Writing I

Writing II

Synthesis Essay Final Payton Klatt Miss Mary Writing 102 Social Mobility in “The American Dream” In today’s society the traditional “American Dream” of working hard and prospering until retirement has come under fire. More and more the divide between social classes and lack of social mobility has driven a cleaver in between the dream and actuality. Today many lower class citizens have seen their share of America’s wealth dwindle away until they are left with nothing. Often the lower classes work most of their lives living in terrible conditions with no hope for prosperity. In Toni Cade Bambara’s short story The Lesson and especially in Susan Neuman’s article The American dream: Slipping Away? , education is one tool that is introduced to help lessen the gap between social classes and help restore America’s perception of the American Dream with Neuman’s article providing better evidence by including verifiable facts and studies. In The Lesson, social mobility and the health of our economic divide is seen through the perspective of a poor black girl. A woman who recently moved into the neighborhood, Miss Moore, tutors the girl. Miss Moore is a college graduate who is concerned about the education of the neighborhood children. While teaching them educational and life lessons, Miss Moore takes them to a toy store in an affluent part of downtown. The lesson today was summarized by the questions Sugar, one of the neighborhood children, raised at the end. This uneducated preteen eloquently presents the problem that plagues our society, “what kind of a society it is in which some people can spend on a toy what it would cost to feed a family of six or seven” (Bambara 258). This problem raises a lot of questions about the validity of social mobility and the American Dream. In The American Dream: Slipping Away?, an academic approach is taken to assess the problem of social inequality. Factors like early exposure, parent involvement and how the child is raised are all introduced as ways that social mobility has lessened over time. An academic study done in 2012 by the author, Neuman, and his partner, Celano, cite early academic exposure as one of the strongest methods of increasing social mobility. Their theory, “the amount of early access to print and the quality of adult support young children receive set in motion a process that either accelerates or delays literacy development and knowledge acquisition” was later confirmed in this study (Neuman, S.B., & Celano, D. (2006)). This text, because more academic in nature, provides more factual and presentable information for the reason of the fading of the American Dream. Both texts are very similar in their approach to addressing the problem. With the narrative approach of The Lesson social mobility and the American Dream can be summed up in Sugar’s closing remarks. Coming from a girl with no education she sees the problem as “equal chance to pursue happiness means an equal crack at the dough” (Bambara). She sees the pursuit of happiness and The American Dream just as an equal opportunity to make money. This thought is further expanded on in The American Dream: Slipping Away?. The second text analyzes reasons and the background concepts behind the pursuit mentioned by Sugar. The second text explains that children “ construct an understanding of how print works through

WRIT | 102 | Writing II | lecture notes | Synthesis Essay Final Payton K

Casual_Arguement.docx-Payton Klatt Causal Argument Writ 102

This article, written by Trent Franks, argues that Obamacare is unconstitutional because it was started in the Senate, and all revenue raising bills, such as Obamacare, are constitutionally bound to start in the House. Franks defends this using Constitutional references, historical claims, and political arguments. Franks is staunchly against Obamacare, and rigorously attacks it in this article. To do so, he uses several arguments. He, himself, is man of authority on the subject, given that he is a member of Congress representing Arizona’s 8 th district in the House of Representatives. He has a long political background which allows him to provide a strong, detailed case against the constitutionality of Obamacare. As a member of the House of Representatives, he is fully aware of the fact that all revenue-raising bills must originate in the House, so his claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional is backed by that fact. What Mr. Franks fails to recognize, is the legitimacy of whether or not this is an actual revenue-raising bill. He states that it is supposed to raise over $675 billion in revenue, but he does not go into enough detail as to whether or not it is clearly defined as that type of bill. Mr. Franks also makes a strong appeal to his audience by citing historical references to back his argument. By citing the Framers of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers, specifically when he says, “Our Founding Fathers were justifiably concerned that the power to raise and levy taxes should originate in the people’s house, whose members are closest to the electorate with two-year terms, rather than the Senate, whose members sit unchallenged for six-year terms, do not proportionally represent the American population, and already enjoy their own unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by the Framers between the two chambers.” Citing a founding principle of the United States allows his readers to think back on their sense of patriotism and apply it to his argument. Every American can feel a strong passion towards our Founding Fathers, so Franks does a good job of referencing them to draw the attention of his readers. Franks also uses the Origination Clause of the Constitution to back his argument. He uses it as an example to show that our Founding Fathers wanted each American to defend the Constitution, and by allowing Obamacare to pass unchallenged, we are ignoring that pledge. This argument can be taken either way. He does make a strong case as to why it is legitimate by citing other parts of the Constitution to prove why Obamacare as unconstitutional, but Frank’s argument that we are not defending the Constitution by letting Obamacare go through can be viewed as a bit radical and blown out of proportion. He assumes that his audience believes that the conservative and originalist approach to the Constitution is the absolute correct one rather than taking both the conservative as well as the liberal point of view on the Constitution into account. This lack of consideration towards both sides can turn off some of his readers due to its one-sided nature. In light of this, I find that Mr. Franks’ argument is a strong one, but I don’t believe it is overly effective. Political arguments that appear one-sided, which are written often, are hard to appeal to people on the other side of the political spectrum. Political beliefs are hard to change and rough to maneuver through. People rarely even consider the other side of the argument when it comes to politics. Because of this, Mr. Franks’ argument is only effective towards the conservative portion of his audience. As a conservative myself, I find that the argument is very appealing, and I agree with every fact that he used to back up his argument. As for his liberal readers, I can assure you that they would find his argument to be false and irrelevant. As a political writer, it is very difficult to get your message across without running into the opposition’s negative feedback. That is simply how politics in this country work. Mr. Franks defends his stance on the issue without showing how the other side’s point of view may have standing. As a reader, it is difficult to find a middle ground unless you are uninvolved in politics. Therefore, the argument that Franks makes is effective towards the right side of the political

WRIT | 101 | Writing I | lecture notes | This article  written by Trent

reflective_essay_rough_draft.docx-Hall 1 Griffin Hall Ms. Harper

“The word, the right word, the apt word, is the opposable thumb of the mind. It's not important that I be noticed. It's important that my work be noticed. The genius of genius is endurance!” proclaimed Rick Cannon as he began his class on the first day of English III, during my junior year of high school. That phrase, said before each class, has stuck with me to this day and continues to have an impact on me. Mr. Cannon was one of the best teachers that I have ever had in my career as a student. He was a tall, about 6’4”, man who had the look of an esteemed professor but also had a welcoming attitude and calm presence about him. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and even played basketball for them. He knew how to connect with young men, and that made class a lot easier for my colleagues and I. Going into the class, I was not excited as I would be leaving it. Mr. Cannon had an infamous reputation among Gonzaga students as being incredibly tough and giving out a lot of homework. I had spoken with my parents about possibly rearranging my schedule in order to switch teachers, but my mother saved me by noting that the typically the toughest teachers that you have are the ones that have the biggest impact on you. I credit Mr. Cannon for making me into the writer that I am today. On the first day of class, Mr. Cannon gave us a laminated sheet with the title, Writing is Rewriting. Mr. Cannon emphasized this point continuously through our assignments. Every paper that we were assigned, at least one a week, required three revisions as well as no more than three grammatical errors. If there was more than three, he would hand it back to you without a grade. If that was the case with your paper, you would have to correct the errors and turn it back in. Once you received a grade on it, you could rewrite it for a higher grade but only after three more revisions. In order to succeed, you had to show proficiency with grammatical accuracy and illustrate your topic like an artist would a painting. There were no short cuts in Mr. Cannon’s class. Mr. Cannon’s Writing is Rewriting sheet had ten rules of writing on them. The first two concerned the attitude of writing a paper, and they were as follows: write to express, not to impress, and be proud of what you write. When I write a paper, I try to apply these rules. Often, students find themselves trying to impress their teachers with a plethora of strong vocabulary without really addressing the issue or topic that they are discussing. I try my best to express my thoughts on a subject using the vocabulary and knowledge that I have, but I make sure that my point is getting across and not getting lost in flowery language. Being proud of what you write is very important. Writing about something that you are not confident in defeats the purpose of the assignment. My writing reflects what I truly believe in. Mr. Cannon’s biggest motto, rewrite always, fell under the category of the plan of how to compose a paper. As previously stated, writing a paper in Mr. Cannon’s class required revision after revision. It seemed tedious to me in the beginning of the year, but after writing a couple of papers, I found out just how beneficial it was. Small mistakes and instances that lacked depth and illustration became much more apparent to me as I revised more of my papers. Mr. Cannon also made us revise our papers in twenty-four hour sessions. This also came off as unnecessary to me, but if you think about it, reading the same paper you wrote five minutes prior will not allow you to see as much as that you could improve as opposed to if you looked at the paper a day later. The third and final section of Mr. Cannon’s ten rules of writing concerned the execution of composing a paper. This part of the process of a writing a paper gets really nitpicky, but it pays off. The seven rules of execution are as follows: limit copulative verbs, especially forms of ‘to be’, choose the exact word, avoid clichés, use cautiously the simile, metaphor, and personification, set inanimate objects against one another, vary sentence structure and create transitions, and proofread your final copy. All of these rules make a paper complete. Eliminating

All courses in WRIT

Popular Documents