Chapter 4: Yes/ No/ Okay, But

Picking sides in a situation can be difficult. When you are able to, the challenge doesn’t stop because you have to appear strong and supportive for what you believe. Some writers may choose to stay neutral, but readers would say this makes the writer look weak and confused. The They Say/ I Say writing style can make the writer look weak, if he doesn’t know his topic well and/or doesn’t understand the complexity of the topic being debated. This chapter helped in the fight of listening and still staying firm, so the reader follows your side of the argument.

The reader needs to know your stance on the topic early, so she doesn’t lose interest or get confused. Even if the writer is taking an extreme pro or con position, he needs to be clear on why he is writing. There still needs to be a purpose for writing and if the writer doesn’t contribute to the ongoing conversation he shouldn’t even pick up his pencil.

The author needs to add new information to the current debate. If he is agreeing with a scholar, he can back up the research done by the person by showing what has been done recently to further validate her claims. The writer should summarize what is currently known by those involved and then add his personal view, experience, or any relevant evidence. The writers that spoke before didn’t cover every angle and hole of the argument, so we can stick our views and any unnoticed evidence into the gaps to strengthen our argument.

The writer may need to do some twisting of what has been said to do this part of an argument. He must bring in more evidence to have a reason to write and I could do this in my Rogerian Argument because I have a completely different point of view and reasons why the ALC issue bothers me. I’m going to add evidence to the argument at hand, so people will see my side clearly. Why should I serve the plain cake again when I could add frosting?

Chapter 3: As He Himself Puts It

When working with an argument, the writer needs to give evidence. An appropriate way of doing this is to include quotes from a legitimate source. The quotes the writer chooses are meant to give the writer (and her argument) credibility. The quote should be used to support the argument, but a problem arises when the writer assumes that the quotation speaks for itself. The quote is then just a random bunch of words and doesn’t help the writer’s argument, because it is a “hit and run” quote. The addition of the quote didn’t support the writer’s argument and confused/ distracted the reader from the point being made.

Quotes are a source, so they need to be used to support the overall point of the dispute. They aren’t space fillers and turn into that when they aren’t explained. With the “hit and run”, the writer just throws the quote out there and the writer raises an eyebrow and loses the legitimate point the writer was trying to make. The author needs to slow the car down and explain why she is bringing it up and why it supports her argument. The writer could start by saying who said the quote and why he is credible. This gives a smooth intro into the quote. Then the writer would state the quote. This would be perfectly fine right here if everyone thought about everything exactly the same way and understood every detail written or hidden between the lines, but we don’t, so the writer should then explain what the quote means and how it supports her argument. I would choose to say the quote in my own words, so I could add in why it backs up my argument. This is a way to effectively integrate the source and twist the focus back to the controversy.

The best way to avoid a “hit and run” is to stop and explain every detail. The writer needs to explain where the quote came from, who said it, what it means, and why it is relevant. This shows thought and credibility for the writer. A key quotation gives a pile of support and could make a big difference in the reader’s mind, so use it.

Chapter 2: Her Point Is

I find the goal of having a balancing act to be beneficial because the writer knows what to include in his work. A reason to add a source is to give yourself and your argument credibility. The writer must give the text he is summarizing respect (so he looks responsible), but he needs to let the source lead up to his argument. Putting a source in to fill up space isn’t the point; a source needs to be used in connection and as support of a debatable opinion.

The writer should use a quiet influence to spin the point their way. The problem is figuring out how loud you can get before you become rude. Adding the writer’s voice is easiest when there is either a flaw in an opposing side’s argument or a shining link on the writer’s side of the discussion. Finding a defect to turn people to the writer’s view can be difficult when writing, but once the hole is found, the writer can stick his hand in it and stir things up.

Balancing gives the writer and his side credibility. Giving the opposing side honest, constructive time will show the sources flaws, while making it look like the writer didn’t imagine the holes. The writer needs to use the sources to lead up to the merits of his side. Balancing makes the argument look effortless and therefore the writer’s opinion worth reading.

Stanley Milgrim: The Perils of Obedience

Milgrim’s experiment was ethical and the “trauma” that he put his subjects through was needed for statistical evidence and wasn’t harming anyone. By being obedient to the experimenters, the subjects were “hurting” themselves. No damage was being done in this experiment because no physical harm was being done to anyone involved. If the subject could offset the blame in their head, then he shouldn’t feel responsible for pushing a button.

Humans are not agents of terror. This case makes it look like we are brainless/stupid sidekicks. We feel bad and know it is wrong deep down, but we continue. The authority being used was quite weak; they say it was stronger in the room, but no social control was being used like saying if they didn’t continue they would be killed. It was all voluntary and no damage was caused, so it is ethical. People need to learn to say, “No.”

I would be interested to see if the same statistics occurred if the actor was a family member of the teacher. These cases are constantly happening and employers knew how to maximize safety in coal mines by pairing family members together. In third grade, I would positively adjust my friend’s scores on assignments because I didn’t want them to get bad grades. They would do it for me too. Children don’t want to cause each other sadness by hurting people they know and have to work with later.

We all have a choice to follow authorities that can’t actually make us do anything. The teachers were convinced to help science in its search for answers, but nothing was actually making them do it. A desire to fulfill their roles as tools and a “link in the chain” is what led them to continue. I honestly, as a person who is not normal and royally hates pain, would not have begun the process and would have told them to use my refusal in their conclusion.