Thesis, evidence, refutation, conclusion. These are the key elements (commonly known as "Four Pillars") used to create an argument. Dale Stephens' piece titled "College is a Waste of Time" utilizes these elements to argue the worthiness of obtaining a college education.
Thesis:
Unlike many essays in which the thesis is located in one sentence, this essay's thesis is split throughout the first four paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he ends with the statement "I believe higher education is broken." This, however, is merely a vague opinionated statement. He develops this statement further in the 2nd paragraph, stating, "Our creativity, innovation, and curiosity are schooled out of us." Stephens continues his thesis in paragraph 3. He claims, "College fails to empower us with the skills necessary to become productive members of today’s global entrepreneurial economy." Finally, in beginning the 4th paragraph, he begins with "College is expensive," thus developing all his points to support his thesis.
Evidence:
In paragraph 4, his first reason as to why college is a waste is the high costs involved. Stephens lists multiple statistics to back up this claim. Public university tuition has increased 3.6 times in the past 30 years, according to The College Board Policy Center. The book Academically Adrift (written by two sociology professors) says that 36 percent of college graduates showed no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing after four years of college. Finally, Stephens writes that student loan debt had outpaced credit card debt as of 2010, topping $1 trillion in 2011. By using well-sourced facts, Dale Stephens is able to solidify his initial claim and develop his argument successfully.
Throughout the rest of the essay, he relies less on statistics. While some factual statements are made, he doesn't back them up with reliable sources, causing them to be somewhat less trustworthy than his previous paragraph. He makes anecdotal statements in paragraph 6 such as "Learning by doing—in life, not classrooms—is the best way to turn constant iteration into true innovation." And in the 8th paragraph, "Employers are recruiting on LinkedIn, Facebook, StackOverflow, and Behance. People are hiring on Twitter, selling their skills on Google, and creating personal portfolios to showcase their talent."
Refutation:
Stephens addresses possible refutations with a mature attitude and a reasonable challenge towards said refutations. In regards to people who want a formal education, Stephens tells us "I do not think everyone should leave college, but I challenge my peers to consider the opportunity cost of going to class" (paragraph 9). He acknowledges the fact that his path is not for everyone, avoiding an either/or stance, but challenges us to reconsider our plans.
Many people fear that not going to college leads to a deadbeat lifestyle. He reminds us in paragraph 10 that "the people who indulge in drugs and alcohol do so before, during, and after college."
Concluding Statement:
Also in paragraph 10, Stephens concludes his essay be reiterating his argument from the thesis. "We who take our education outside and beyond the classroom understand how actions build a better world. We will change the world regardless of the letters after our names." This reinforces the idea that college is not needed in order to educate ourselves or become successful in life.
Appeals:
Stephens applies the three appeals of argument throughout his essay in order to drive his points home. Paragraph four is littered with logos as he uses multiple statistics to exemplify the high costs of college education. He references a book written by Daniel Pink in paragraph 6, which develops ethos. The fact that an author's views coincide with his own causes the argument to appear more credible.
People utilize on a variety of argumentative techniques in order to gain support on their views. That being said, some rely more heavily on facts (logos) or credibility (ethos) while others depend on the emotions of the audience (pathos). When it comes to political arguments, emotions can easily take over a debate, leading to quarrels rather than productive conversation. The four clips discussing the Russian Probe controversy highlight different methods of argumentation and their effects on the audience.
Sarah Sanders Argument
Sarah Sanders takes an open stance with the Republicans when making her argument to the reporter. She primarily uses logos, however, there is clearly spin used in many of her statements. "Everything that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were falsely accusing
this president of doing over the past year they were actually doing
themselves," she tells the reporter; while this may be factual, the wording and delivery of the statement antagonizes the Clinton campaign and implies that the DNC did nothing wrong in this situation. Sanders heavily takes an either/or viewpoint in her argument, saying that Trump was "right all along" while Democrats were "wrong all along." Sanders seems to avoid using pathos in order to project a more professional and reliable image, therefore strengthening her ethos at the same time. Her position as political advisor alongside the apparent lack of emotional outrage makes her statements more trustworthy versus arguments such as Tomi Lahren's.
Tomi Lahren Argument
In contrast to the Sarah Sanders clip, Tomi Lahren is very opinionated and uses pathos very heavily in her segment. Her argument is much more informal, using emotionally charged terms such as corrupt, "so ridiculous", and crooks to develop her views. She emphasizes the fact that millions of our tax dollars are being put towards this Russian probe. While this serves as logos as well, it is primarily used as ethos in order to make the audience equally angry with the current circumstances.
She refers to Americans as "hardworking" to acknowledge the efforts that the average citizen faces, giving her more likeability. Due to her informal delivery, her argument is lacking in ethos, as she doesn't present herself as a credible source of information.
Mark Mazzetti Argument
Similar to the first clip, Mark Mazzetti focuses on logos to make his argument. His Republican/Democrat stance is not as apparent, however, as his statements are less skewed. He states, in a concise manner, that the Russia probe began primarily due to George Papadopoulos' drunken banter rather than the dossier. Mazzetti gets his point across without the use of ethos of pathos, but the lack of development towards his argument helps in this case. If he had been too emotional during his statement (ex. name-calling the group giving out misleading information), it may have come across as if he were trying to hide information from the public rather than trying to clear up a miscommunication.
Matt Apuzzo Argument
Matt Apuzzo, unlike some of the others, seems to side less with Trump in this debate. He refers to Papadopoulos as "little" and "inexperienced" which alludes to his side of the argument. That being said, he goes on to use logos, stating directly what information he learned from leaked emails regarding Russian relations with the Trump campaign. He also uses ethos by quoting a "veteran counter-intelligence person" who would likely have more credibility than a journalist such as himself.
Hello Blogspot! My name is Victoria, also known as Vic. I'm an 18 year old freshman at GGC. I am a Virgo (August 24) and was born the year of the rabbit (1999).
When I'm not at school you can typically find me at work or at home. As of now I work as a Hooter's Girl. Many people wonder why I chose this job since I have such a shy personality. Besides the money, of course, I wanted a job that would help me with speaking to new people on a day-to-day basis. While speaking in front of a group still makes me nervous, I'm much better at talking to strangers now.
Aside from work, a few of my hobbies include digital art and cosplay.
Although I haven't drawn much recently in the past few years, I have become more involved in cosplay. I love going to anime/gaming conventions with my friends and having a great time within my element. It's not particularly the coolest hobby, but I think I look pretty good in a wig and wild costume, if I do say so myself! It's also a great way for me to socialize with people who have similar interests as me and make friends outside of my local area.
