This article, fittingly called Vote Yes on Proposition 47, argues for a proposition in California that will reduce the number the number of people being put in jails for nonviolent crimes. The money saved by doing this will be spent on things that will help prevent the inmates from committing crimes again, such as: substance abuse and mental health treatment and reentry support. This article uses detail, syntax, and diction to persuade readers to vote on a proposal to reduce jail time for petty crimes, and help former criminals get their lives back.
This article makes no effort at all to be subtle, and this shows in the diction. Only words with good connotations are used in relationship with the proposal and these words are used to make it seem cost efficient, humane, like the most reasonable thing to do. It does this to appeal to both the people who are interested in the social side, or the economic side. In the first paragraph alone, the words "good" and "timely". It also states that Times "strongly recommends" voting yes to this proposal. Times uses this language to push people into agreeing with this proposal because Times has such a solid opinion on it. When Times talks about the counter argument, that waves of criminals will be released, in an offhand, condescending way. The words "baseless" and "ominous" are used to describe the warnings given by the "fear-mongering" opponents. They are depicted in an extremely negative light, as if the opponants argument has no base in fact at all.
Vote Yes on Proposal 47 uses syntax to emphasis their points, and discard and hide the opinions of people who do not want Proposal 47 to be passed. One example of this is in paragraph three, which discusses why people do not want the proposal to be passed. Instead of being split into multiple sentences, colons are used to create a wordy sentence that is easy to get lost in. This makes the arguments much less poignant, and leads to emphasis being placed on the shorter sentences in the paragraphs above and below it. In the next paragraph, the article is back to talking about why the proposition should be passed and the first two sentences are much shorter. The reader is much more likely to remember these than the cluttered and jumbled sentence before.
This article does a wonderful job of explaining what Proposal 47 is and what the benefits are of passing it. Details are used abundantly to make the reader feel like they know everything there is to know about it. If the reader feels like the Proposal is explained sufficiently in this, they are likely to agree that it is a good idea to pass it without reading other sources that may have a different bias. Especially in the second paragraph the three parts of this bill are explained clearly and deliberately with a positive light. Specific examples are used to lend credibility.
Vote Yes on Proposal 47 is an informative piece with an agenda. It uses a detailed description of the proposal along with many positive words describing it, plus emphases on the positive aspects to show its opinion and push others to vote yes.
You did a good job of being short and concise and I could tell right away what you were trying to say. I think you convinced the reader that the article really was trying to persuade the voters to vote for proposal 47. I liked the amounts of examples that you used on your diction paragraph. It really proved the point that the diction that was used did not just happen once but multiple times and it really helped to drive the authors point home. I think you could add some examples of the details that were used. You could show your reads a sentence that explains the bill in a “positive light”. Another thing that would help is trying to change the color of your writing. The black and white is hard to read and are distracting from your piece.
ReplyDeleteThe white text with black highlights takes away form the post. Not only does it make it hard to read, it distracts the reader from the point you were trying to make through this piece. It would be beneficial to stick to the standard white text so the reader can focus more on your writing, and less on the physical appearance. Another thing you should consider changing is the spacing in the first three sentences to match the rest of the blog. Also, it took me a while to find the link to your article. If getting rid of the highlight doesn't help, try making the ink more obvious by providing the URL. I did enjoy, however, the quality of this post. The amount of details you included to support your argument on diction was outstanding. Try adding more specific examples for support for details and syntax. Also consider spitting diction and syntax into separate paragraphs to make it clear to the reader when your are changing topics. I loved how you were able to make your conclusion concise, yet impactful.
ReplyDeleteHi Alice, I loved this piece and really cannot think of too many criticisms. It was very well written, contained all the appropriate pieces, and was organized in the proper paragraph form. You reflected on your three chosen areas of DIDLS and did a good job showing how they were used by the author to show his stance on the issue. I agree Catherine and Jaclyn though that the colors made it hard to read so I would change that if I were you. You could also try using a few more direct quotes to support your ides and back up the specific areas of rhetoric you are discussing and their effect on the piece. Other than that though it included all the correct things and was written nicely, great job!
ReplyDeleteAlice--I feel like this October close reading is a bit rushed, actually, because I don't see progress here from your September close reading. (Your peers easily spotted that you need to back up what you are saying with quoted examples in the details and syntax paragraphs, for instance.) It would be good if you'd come back and done some revising of this and of the Response to Course Materials post that was a bit too much of a summary instead of being a reflection/connection kind of piece. Your own comments to peers need to be sharpened up a bit in their focus--it's fine to add in additional comments about tangential things (it's always okay to be a friendly team member!) but remember that the primary focus of the peer review is to offer ideas that challenge your peer's thinking.
ReplyDelete