DIRECTIONS: Post your précis paragraph and link to article in the comments below. A sample précis and link is posted below as an example of what your post should look like. Refer to the directions in your "Explore the Issues" section of your binder for précis requirements.
29 Comments
Sara Silverman
9/26/2017 09:13:39 am
In the 2017 opinion piece, “Why Robots Won’t Steal All Our Jobs,” Robert J. Samuelson indicates that there will be a net increase in job opportunities in the future if people allow technological advancements to replace current low-skill jobs. Samuelson cites renown labor economists, David Autor and Anna Salomans, who observed that more jobs were gained than were lost due to technology, and relies on logical reasoning to assert the future benefits of embracing innovation, such as the increased incentive to seek higher education when low-skill jobs are lost. Samuelson describes these low-skill jobs as “repetitive and monotonous work” and reassures the audience that embracing technology benefits society in the long run in order to eliminate the common fear of worker displacement by robots. He targets the fearful workers who may be hesitant, or opposed, to modern technology and employs an optimistic tone to entice them with the belief of a “better-educated, better-paid,” and thus stronger, workforce.
Reply
10/8/2017 03:40:47 pm
In 2017, “Hot Spots in a Freezing Ocean Offer Lessons in Climate Change”, a scientist and
Reply
Selam Said
10/8/2017 03:42:24 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/science/climate-change-antarctic-ocean.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront 10/8/2017 07:28:32 pm
In 2017's, "The Thing America Strives for Most? Complacency.", written by George F. Will, Will suggests that societies advocacy of the dignity of practical people who utilize science for human betterment or what is referred to in the article as "The Great Enrichment" is slowing down in the U.S., and that complacency is becoming more apparent. It seems that the author's purpose in writing this article is to revive the Great Enrichment and end this complacency. The intended audience that the author was aiming towards were the people that agree with his ideologies.
Reply
Melinda Correa
10/8/2017 09:32:06 pm
In 2017's, "The mission to Mars is one stupid leap for mankind," by David Von Drehle of The Washington Post suggests that traveling to Mars is unnecessary for multiple reasons. Curiosity has had a huge take on scientists and astronauts since Mars is a place where no one has gone before. Von Drehle proves that some of the very good reasons why Americans, and other humans, abruptly stopped going deep into space is because it's deadly and it's also unnecessary. In order to change everyones mindset to seek more about Mars Von Drehle shows how we don't need to go out into space ourselves, thats what robots are for, and that it's a dead end. He used the analogy that it's a hotel you can book to stay at but once you're there you can't leave. Von Drehle's audience is primarily an older more informed and academically minded individuals since the author uses a more informative tone.
Reply
Amy Chau
9/26/2017 02:46:42 pm
In 2017's "Driverless Cars May be Appealing. But They Could be Used Against Us," by Robert J. Samuelson of The Washington Post suggests that the costs of driverless vehicles far outweighs the benefits of having them on our roads. These pieces of technology are highly susceptible to digital hacking which can result in serious injury or death if essential mechanics are disabled or activated abruptly according to a writer for the Wall Street Journal. This article portrays the dangers of having driverless cars and how we are basically turning our vehicles into weapons that hackers can easily manipulate. Samuelson is targeting people who are weary of cars that don't require drivers or that may be against these technological advancements; the tone towards these people is one of fear to prevent the growing and stimulate the opposition of this industry.
Reply
9/27/2017 04:16:09 pm
In the 2017 "Some creative ways to deal with North Korea", by David Ignatius of the Washington Post suggests multiple ways that we can deal with this North Korea crisis that we have going on and understanding the root of how this issue even began rather than jumping to fight back. Trumps strategy of fighting back and retaliating is not the way to deal with this crisis because the issue with North Korea had originated with China, Ignatius suggests that we should take more defensive measures to minimize the threat rather than fuel it, as president Trump is doing. This article portrays the origin of this crisis with North Korea and how we should appropriately deal with reducing this threat through taking defensive and less aggressive measures in order to settle this crisis. Ignatius is targeting we the people of the U.S and more importantly Trump because whether North Korea is serious about their rumored threats or not we should take this crisis seriously and find a more peaceful and defensive way to minimize this threat for the safety of us and our country.
Reply
Yasmine Seryani
9/28/2017 11:18:02 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/some-creative-ways-to-deal-with-north-korea/2017/09/21/239585dc-9f0c-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?utm_term=.8f1b3a47e6d7
Reply
Ryan Oskuie
9/28/2017 10:46:27 am
In September 15, 2017, "The Economy Isn't Broken," by David Brooks of The New York Times, suggests that the economy is viewed by people as something that has been going downhill, but in all reality has been getting better over the years. The writer proves that the economy has been getting stronger via statistics of our economic growth. David Brooks purpose of this article is to convince us that the economy, especially in the middle class, is growing rather than declining and to continue growing we have to keep up what we have been doing such as trading, more immigration, free competition and less regulatory burdens in order to have the successful nation we want. The intended audience consists of Americans who are worried about the future of our country, economically. The tone of this article is faithfulness, towards our country
Reply
Hung Nguyen
9/30/2017 10:54:58 am
2017’s opinion piece, “How to Fix Airline Overbooking” has Robert J. Samuelson proposing regulations for compensations as fallout for airlines overbooking many of their flights and are unable to remove passengers off the plane. Samuelson utilizes the works of Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who argued for airlines to bear full responsibility for overbooking, and should be required (by the government) to continually raise the price of compensation until there are volunteers willing to give up their seats. Samuelson views the situation as a non-complicated issue with the solution being very straightforward, as he agrees with Greg Mankiw, but also suggest that the compensation price should be the highest price for all volunteers, along with their vouchers for new tickets, and there should be a cap for the price of compensation, ensuring that the volunteers won’t abuse this system. The author has a target audience of people who are frustrated with overbooking, and utilizes a very critical and condescending tone to emphasize to the audience the ridiculousness of the situation, and how it can be easily resolved.
Reply
Stephanie Chau
10/5/2017 10:10:17 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece, “The Looming Labor ‘Shortage’ Isn’t Just a Problem - It’s Also an Opportunity,” Robert J. Samuelson proposes that the emerging worker shortage will offset changes to the structure of the labor market under conditions favorable for empowering the American worker. Samuelson quantifies this labor shortage in terms of America’s low unemployment rate and many unfilled job openings, which he speculates will result in corporate interest in attracting workers; however, he maintains, through measuring the labor share of the economy, that workers are economically disadvantaged in comparison to companies. Samuelson emphasizes the imminent demand for workers and recent decline in workers’ share of economic gain in order to move workers into taking this labor shortage as an opportunity to reform the structure of the labor market to accommodate higher paying positions. Addressing his audience as “we,” Samuelson relays this message to his fellow American workers with an opportunistic tone that urges them to act.
Reply
10/6/2017 06:27:06 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece "Repeal the Second Amendment," by Bret Stephens of The Washington Post, implies that he has "Never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment," because "More guns means less safety." Stephens supports this by explaning how many "justified homicides" the F.B.I. counted which came to a total of 268 by private citizens involving firearms and the amount of "unintentional firearms deaths" which came to a total of 489, in which between 77 and 141 of those killed were children. The purpose of this article is to make people understand that the second amendment is causing more harm than good and that needs to change. The author targets those who believe that guns are good, you need them to stay safe and those who believe the second amendment can't be changed.
Reply
Alejandra Solis
10/6/2017 06:36:05 pm
* The New York Times
Reply
Catherine Nguyen
10/6/2017 08:57:49 pm
In the October 2017 opinion piece, "More madness, more cowardice," by Richard Cohen suggests that congress in incompetent by not setting laws that provide effective gun control. Cohen supports his argument by citing the Brady Campaign and comparing America to a combat zone. The author suggests that recent large gun massacres wouldn't have happened if there were better gun control enforcement in order to convince the audience that the government is incompetent of protecting its citizens and that those who are in favor of guns are blind-sided by their own opinion. Cohen intends the audience to be the people of America whether or not they support or don't support guns and uses a critical tone to emphasize that the government isn't providing effective gun control.
Reply
10/7/2017 03:25:50 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece, “The Mission to Mars is one Stupid Leap for Mankind,” David Von Drehle argues that we need to stop putting so much effort, time and money in trying to discover life on life on other planets and focus on the one planet that matters most, Earth and the author states Gertrude Stein beliefs on this topic, which is the same as his as a source of credibility. The author supports why we need to focus on Each rather then other planets by stating all the tragic things that have been happening in our country like the disaster in Puerto Rico, massacre in Las Vapes, and troubles with North Korea. He also supports his thesis by saying if people go to mars or any other planet, its a death sentence, so what the point. The purpose of the author is to inform people that what they are doing is pointless and they need to focus on the one country that has sustained us for this long and how we need to take care of it. The author wanted the audience to feel sympathetic because of all the bad things that happened, he is using our emotions so we can then use application. The Intended audience is people that either invest or work to find other planets because they are the ones that can limit the amount of time and money they are spending, and put in time to fix our one and only sustainable planet.
Reply
Bereket K
10/7/2017 03:26:26 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mission-to-mars-is-one-stupid-leap-for-mankind/2017/10/06/24078102-aac2-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.4ec169e6ea9a
Reply
Alexandra Garcia Flores
10/7/2017 05:00:16 pm
October 5, 2017 "Talking about mental health after mass shootings is a cop-out," by Fareed Zakaria implies people worry that the issue of mass shootings are caused by the illness of mental health. When people infer that others are "crazy" for doing something outrageous and horribly wrong, such as Trump did earlier this month when speaking out about the mass shooting in Las Vegas, doing so, his quick assumption of mental illness distorts the true meaning of what it means to be mentally ill. It has been proven via statistics that mental health patients are more prone to hurt themselves rather then others, meaning they are more prone to commit suicide than homicide. In order to take control of the situation, we should all as a community educate ourselves and others on the true meaning of mental health. The audience consists of Americans who yet lack the understanding of the situation; the tone towards "mental illness " is one of ambivalence and apathetic.
Reply
Joseph Tajnai
10/7/2017 09:57:10 pm
In the 2017 editorial on Wired, “When YouTube Removes Violent Videos, It Impedes Justice,” Scott Edwards asserts the title: YouTube, when it removes violent videos, will impede justice for the perpetrators of the act. Our author, to back himself up, starts out the piece by referencing an anecdote of justice being dispensed through the use of online media, before then introducing recent developments with social media companies and how they’ve been dealing with illicit and violent content; with this groundwork, Edwards then uses sheer logic to assert that the former will be hindered by the latter. His purpose is to show why controversial content should not be censored on the internet, in order to set a precedent for companies so they could provide, in his view, a common good to society. Edwards, with his bleak tone that suggests the issue is dire, does not shoot for the average individual: he aims to convince the people of the companies that threaten his proposed view of justice, that flag and take down videos.
Reply
Rashmi Parashar
10/8/2017 12:59:22 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece, “Concealed guns are already all over D.C., Colbert I. King implies that we need to take an initiative to reduce the guns that people have concealed in their clothes, for many people have been caught carrying illegal firearms and ammunition. King cites the Metropolitan Police Department’s Criminal Interdiction Unit and Gun Recovery Unit as they released information on numerous people out on D.C’s street that were caught with unregistered weapons which pose to be a threat to normal citizens who roam around those same streets and now the question is firing up in debate to what logical conclusion can we come to about the second amendment regarding the right to bear arms because it has been proven to be lethal as people have misused it as seen in the Las Vegas shooting, although there has been no initiative that King has proposed as to what to do with this, he implies that this amendment is one that should be taken off due to the destruction it has continually caused. This article portrays the dangers of the second amendment as many people have taken the lives of others due to the right to bear arms being legal. King is targeting people who have been personally involved in any life-death situation regarding guns, or people who have a strong negative opinion about the right to bear arms. King’s tone in this article is very concerning, for he talks about the safety of people.
Reply
Ashley Reynoso
10/8/2017 06:01:36 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece,”We can’t just shrug Trump off,” Ruth Marcus explains how Trump’s actions and words should not roll off our backs because it’s not human; it’s not how a president should be. Marcus goes back to Tuesday, Oct. 3,2017, when Trump himself tossed paper towels into a crowd of Hurricane Maria victims in Puerto Rico and saying Hurricane Katrina was the “real catastrophe.” He then goes back to Wednesday, Oct. 4,2017, when one of Trump’s own administratives, Tillerson, had reportedly called the president a ‘moron’. He brings up the accusation that Trump claims about the “Fake News Networks”, the constant misuse of Twitter, and the lack of patriotism he “possesses.” He describes this to be un-president like. Ruth annunciates Trump’s misconducts to specifically the U.S. people trying to encourage us to stop sitting in silence for this isn’t how a president should be operating nor allowed to be doing.
Reply
Long Nguyen
10/8/2017 08:36:47 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece, "The Debate That Goes Nowhere," by Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times, the author argues that, because of the incessant and futile debate between opponents and proponents of gun control concerning the necessity of firearm regulations, any potential progress in the legal enforcement of stricter management of firearms ownership, which would certainly ensure safety for American citizens, has been hindered. He supports his assertion first by describing the backlash faced by proponents of gun control who, according to the author, have suggested "perfectly sensible reforms in hopes of reducing the lethality of these horrors or the ease with which they are mounted"; second by addressing similar responses from gun-control opponents to a New York Times editorial on the issue of citizens giving up firearms that could potentially be used to cause serious harm to others; and lastly by pointing out that, although the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to own firearms to American citizens, the justification behind the private possession of dangerous firearms capable of inflicting casualties on a large scale is unsubstantiated. The article was intended to encourage readers to re-evaluate the importance of gun ownership, as well as to advocate for the removal of dangerous firearms from the hands of private citizens, in order to prevent future mass shootings from taking place. The author communicates his message to his audience in a critical and tenacious tone. His intended audience is the opponents of gun-control regulations, who are reluctant to compromise on the issue of relinquishing their ownership of dangerous firearms!
Reply
10/8/2017 09:49:59 pm
In 2017’s “Our dangerous, idiotic national conversation” by George F. Will, he argues that due to inexpensive technologies, people can adjust their news outlets that can lead to confirmation bias and false stories. George supports his argument by using the false news from Facebook and fake news stories revolving around Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the presidential election. His purpose was to show how people can change their news in order to fit in with their moral ideas. He does this in order to show how many people can be close minded because of these new technologies and news outlets. The intended audience would be people that are outraged by false stories and need to hear an outlet from someone of higher status or people on the internet who don't believe they look at only certain news when they should look at the full picture.
Reply
Kade West
10/8/2017 11:09:39 pm
In 2017's "Why Don't All Jobs Matter" , by Paul Krugman, he argues that the government isnprioritizing the mining and manufacturing jobs more than service jobs, and giving the mining and coal unemployed people more aid and sympathy than the average worker. Paul Krugman disagrees with this action, and uses facts to show the real problem which consisted of, 75,000 people are laid off daily, and service jobs unemployement rates versus manufacturing and mining unemployment rates. His purpose was to inform people that service jobs matter as much to victims of those who are unemployed in the mining or manufacturing system. He also argues the government should provide health care, aid, and retirement to the newly unemployed. Paul expresses this to show how the government can give the mining industry and manufacturing jobs more help after they are unemployed then the average job. The intended audience is people who are working so they can have clear understanding of what can happen to them if they are laid off of a service job, and for them to know what they need to do after unemployment.
Reply
10/8/2017 11:23:47 pm
In 2017's " Is Cheating Getting Worse " by Shannon Doyne and Katherine Schulte, argues that more students are cheating and not to thrive but to survive also experts say that cheating has become way easier and being tolerated by both schools and parents. The purpose of this article is to try to get schools to be more "strict" about cheating and to make it clear what will happen to you if you cheat. This is for students to also read and see that cheating will only get you so far in school. The intended audience would be schools, parents, and students who have cheated in the past and the people who tolerates it.
Reply
Angelo lopez
10/8/2017 11:33:33 pm
In the 2017 opinion piece, "Confessions of a Sensible Gun Owner," Lily Raff Mcaulou indicates our country needs to hear more from: that of gun owners who favor safer gun laws. We should be helping lead the national conversation about gun control, because we are uniquely suited to move the debate away from polemic and toward effective compromise. Lily explains Last week’s mass shooting in Las Vegas and that it is a reminder that this is a perspective our country needs to hear more from: that of gun owners who favor safer gun laws. We should be helping lead the national conversation about gun control, because we are uniquely suited to move the debate away from polemic and toward effective compromise. Lily Mcaulou wants the audience to make sure that as a society we keep our effective laws to keep guns out of unsafe hands. The intended audience is gun owners and gun sellers.
Reply
10/8/2017 11:49:02 pm
In the 2017, “Mr. Trump’s Attack on Birth Control” editorial, by The Editorial Board in the New York Times, implies that the Trump’s administration is making it harder for women to get access to birth control. The author utilizes a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation to illustrate the negative consequences of Trump’s administrations and his new regulations on birth control. The study shows an increase in the percentage of reproductive age woman who face out-of-pocket costs for oral contraceptives. The author wanted to bring awareness to the negative effects of Trump’s decision on women who need birth control. In this editorial, the tone is critical and his intended audience are women who are especially in need of birth control. President Trump’s assault on the birth control mandate is like his broader attack on the Affordable Care Act, filled with spite, based on falsehoods and fueled by vindictiveness toward his predecessor. And both will hurt millions of people.
Reply
Jasmeen Kaur
10/8/2017 11:51:02 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/trumps-birth-control-contraception.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCollection=editorials®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
Reply
Khushboo Singh
10/9/2017 07:58:12 pm
In the October 2017 opinion piece “Trump is distracting us to death,” by Kathleen Parker asserts that President Trump is attempting to distract the public from the crucial issues that the government can't decide on a solution for such as gun control. Parker cites the National Rifle Association who were setting regulations for the attachment that was used in the Las Vegas shooting to kill many rather than banning or confiscating it. Parker presents the actions of the NRA as not enough in order to convince the readers that not enough is being done to protect innocent people from being killed by gun owners. She targets those in favor of of stricter gun control laws and uses a sarcastic tone throughout a majority of the article to show how the decisions that should be made which are so obvious are not even an option for those who make a change to consider.
Reply
Lissette
10/10/2017 09:07:53 am
In the 2017 article sports piece, “Woman Are Playing Today, and Leading Tomorrow,” Juliet Macur shows the story of many girls such as Hajar Abulfazl who is Afghanistan and was told her whole life because she was a woman and in her culture she couldn’t do most things. Macur shows stories from strong women that comes from very different religions or cultures but had the same issue of people telling them they couldn’t do it because they are women. Juliet Macur, made the audience reading the article more aware of how privileged you are if you play sports because in other countries women and even men aren’t being allowed to play because of their religion. The intended audience is women athletes and women who are always told they can’t do something because their religion says so, but the women mentioned in the article shows otherwise.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMs. Silverman is a mom, English teacher, and yearbook advisor who loves to ballroom dance, take her son out and about on adventures, and hang out with her dog, Laney. Archives
September 2018
Categories |