and regulated. So why is this joint seen as a bad thing?

One answer to that question can come from the article Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons. In this article, the Mayo Clinic outlines the known negative effects that marijuana has on the body. It causes impaired balance, coordination and short-term memory and learning abilities. This is similar to the effects of alcohol and can be dangerous given the circumstance. However, alcohol is also regulated to penalize those that become a danger to society and not those who are using it responsibly. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has proven medicinal benefits. It causes reduced nausea and pain, increased appetite, mood elation, reduced anxiety and relaxation. Jocelyn Elders will point out that the medical community recognizes the medical benefits of marijuana in her editorial Myths about Medical Marijuana.

Can the positive medical uses be used as an argument for pro-recreational use? Would people be more comfortable with marijuana users if marijuana had the same regulations as alcohol. Whether the audience's answer is yes or no, all of their arguments and views can be sparked by this seemingly simple and comical object.

Where would it be appropriate to place a structure such as this? Whether we see it as a good or bad substance the controversy of marijuana use is a large part of our culture, and its political history would best be remembered in a museum as an art piece. Just as prohibition of the early 20^th century is remembered through modernist art, one day the political debate over marijuana will be remembered by future generations through the art of present day.

Like most works of art, the making of this piece did not come without challenges. For starters, I'm not a professional cage welder. Despite the cage's simplicity, it was rather difficult to construct. It took quite a bit of measuring to determine the proper length of each wire, and it was quite time consuming to bend it straight. The wire had to be glued to the glass flooring and held in place one piece at a time. Another not-so-easy task was the rolling of the joint. Making a joint as large as this one with cloth and moss instead of paper and weed had it's complications. It's density made it hard to stand it upright with the rubber legs, but with enough glue, it prevailed.

I can't tell myself that I deserve an A on this assignment based on my mediocre crafting and artistic abilities. However crappy it may look, it is very obvious what it is, and my intended message is not difficult to interpret. By looking at it, one can tell that a joint in a jail-cell alludes to the illegality of marijuana. This very idea sparks the questioning of its justice and morality. I put a lot of thought into how I could capture such a heated debate with an object. Creating an object that looked like the components of cannabis or the materials used to smoke it wasn't deep enough, and it wouldn't have expressed any particular message. What I finally produced after much brainstorming is something I find to be very symbolic and original. I hope this will persuade you into judging my project as A material.

Works Cited

Elders, Jocelyn. (2004) “Myths about Medical Marijuana”. Editorial. Providence Journal

The Mayo Clinic. (2006) “Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons”. Article. www.mayoclinic.com.

2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. “Campaign Flyer #1”. http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/flyer1

Visual Rhetoric Uncompleted Model

The model includes a personified joint, made with cloth, moss and rubber arms and legs from a reused doll. The completed joint will have googly eyes and a plastic smiley face. The joint is inside a cage constructed with a glass floor and jewelry wire for the bars and ceiling. The joint inside a cage or prison is used to symbolize the illegality of marijuana. This silly, personified form of a joint is also meant to capture the negative stereotype of marijuana users. I used wire for the bars of the cage to create an analogy. The arguments keeping marijuana from being legal are thin and few but strong. The completed mascot is meant to look happy and harmless for the purpose of raising the question "Why is the stoner behind bars?"

Genre Analysis Draft 3

Beyond the Cover: an Analysis of Textual Conventions

            Is it true when we say “Don’t judge a book by its cover?” Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say “Don’t interpret a text for face value?” It’s so common today for us to read or listen to something and make an instantaneous decision of whether or not we are persuaded. What if the information is being presented with a tone that makes it seem more logical or emotionally appealing? What if the author’s language and writing style makes him or her seem more credible than he or she really is? I’m talking of course about rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are writing techniques used to convey a meaning and persuade its audience. Sometimes they are articulated so well that we don’t even notice them or how they are affecting our interpretations of a text.

            Although we may not always recognize rhetorical devices, identifying a genre is much more obvious. We can identify a genre by using rhetorical devices such as layout, language, theme, and we can do so without even realizing our use of rhetorical devices. In this paper, I will be looking at three genres that talk about the same subject: the medical and recreational use of marijuana. The first section will be a comparative analysis of the rhetorical devices used in these three different genres. In the second section, I’ll talk about how these devices made the texts more or less persuasive and how they create a relationship between the genre, message and delivery. By doing such an analysis, I hope to create a rhetorical awareness that allows me to more accurately judge the value of a text.

Part One: Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Devices

             For this analysis, I have chosen texts that are centered around the theme of medical and recreational marijuana use. They each share a similar purpose of educating their audience on the effects of using marijuana, but they are also persuading the audience to take different actions after reading the text. In the editorial Myths about Medical Marijuana, author Jocelyn Elders is arguing against many of the negative beliefs that the public has on marijuana and health. Her message is that marijuana has been proven to treat many symptoms caused by severe illnesses. In an academic article, Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons, the Mayo Clinic discusses how marijuana effects the body and why specifically it can be used to treat certain symptoms. Unlike Jocelyn Elders however, the Mayo clinic provides the negative effects and risks of using marijuana. The messages of these two articles are similar in that they talk about marijuana’s positive effects, but Elders’ purpose is to persuade readers to support the legalization of medical marijuana without hesitation, whereas the Mayo Clinic would advise you to weigh the consequences and benefits before making such a decision.

            On a completely different view about marijuana use, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol would like to persuade their audience that marijuana is okay to use recreationally. The CRMA is a political organization that was devoted to advocating the passage of amendment 64, which made marijuana legal for adults in Colorado as of December 2012. Both Elders and the Mayo Clinic agree that marijuana has positive effects for medical purposes, but the CRMA’s message from Campaign Flyer #1 is that it can be used for the same purposes as alcohol. The CRMA doesn’t caution the public about marijuana’s negative effects like The Mayo Clinic. Instead they claim that marijuana is a safer to use than alcohol. This can imply that marijuana has some risks, but is tailored to persuading the audience that marijuana is a safe alternative recreational substance.

            Based off of the different messages and purposes of these texts, we can identify the intended audience for them. All three texts are targeting the voting population to persuade them on the political issue of marijuana, but they are aimed at voters with different ideologies. Elders wants to persuade voters who have negative and false beliefs about medical marijuana. She hopes that they will vote in favor of medical marijuana laws. Similarly, the CRMA is targeted at people with negative ideologies of marijuana, but they want voters to support the legalization of recreational marijuana use. The Mayo Clinic is more of an informational piece for voters than it is a persuasive one. Although it considers the pros, it gives voters reason to doubt the safety and effectiveness of marijuana by mentioning the cons of its usage.

            In order to support the message and purpose of a text, the author uses conventions such as tone, language and visuals. The flyer for CRMA makes use of all three. On the cover of the flyer, there is an intelligent and friendly looking woman that appears to be making eye contact with the reader. The language of the flyer is in first person and the tone is very relaxed and informal, so it seems as though you’re having a conversation with the unnamed woman while reading. This helps the campaigners relate to the audience on a personal level. The tone stipulates that marijuana users are average people with appropriate and intelligible things to say.

            Unlike the CRMA’s casual and amicable language, Elders employs a very passionate and argumentative tone. Though her language is very formal, it is clear that she is very impatient with the fact that medical marijuana is not legal in Rhode Island. The Mayo Clinic however demonstrates their information without emotion or political opinion. The article’s use of medical and scientific language makes the clinic sound more rational and logical rather than driven by an agenda.

            Along with the differences in tone and language, these texts also contrast with their format and layout. Elders’ editorial has a very brief introduction and stated purpose and then jumps straight into a body of short paragraphs. This is because she wants to quickly grab the reader’s attention, establish a status quo, and destabilize it. On the other hand, the Mayo Clinic states their thesis at below the title. This allows the reader to know what the article is about before they invest their time in reading it. The format of the CRMA flyer is completely different. It starts with a bold, large attention grabbing statement: “Some folks prefer alcohol. My Preference is marijuana.”(Campaign Flyer #1 front). Below that are quick, concise facts and opinions next to their visual of a woman. They finish by placing a rhetorical and reflective question at the bottom.

            Finally, one should always check the author’s credibility and sources to make sure they’re receiving trustworthy information. Jocelyn Elders gives her background as a previous surgeon general and a currently working professor of public health. The Mayo Clinic provides their medical foundations official name for reference, and the CRMA cites the sources of the facts and statistics they used for their flyer. Without a demonstrated background or list of sources, the information in these texts would be regarded as invalid.

Part Two: Personal Analysis

            In order for me to find a text persuasive, I like them to provide specific examples of their competitors opposing view before proving it wrong. If this method doesn’t persuade the audience to change their ideology, it can at the least get them to question the value of their beliefs. Jocelyn Elders does a great job of this in her editorial especially when she debunks this view:

“’The medical community doesn’t support this (medical marijuana); just a bunch of drug legalizers do.’ The truth: Numerous medical and public-health organizations support legal access to medical marijuana.” (18-19)

Her ability to destabilize this belief and support her opinion with facts from the medical community helped convince me to change my views.

The text I found to be most effective was Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons from the Mayo Clinic. Even though the Mayo Clinic does not declare a bias or opinion, I like how they present both sides of the spectrum using scientific evidence.

“Younger people may find marijuana more useful as a treatment for nausea than do older people — who may not tolerate its mind-altering side effects as well. The prescription form, dronabinol, also may produce psychological side effects that make it inappropriate for some older people. Doctors generally prescribe several kinds of newer anti-nausea drugs with fewer side effects.” (pg. 2)

In this segment of the article, they talk about how the mind-altering effects of marijuana aren’t safe or tolerable for everyone. By identifying both the positive and negative effects of marijuana, the Mayo Clinic allows the reader to make a judgment for themselves. Do the consequences outweigh the benefits? For some people, deciding whether or not marijuana’s benefits are worth the health risks isn’t so obvious. I think this article helps in determining that choice.

            Because I like to see both sides to a coin, I found that the CRMA’s flyer was the least persuasive. They didn’t make an attempt to demonstrate any negative side effects of marijuana. Their main point was to create an ideology that marijuana is safer than alcohol without talking about the risks of using it. One of their bulleted facts stated: “About 37,000 U.S. deaths per year are attributed to the health effects of alcohol. Marijuana? Zero.” (Campaign Flyer #1 back). This is a false fact that can be refuted by the Mayo Clinic.

“Marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogens.” ( pg.3)

Although no one has been documented to have died from the immediate effects of marijuana use, that does not mean that there aren’t deaths caused by the long term usage of marijuana. If the CRMA had provided more truthful statistics, I may have been more persuaded.

            Whether or not the audience is persuaded, texts like these have an important impact on the individual and society as a whole. We use texts to gain a second hand understanding of the world around us. Most of society does not have the means or capability of making hands on discoveries like scientists, explorers, and politicians. Although our life experiences will shape us, so will the texts we read. Many of our opinions, beliefs, values and philosophies come from a written or spoken source that is not our own.

Since texts make up such a vast part of our knowledge, it is important that we know how to analyze textual conventions. In this paper, I took a close look at the rhetorical devices from three texts of different genres. After doing so, I talked about the effectiveness of their persuasive techniques as they relate to me. With this skill, I can read or see a text and not take its perspective for granted.

Works Cited

Elders, Jocelyn. (2004) “Myths about Medical Marijuana”. Editorial. Providence Journal

The Mayo Clinic. (2006) “Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons”. Article.            E:\Marijuana as medicine  Consider the pros and cons.htm 

2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. “Campaign Flyer #1”.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/flyer1

Genre Analysis Draft 2

Beyond the Cover: an Analysis of Textual Conventions

Is it true when we say “Don’t judge a book by its cover?” Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say “Don’t interpret a text for face value?” It’s so common today for us to read or listen to something and make an instantaneous decision of whether or not we are persuaded. What if the information is being presented with a tone that makes it seem more logical or emotionally appealing? What if the author’s language and writing style makes him or her seem more credible than he or she really is? I’m talking of course about rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are writing techniques used to convey a meaning and persuade its audience. Sometimes they are articulated so well that we don’t even notice them or how they are affecting our interpretations of a text.

Although we may not always recognize rhetorical devices, identifying a genre is much more obvious. We can identify a genre by using rhetorical devices such as layout, language, theme, and we can do so without even realizing our use of rhetorical devices. In this paper, I will be looking at three genres that talk about the same subject: marijuana. The first section will be a comparative analysis of the rhetorical devices used in these three different genres. In the second section, I’ll talk about how these devices made the texts more or less persuasive and how they create a relationship between the genre, message and delivery. By doing such an analysis, I hope to create a rhetorical awareness that allows me to more accurately judge the value of a text.

Part One: Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Devices

  For this analysis, I have chosen texts that are centered around the theme of medical and recreational marijuana use. They each share a similar purpose of educating their audience on the effects of using marijuana, but they are also persuading the audience to take different actions after reading the text. In the editorial Myths about Medical Marijuana, author Jocelyn Elders is arguing against many of the negative beliefs that the public has on marijuana and health. Her message is that marijuana has been proven to treat many symptoms caused by severe illnesses. In an academic article, Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons, the Mayo Clinic discusses how marijuana effects the body and why specifically it can be used to treat certain symptoms. Unlike Jocelyn Elders however, the Mayo clinic provides the negative effects and risks of using marijuana. The message between these two articles are similar in that they talk about marijuana’s positive effects, but Elders’ purpose is to persuade readers to support the legalization of marijuana without hesitation, whereas the Mayo Clinic would advise you to weigh the consequences and benefits before making such a decision.

On a completely different view about marijuana use, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol would like to persuade their audience that marijuana is okay to use recreationally. The CRMA is a political organization that was devoted to advocating the passage of amendment 64, which made marijuana legal for adults in Colorado as of December 2012. Both Elders and the Mayo Clinic agree that marijuana has positive effects for medical purposes, but the CRMA’s message from one of their campaign flyers is that it can be used for the same purposes as alcohol. Unlike the Mayo Clinic which discusses the negative effects of marijuana, the CRMA only discusses how marijuana is safer than alcohol. This can imply that marijuana has some risks, but is tailored to persuading the audience that marijuana is a safe alternative recreational substance.

Based off of the different messages and purposes of these texts, we can identify the intended audience for them. All three texts are targeting the voting population to persuade them on the political issue of marijuana, but they are aimed at voters with different ideologies. Elders wants to persuade voters who have negative and false beliefs about medical marijuana in the hopes that they will vote in favor of medical marijuana laws. Similarly, the CRMA is targeted to people with negative ideologies of marijuana but for recreational rather than medical use. The Mayo Clinic is more of an informational piece for voters than it is a persuasive one. Although it considers the pros, it gives voters reason to doubt the safety and effectiveness of marijuana by mentioning the cons of its usage.

In order to support the message and purpose of a text, the author uses conventions such as tone, language and visuals. The flyer for CRMA makes use of all three. On the cover of the flyer, there is an intelligent and friendly looking woman that appears to be making eye contact with the reader. The language of the flyer is in first person and the tone is very relaxed and informal, so it seems as though you’re having a conversation with the unnamed woman while reading. This helps the campaigners relate to the audience on a personal level. The tone stipulates that marijuana users are average people with appropriate and intelligible things to say.

Unlike the CRMA’s casual and amicable language, Elders employs a very passionate and argumentative tone. Though her language is very formal, it is clear that she is very impatient with the fact that medical marijuana is not legal in Rhode Island. The Mayo Clinic however demonstrates their information very professionally and without political opinion. The article’s use of medical and scientific language makes the clinic sound more rational and logical rather than driven by an agenda.

Along with the differences in tone and language, these texts also contrast with their format and layout. Elders’ editorial has a very brief introduction and stated purpose and then jumps straight into a body of short paragraphs in which she gives a status quo and destabilizes it. On the other hand, the Mayo Clinic starts off with their thesis and then has clearly divided sections for the different subjects of the article. The format of the CRMA flyer is completely different. It starts with a bold and large statement to grab attention at the top of the page. Below that are quick, concise facts and opinions next to their visual of a woman. They finish by placing a rhetorical and reflective question at the bottom.

Finally, one should always check the author’s credibility and sources to make sure they’re receiving trustworthy information. Jocelyn Elders gives her background as a previous surgeon general and a currently working professor of public health. The Mayo Clinic provides their medical foundations official name for reference, and the CRMA cites the sources of the facts and statistics they used for their flyer. Without a demonstrated background or list of sources, the information in these texts would be regarded as invalid.

Part Two: Personal Analysis

In order for me to find a text persuasive, I like them to provide specific examples of their competitors opposing view and prove it wrong. If this method doesn’t persuade the audience to change their ideology, it can at the least get them to question the value of their beliefs. Jocelyn Elders does a great job of this in her editorial especially when she debunks this view;

“’The medical community doesn’t support this (medical marijuana); just a bunch of drug legalizers do.’ The truth: Numerous medical and public-health organizations support legal access to medical marijuana.” (18-19)

Her ability to destabilize this belief and support her opinion with facts from the medical community helped convince me to change my views, but the text I found to be most effective was Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons from the Mayo Clinic.

Even though the Mayo Clinic does not declare a bias or opinion, I like how they present both sides of the scientific evidence on the effects of marijuana.

“Younger people may find marijuana more useful as a treatment for nausea than do older people — who may not tolerate its mind-altering side effects as well. The prescription form, dronabinol, also may produce psychological side effects that make it inappropriate for some older people. Doctors generally prescribe several kinds of newer anti-nausea drugs with fewer side effects.” (pg. 2)

By identifying both the positive and negative effects of marijuana, the Mayo Clinic allows the reader to make a judgment for themself on whether or not the consequences outweigh the benefits. For some people, deciding whether or not marijuana’s benefits are worth the health risks isn’t so obvious. I think this article helps in determining that choice.

Because I like to see both sides to a coin, I found that the CRMA flyer was not very persuasive. They didn’t make an attempt to demonstrate any negative side effects of marijuana. Their main point was to create an ideology that marijuana is safer than alcohol without talking about the risks of using it. One of their bulleted facts stated: “About 37,000 U.S. deaths per year are attributed to the health effects of alcohol. Marijuana? Zero.” This is a false fact that can be refuted by the Mayo Clinic;

“Marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and

respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogens.” ( pg.3)

Although no one has been documented to have died from the immediate effects of marijuana use, that does not mean that there aren’t deaths caused by the long term usage of marijuana. If the CRMA had provided more truthful statistics, I may have been more persuaded.

Whether or not the audience is persuaded, texts like these have an important impact on the individual and society as a whole. We use texts to understand the world around us and gain second hand knowledge, for most of society does not have the means or capability of making hands on discoveries like scientists, explorers, and politicians. Although our life experiences will shape us, so will the texts we read. Many of our opinions, beliefs, values and philosophies come from a written or spoken source that is not our own.

Since texts make up such a vast part of our knowledge, it is important that we know how to analyze textual conventions. In this paper, I took a close look at the rhetorical devices from three texts of different genres. After doing so, I talked about the effectiveness of their persuasive techniques as they relate to me. With this skill, I can read or see a text and not take its perspective for granted.

 

Works Cited

Elders, Jocelyn. (2004) “Myths about Medical Marijuana”. Editorial. Providence Journal

The Mayo Clinic. (2006) “Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons”. Article. www.mayoclinic.com.

2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. “Campaign Flyer #1”.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/flyer1