Opposing Viewpoints Essay Essay

E rattling nonpareil has their own opinion. The per watchword sitting succeeding(a) to you fuel have an entirely assorted f tout ensemble outlook on something you do. Having different opinions is what repairs for fire business lines. Especially an author and a critic like St nonetheless Johnson and Dana Stevens. In the obligate ceremonial TV Makes You Smarter, Steven Johnson supposes that TV does fill you smarter, objet dart in her oblige Thinking right(prenominal) the Idiot Box Dana Stevens completely disagrees and critiques his article. The dickens have opposing views on the topic. twain these writers give different congresswomans of ethos, commiseration, and boy in their articles to back up their opinion and trade name for an interesting reason.In my opinion, Dana Stevens overall did a better barter at utilize ethos, pathos, and logos to back up her crease. From the reward point of someone who watches a orchestra pit of a batch of TV (but serene far less than the average American), the forte seems neither like a brain-liquefying toxicant nor a salutary tonic (Stevens, 2012, p. 298). This commendation is what Steven really tries to canvass the solid article and back up with her competitions.Ethos has to do with believability and trustworthiness. It is usually conveyed through the tone, and the writers reputation. This technique is utilise to make passel seem credible and someone whom we respect.Dana Stevens uses ethos really well when trying to make her design in Thinking outside the retard box. Stevens starts take out with informing the earshot that she has a Ph.D in comparative literature from the University of calcium at Berkeley. If the author has earned her a Ph.D in comparative literature that be wedges her credibility be grow she has had to go through a mount of years of schooling and she has a mess hall of writing give birth by at one time after procureting a job in the field. Dana Stevens is Slates characterization critic and has also written for the youthful York Times, Bookforum, and the Atlantic (Stevens, 2012, p. 295) is on the button another example of how experiencedDana Stevens has a lot of experience with her work and survives what she is talking or so.Steven Johnson employ ethos the shell in his argument. In the gestate offning he is introduced as Steven Johnson is the author of seven books, among them Everything sorry Is Good For You How Todays democratic Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter (2005) and Where Good Ideas Come From The Natural biography of Innovation (2010). Johnson is also a contribute editor for Wired, writers a monthly column for Discover, and teachers journalism at New York University. (Johnson, 2012, p. 277)He is the author of seven other books and inclination of an orbit them all. It then goes on to say Johnson is a contributing editor for Wired, he writers a monthly column for Discover, and teachers journalism at New York Universit y. All of these things virtually Johnson give him a lot of credibility to begin with. Pathos has to do with appealing to your audiences perception. development imaginative impact, and stories can convince your audience of your argument by creating an emotional response. sound is also a huge expose of pathos, the way you state your argument can have a impact on their opinion.Dana Stevens wants to expose Steven Johnsons article and she does so by using pathos to desexualise to the audiences emotions. At some points Stevens even makes fun of Johnson when she says Johnsons claim for television as a tool for brain enhancement seems deeply, hilariously bogus. (Stevens, 2012, p. 297) This command impacts the audiences emotions by making the endorser rule kind of dumb if they actually agreed with Johnson that television makes you smarter, dumb lavish that it would be hilarious if they were to actually believe that. She also makes a point when she says he breezily dismisses recent controversies to the highest degree the courses representation of Muslim terrorists or it implicit bit of torture, preferring to concentrate on how the makes formal organise teaches us to pay care, make inferences, hide shifting social relationships. (296)The mention of endorsement of torture usually makes throng feel very disgusted and up set apart because of their morals. In the beginning Stevens (2012) essentially says to the audience that whatsoeverone who agrees with Johnsons argument that TV makes you smarter are like rats in a behaviorists maze. (Stevens, 2012, 295) This creates a negativeemotion towards Johnsons argument, no one wants to be impression of as rat in an audition being fooled.Steven Johnson uses pathos to get in touch with the audiences feelings by using TV shows that go a set aheadst any normal persons morals. He used shows that brought up a lot of public controversies. Over the preceding weeks, a number of public controversies had erupted around 2 4, largely focused on its portrait of Muslim terrorists and its penchant for torture scenes. The case that was shown on the twenty-fourth only fanned the flames higher(prenominal) in one scene, a terrorist enlists a put on man to kill his pip-squeak for not climby supporting the jihadist cause in another scene, the secretary of defense team authorizes the torture of his son to uncover express of a terrorist patch. (Stevens, 2012, p. 278) Of course a statement like this pass on get peoples attention firstly. It will also really get people into their emotions too.The one sentence intimately the scene when a terrorist enlists a hit man to kill his child for no fully supporting jihadist cause will catch anyones attention even if you put one acrosst really pay any mind to the subject. Something that is out of the norm like that will also get into peoples emotions. The other scene brought up about the secretary of defense authorizing the torture of his son to uncover evidence of a terrorist plot would take anyone by surprise and roughly(prenominal) likely feel disgusted. As a parent you should always want to nourish your child not torture them, so imagine how an audience would feel particularly parents after reading about this. It would most definitely catch their attention and get in touch with their feelings.Logos has to do with logic, reasoning, argumentation. Using facts, figures, and case studies to prove the point. If people know someone is using facts to prove their argument they assume it has to be true, facts dont lie.Dana Stevens doesnt packly use facts and information the whole time, but she just wants the audience to understand that they are sufficient to control their own choices about how practically television they should watch. She bases a lot of her article off of this idea. Stevens also says at a point just turn the set off and see if you get any dumber.(Stevens, 2012, p. 298) Turning off the TV for a few days will not make you bec ome dumber. If you turn offthe TV and pick up a book instead youre more(prenominal) likely to gain more experience from that.The point Stevens is really trying to make is Johnsons argument just doesnt make any sentience. How can TV make you smarter if youre perfectly comely not watching it for a join days and can actually gain more knowledge from doing something more educational like taking a tripper to the library. This is just proving the point that watching TV does not make you any smarter, and not watching TV does not make you any dumber.Steven Johnson uses logos when he starts stating facts about TV shows and lets the audience know full details about it. Johnson goes on to talk about Television shows, when doing so he gives the audience a lot of facts about them to show they are legitimate. During its 44-minutes- a real-time hour, minus 16 minutes for commercials- the episode connects the lives of 21 distinct characters, each with a clearly defined story arc,. (Johnson, 2012, p. 278) He states the exact commercial times, the network, the date, exactly how enormous it was, what the show was about, etc. Johnson always states the exact full detail about each show he uses to prove his argument correct.When Johnson does so he gives the audience a sense that he knows what he is talking about. He always backs up his argument with facts this can let the audience know he has done his research, he has deceased through the trouble to figure out everything on that point is know about the show including small things like the airing time, etc., and basically he just has all the facts there to prove his point if anyone disagrees with him.In conclusion, both writers use a lot of ethos, pathos, and logos to prove their argument. At some points one author may have used them better to prove their argument. Steven Johnson had a very strong ethos, pretty good pathos and also an average logos. Dana Stevens just used an overall strong use of all three ethos, pathos, and logos to prove her argument that TV does not make you smarter. The whole point of her article Thinking foreign the Idiot Box was to show the invalidity in Johnsons article. She gave facts, appealed to the audiences emotions, gave the audience a sense of credibility and trustworthiness. Both writers are very talented and experienced but Dana Stevens won the audience over with all these techniques stand-in up her argument.