"To Fix Health, Help the Poor"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The authors of this article, Elizabeth Bradley and Lauren Taylor, analyze  not only health care spending, as most other studies have done, but combine these numbers with the amount America spends on things like rent subsidies and unemployment benefits, and comparing it to other countries.  The authors use diction, details and syntax to convince readers that we must spend more money on social welfare projects.

Diction: The diction in this work helps to convey a trustworthy tone.  It is important for all authors to gain their readers' trust.  This ensures the reader will be receptive to the point the author is trying to make.  Bradley and Taylor are masters of the 5 dollar word.  "encroachment", "allocating" and "disdain" are all words that make the reader subconsciously think "Wow, these women are smart.  They must know what they are talking about".  Once the readers have placed confidence in the authors as intellectuals, it is much easier to make a point.

Details: Bradley and Taylor use very specific numbers to prove just how direct the link is between social spending and life expectancy, along with other health related statistics.  When discussing the health status of a group of homeless individuals, the article mentions they totalled 18,834 trips to the emergency room.  That number is shocking, and was clearly included to jolt the reader.  Further, that many trips to the emergency room is stated to have cost 12.7 million dollars.  The reader suddenly begins to think about all the other things that money could be used for.  There must be a way to lower that amount.

Syntax: Syntax is used mainly to engage the reader in the work.  Rhetorical questions such as "Why are these other countries beating us if we spend so much more?" make the reader really think.  Instead of skimming the article, with a mind half-focused on something else, questions like this help to make the reader pay attention to the task at hand and make him want to come up with a solution.  Additionally, sentences such as "Before we spend even more money, we should consider allocating it differently." place the emphasis on the point Bradley and Taylor are trying to make.  This makes the reader understand the importance and remember it.

"How About Better Parents?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-about-better-parents.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This article, by Thomas Friedman, attempts to convince the readers that we place the blame for American children's low test scores in the wrong place.  Friedman establishes a confident and matter of fact tone, and through diction, details and syntax is able to make the reader see that teachers are not the only factor in education.

Diction:  Friedman uses strong word choice.  Words such as "thrive" and "achievement" show that the author is intelligent. They are strong, 5 dollar words that make Friedman seem trustworthy.  Obviously he must know what he is talking about, after all, he is using such smart words.  The readers are suddenly open to whatever it is Friedman has to say, because they trust him.

Details: Friedman proves very specific numbers that prove his point.  He includes that children who have parents who read to them score 14 points higher on their PISA tests.  That seems like quite a significant chunk to the audience.  Though we have no scale by which to measure how much 14 points really is, that number seems significant in its own right.  It gives clout to the author's point.  Though we know nothing about the study except what Friedman tells us, the fact that he has any sort of physical data makes us believe what he tells us.

Syntax:  Friedman uses rhetorical questions such as "How do we know?" to make his readers really THINK about what he is saying.  It helps to involve the reader, in the author's argument, making the audience really feel as if it is a part of the article.  When Friedman makes a suggestion, the reader almost feels as if he came up with the idea himself.

Overall, Friedman is very successful in conveying meaning.  He establishes a matter of fact, competent tone, and weaves the reader into his argument.  All of this helps him to convince us that parents are just as important, if not more so, as teachers in a child's education.

‘Hollywood on Wall Street”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/opinion/sunday/bruni-occupy-wall-street-and-hollywood.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Nobody wants to think of his or herself as a “bad person”.  In particular, those in the public eye tend to make an extra effort to appear “good”.  Frank Bruni discusses celebrities visiting the Occupy Walls Street protests in his article “Hollywood on Wall Street”, suggesting that these people are hurting the movement with their good, rather than helping it.  Using diction and details, Bruni sets the rich and famous apart from the protesters, and then creates the aforementioned meaning using the idea of difference combined with syntax.

                The Occupy Wall Street protesters think of themselves as the 99 percent of the country, so Bruni does everything in his power to place celebrities in the other I percent.  Words such as “lavishly” and “extravagantly” help to convey the idea that celebrities have a lot of money.  These words give the idea not only of extensive wealth, but of excessive wealth.  Bruni creates the effect in the readers’ minds that these people have much more than they actually need.  This is a sharp contrast to the protesters, who base their arguments on a lack of control of money.  Details further isolate people like Kanye West, who made “$16 million or so last year”.  Bruni includes how much money each of the famous people he mentions make, looking very different from the well under $100,000 a year most Americans make.  These techniques force the reader to see the celebrities not as one-of-the-many, but as the hated 1 percent.

                Having established the difference of celebrities, Bruni goes on to couple this with strong statements, making the reader realize the true outcome of celebrities visiting the protests.  After describing the celebrity endorsement of a company that manufactures in China, Bruni asks “How does that serve the jobs-hungry young Americans in Occupy Wall Street’s fold?”  This question has punch, and makes the reader think.  These celebrities are role models.  If, for example, Jennifer Lopez, tells us to buy a certain brand, we probably will.  In this way, she, and people like her, are actually hurting the movement, since it supports an outside company. 

                Celebrities are not like us.  They get up every day and make movies.  They have paparazzi following them around wherever they go.  They have a lot of money.  Bruni does his best to establish this fact in his article.  Given this incredible difference, we see that by attending protests, though genuinely attempting to help, celebrities are doing the opposite.   Bruni leaves the readers thinking that their heroes are, unintentionally, cheapening the plight of the American people.

Protesters Against Wall Street

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

                No matter where political loyalties lie, most Americans tend to get rather fired up during discussion of government.  This emotion can often prevent the speaker from making an effective point: he is too close to the subject.  This is not a problem for the author of “Protesters Against Wall Street”.  In this article, details are used to convey an authoritative yet calm tone.  The tone combines with use of diction and syntax to create a feeling that there is a need for change in the mind of the readers.

                The tone of the article makes the readers believe the author knows what he is talking about.  Details are extremely helpful in accomplishing this.  The author provides statistics such as “The jobless rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.6 percent over the past year…”  and “Before the recession, the share of income held by those in the top 1 percent of households was 23.5 percent, the highest since 1928 and more than double the 10 percent level of the late 1970s”.  These numbers support the author’s position on a content level.  They say that the situation is pretty bad and must be fixed.  However, more importantly, they establish a sense that the author is intelligent and well researched.  The audience really has no idea where these numbers come from.  However, the simple fact that they are present helps us to place our confidence with the author. 

                The established tone works in conjunction with various other techniques to create an overall belief in the need for governmental change.  Diction gives the author’s message punch.  He selects words such as “Extreme”, “dysfunctional”, and “suffer”.  These words all carry a powerfully negative connotation, giving the piece the overall air of disapproval.  The reader is swept along with these words, subconsciously goaded into agreeing.  Simply reading a word such as “toxic” sends a person into alert mode.  Syntax has a similar effect.  Relatively short sentences like “It is not the job of the protesters to draft legislation” add power to the author’s words.  Since the reader already trusts the author based on the previously established tone, there is no disagreement:  the government is not doing its job properly.

                There is no question that the author of this article is convincing.  The question is, why?  Without thinking about it, after only on reading of the passage, we trust and agree with the author. This is due to a combination of several techniques on two levels.  First, details work to convey an intelligent and confidence-inspiring tone.  Then, the tone combines with diction and syntax to make the reader believe in the author’s message:  it is time for change. 

9/9/11

Time to Revive Home Ec: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/revive-home-economics-classes-to-fight-obesity.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In this article, the author, Helen Zoe Veit,  makes the argument that Home Economics classes can help to prevent and reduce obesity.  Although Veit uses many methods to create effects in her readers' minds, diction, imagery, and syntax are 3 of her strongest rhetorical techniques.

Diction:  In the last paragraph of the article, Veit acknowledges that her proposal may appear "outlandish".  This acknowledgment of a potential weakness, especially with such an attention-grabbing word, gives the reader confidence in Ms. Veit.  Yes, she sees that this idea could appear crazy, but is confident in her ability to refute that.  A word such as "outlandish" illustrates that Veit is not hiding, attempting to pull one over on her readers.  She is ready and willing to address their concerns.

Imagery:  Veit describes her first home economics class in a great degree of detail.  The reader can actually see the class "sticking our thumbs in the center of each raw biscuit" and cringes as the teacher "dipped them in hot grease to make doughnuts".  Veit describes this class to make her point relatable to the audience.  Chances are each reader has some home economics experience, probably similar to Veits. By using such vivid imagery, the author is able to relate to the reader through a shared experience, and prove that she understands what is wrong with current home ec classes.  Her plans will be nothing like this unhealhty and useless version of home ec.  Veit's imagery, much like her diction, makes the reader think that she understands their concerns and can set them at ease. 

Language: Veit asks the question: "But what if the government put the tools of obesity prevention in the hands of the children themselves, by teaching them how to cook?".  The fact that this is in question form is very important.  Veit has already layed the background to her argument.  She has assured her reader she is not some old, fuddy-duddy who condones teaching young girls that they belong in the kitchen.  She has acknowledged the problems with Home Economics classes.  Now, she abruptly changes her sentence structure by asking the million dollar question.  All of a sudden, it seems so simple.  Why don't we teach kids to cook?  If Veit had simply told her readers "We must teach children to cook", it would seem as if she is lecturing.  This well placed question makes the reader feel involved, like he or she is a part of the process.  The reader almost feels that it was he, not Veit, who came up with the Home Economics plan. That is quite the effect.