#1:

In the first article, Islam isn't the source of terror; hold religions to account, not in

contempt, by Douglas Johnston informs the reader about terrorist attacks in Paris leaving

seventeen people dead. Johnston, President of the International Center of Religion and

diplomacy, argues that this attack was unjustified because these are innocent people. He also

argues to “hold our respective religions accountable for the values they supposedly represent”

(Johnston n.pg). This argument, being a forensic argument informs the reader of the attacks in

France but also takes a stance talking about holding specific religions accountable based on their

beliefs. They are directing their arguments toward the public, as it is news. Johnston makes an

effective argument as the information is passed directly and unbiased. The author could have

been more descriptive on the aftermath of the event, but overall the article does its job. In the

second article chosen, For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story, written by Taylor

Swift herself informs the reader about a current problem regarding whether artists should allow

free downloads for their music or not. Swift’s expertise on this topic comes from her experience

in the music industry herself. Swift makes the argument that music downloads should not be

free. “It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists

and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't

underestimate themselves or undervalue their art” (Swift n.pg). This is expected with Swift’s

experience in music. Also, she is targeting this article not only her fans but also at frequent song-

downloaders and fans of music overall. The argument is effective and has been achieved because

of the logical use of evidence and Swift’s explanation of why she feels that music downloads

should not be free. “In my opinion, the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on

the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work, and the financial value that

artists (and their labels) place on their music when it goes out into the marketplace” (Swift n.pg).

In this quote, she gives a reason why she has these feelings toward music downloads. It is very
sensible and would make sense to the common reader, and as stated before is even more

effective because of Swift’s spot in the music industry. Although she uses personal examples in

the story, she could have used more examples from artists and producers as well as actual

statistics to make the article more credible. In the final piece, a speech made by Barack Obama in

2008, Obama discusses race and the differences between races that have been talked about and

argued since the civil war. “...that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial

wounds, and that in fact we have no choice” (McNearny n.pg). This was important at the time as

Obama was the first African American president. He knew there needed to be something said,

and he did an excellent job at giving an idea of what he wanted in America, as America is his

main audience. He wanted to express his feelings on the “racial wounds'' in America and does an

effective job expressing he wants all wounds to be healed. “What we know, what we have seen,

is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved

gives us hope, the audacity to hope, for what we can and must achieve tomorrow” (McNearny

n.pg). As you can see in this quote, he also wanted a change in America to be even less

discriminative and how America must achieve this goal in the coming years as he knows

America can. (660)

https://www.adn.com/commentary/article/islam-isnt-source-terror-hold-religions-account-not-

contempt/2015/01/21/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-taylor-swift-the-future-of-music-is-a-love-story-1404763219

https://www.history.com/news/10-modern-presidential-speeches-every-american-should-know
#2: (4th option)

The first image I chose includes a man, looking like an actor in some sort of show or

movie. Under him reads the text “I WANT THE TRUTH!!” On a second image to the right of

this man, the viewer sees Hilary Clinton looking angrily into whatever device took this picture,

and the caption under her reads “I DELETED THE TRUTH!!!!” This is a reference back to the

2016 U.S. Presidential Election, where people see this election as very scummy and unlawful.

Specifically, this is referencing Clinton deleting roughly 33,000 “personal” emails during the

election. She stated that they were all personal emails and there was no reason to keep them

there, but a statement from the FBI stated, “However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI

recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the

State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said” (Levine n.pg). This is

very suspicious on Clinton’s behalf because after the investigation they concluded that many of

the emails were work-related. Once this information was released to the public, this turned many

citizens the wrong way, losing their trust in Clinton. Then, multiple humorous statements and

memes were made about her then, and even now you can find some, leading us back to the

original image that was discussed in the introduction. People relate to this in random memes

around the internet, and to some people, it is considered a classic meme. The point or argument

made from this image is pretty much that the creator does not like Clinton very much, but it’s

mostly lighthearted that anyone could laugh at. In the second image chosen, the viewer can see a

black and white image of a man sitting at a fancy table, probably a dinner table. There, he is

cutting into a raw piece of meat with a normal fork and knife while the word bubble reading

“Moo!” is coming out of the piece of (what I could only imagine is) a piece of raw meat. Under

the image, the viewer sees the text “The birth of a vegetarian.” This specific image is humorous

because the man is looking at this meat quite disgusted after it spoke. The reason the caption read
“The birth of a vegetarian” is that the man wouldn’t want to eat any more meat after that one

spoke to him. To be honest, the first look at this image confused me and I’m still not sure if I

understand it completely. I don’t think that the original creator of this image got their point

across because the raw meat speaking isn’t humorous to me nor do I think the joke makes sense.

Of course, this one is more civil than the first one by far as it tackles a healthy lifestyle rather

than an attempted fraud at a presidential election, but I would say the first image discussed

makes their point or argument stronger. (510)

#3: (Option 1)

Foremost, these celebrities are very different. Some are singers, some are TV hosts, some

are even athletes. I feel like both Tom Brady and Venus Williams would be a considerably good

endorsement for a sports company such as Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, possibly even

Powerade or Gatorade as they are targeted at athletes. All of these companies and their products

would have beneficial endorsements from Brady and Williams because they are extremely

popular athletes. When people see that their favorite athlete is using a certain product or wearing

a certain brand, especially endorsing it, the fan would want to buy it because they trust the

athlete’s decisions to buy this as the fan sees it as the best on the market, or they just want to be

like their favorite athlete. On the contrary, people like Denzel Washington or Rachel Maddow

would not have as big an effect as the two previously mentioned, Williams and Brady. This is

caused by the fact that both Washington and Maddow aren’t known for their clothing style.

Washington specifically because he is an actor so he usually wears whatever he’s directed to,

making the endorsement almost meaningless. Maddow, on the other hand, could potentially gain

a sports company endorsement by wearing their clothing on TV, but not as well as the two

athletes. On the other hand, Maddow and Washington would both be effective endorsers to a

beauty company like Ulta Beauty or some other company like it. A beauty brand like this would

go with both Maddow and Washington’s status because both of them strive on their look to gain

traction and fans because their work is made for that. Millions of fans watch and follow them

because of what they do, but also because of their looks. If they partnered with Ulta Beauty,

people would want to buy more of their products because they would want to look more like

these actors and TV stars we see now. Contrary, Williams, and Brady would not be as effective.

Their career or what people know them as is sports, which is relatively sweaty or dirty. This
wouldn’t fit well with Ulta Beauty’s theme as the athletes are not known for caring about their

looks. Possibly, people could enjoy the athletes so much they would use the beauty products they

are endorsing because most extremely celebrities like the examples used have super fans that

would buy any product they endorse. Though, it would not be as effective as someone that deals

in the industry as their career, though could still work depending on their popularity. Overall, I

don’t think there’s a wrong endorser to choose from but I do believe that one can be much more

effective depending on why they are famous than another that does not deal in that area. Also, it

is shown in endorsements like Kim Kardashian endorsing Charmin and Ke$ha with her Lifestyle

Condom endorsement that if you’re famous enough it doesn’t matter too much what you

endorse, people will buy it. (510)

#4:

The movie Hotel for Dogs is not only a great family movie to watch, but a great movie to

watch anytime. The two main characters, Andi (played by Emma Roberts) and Bruce (played by

Jake T. Austin) do a superb job playing the orphans in Los Angeles, taken in by two rude foster

parents. Additionally, the main dog played in the movie, Friday, does an amazing job while

playing his part. The movie starts by showing the viewer the life of Andi and Bruce in LA, while

they are scamming a pawnshop owner to feed Friday. Surprisingly, this detail gives me a feeling

that Andi and Bruce aren’t very good people but further into the movie, we, the audience find out

that these children are kind-hearted by the fact that they house and take care of stray dogs in the

abandoned hotel they find, being the main setting of the movie. From there, the two main

characters meet other teenagers that assist them in creating their sanctum for these abused or

lonely dogs. These scenes are very emotional as the viewer sees abused dogs in the wild or taken

by animal control. This group of kids continues to find more dogs and make this “Hotel for

Dogs' ' bigger and better. In my opinion, this is one of the best parts because I’m very amused by

the machines built during these scenes and find the dogs’ reactions hilarious. Continuing, Andi

and Bruce eventually find the hotel has gone to chaos while they were at a party. They’re forced

to separate foster homes, which I feel is a very intricate part of the story as is a fairly depressing

part compared to what the intended audience is used to, as it is a kids movie. During the climax,

the police/animal control find and take all of the dogs who attended the hotel to the pound. This

part brings out a downcasted emotion as well because of the dogs being harmfully taken away.

Then ends with the dogs being released back into the hotel. The review that I read on it, by

Roger Ebert shows the movie in a positive light as well. “Hotel for Dogs is a sweet, innocent

family movie about stray dogs that seem as well-trained as Olympic champions. Friday, the Jack

Russell terrier who's the leader of the pack, does more acting than most of the humans and

doesn't even get billing. I know, because I searched for one, hoping to mention him by name and
call him a good doggie” (Egert n.pg). Obviously from this excerpt we see that Egert enjoyed the

movie by the words he uses such as “sweet,” “innocent,” and “doesn’t even get billing” (this

example being the use of comedic emotions). I fully enjoyed this movie because of the

phonemical child actors starring and the comedic moments played by animals in this movie, as

well as fully recommend it for any dog-lover or kid movie-lover in general. I’m sure this movie

will come back to me sometime, and I hope to enjoy it then too. (522)

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hotel-for-dogs-2009
#5: (Option 1):

The quote, “Resistance is futile” from Star Trek is obviously dramatic for the scene, but

doesn’t give a successful argument. The term used, “futile”, is simply untrue in this sentence

because anything that the person getting told this can do has to be at least a little effective to

resist, so anything that they do is not futile. Secondly, the quote, “It’s the economy, stupid” is a

fallacy because the “it” that this poster is recognizing is probably a problem going on in

America, (maybe all the problems together) and the economy is definitely not the only conflict in

America. It’s clear that this is just humor but the argument is incorrect. Next, the quote, “Make

love, not war” is not really possible at the time (Vietnam war) this quote was used in because

war was one of the only options. Civilians wanted peace throughout the war zones and countries

but that is not a way to combat an international war no matter their preference. The quote, “Build

bridges, not walls” wants is trying to get across the point to make a foundation to continue on (in

this case the racial rights that MLK fought for) instead of stagnating it with a “wall.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t possible because no one is building anything physical in this fight for

African American rights, instead they are fighting for laws. These laws, while physically on

paper, are not walls nor bridges. Furthermore, the quote, “Stronger Together” a campaign slogan

is somewhat true because there is more influential force in a group while there is not much in a

single person. Actual strength of a single person, though, does not change while in a group.

While this is true, a group of people would have an easier time, say tearing down a wall, than a

single person. The fallacy coming from “Guns don’t kill, people do” is the fact that while yes,

people are holding and using the guns but the guns are the one literally firing a bullet. This quote

is trying to get across that guns are not a problem in America, the people are because they are the

one’s doing the killing but the ease of access to guns is another reason. “Dog Fighters Are

Cowardly Scum” is a term used by PETA but doesn’t make sense. Frankly, dog fighters have to

be very courageous because it is very dangerous. While it is dumb and can leave the fighter and
dog hurt, it does take some strength and pride to actual fight one. Finally, the quote, “If you can’t

stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” is a logical fallacy because Truman is trying to say if you

can’t take the pressure you should leave. This becomes a fallacy because of the fact that taking

some sort of pressure does not amount to heat in a room. Though if a kitchen was extremely hot

someone would probably leave, as would someone if the pressure was high. Even though

someone would leave in both situations, the heat in this case does not relate to pressure from

high standards. (520)

#6:

The image chosen for invention journal #6 includes what one could only imagine being a

Gatorade advertisement. The image looks like these water bottles are racing this blue Gatorade

bottle in some sort of track event, possibly even the olympics. This race is being held in a

stadium, with a huge crowd cheering vigorously. The blue Gatorade bottle is in front of both

water bottles, essentially winning or about to win the race. On all three bottles the viewer can see

a pair of hands, assumingly connected to the bottle. The blue bottle’s hands are cheering through

the finish lane while the other two bottles are pretty much falling right before the finish line,

making a clear point that the Gatorade is winning the race as Gatorade is the brand displaying the

advertisement. In the top right corner of the advertisement the text reads “GATORADE

ALWAYS WINS'' in bold and cartoon-y text, most likely to get the viewer’s attention. In the

bottom right corner, the viewer can see Gatorade’s logo and motto. The logo at this time was a

lightning bolt reading “Gatorade” through the middle. The motto reads, “Rehydrate, Replenish,

Refuel” which makes sense because Gatorade’s brand is targeted at athletes and mottos like that

are common to make the athlete feel like these drinks are giving them almost an advantage. It is

hard to score the effectiveness of this argument because while the picture is made in very

precious detail, yet the argument is just not where it could be. The Gatorade is winning a race,

which could make athletes feel empowered, but honestly it looks a bit dopey because of the way

the bottle’s position and hands are in this picture. I feel like this could be an effective

argument/ad to a child or child-athlete but if I was an adult and the only thing I could go off of
the brand was this image, I probably would not purchase this product. A potentially better

argument would be telling the viewer that Gatorade keeps them energized or fueled. Assuming

they are targeting this ad at children, though, my argument wouldn’t attract too many customers

unfortunately. Even if my suggestion wouldn’t work in this advertisement, one thing I would

change is the text. I feel that the image does everything the text does and more, so it is pretty

unnecessary. Instead of the current text, a possible replacement could be “Stay Fueled.

Gatorade.” One reason I feel like this could be a more effective replacement is because the image

is doing the talking for the text, so I would add on to the picture with the text. Another reason is

because Gatorade’s slogan is “The sports fuel company.” I feel like the replacement text could

better fit with the slogan as well as the picture, and be an overall better piece for the ad. Of

course the company wants to sell to the targeted audience (child athletes) but if they were to

expand their network a change in advertisements could potentially increase profits. (506)