Module 1 Discussion-English
I need 250 words Initial post and two replies of 75 words each. You can choose any of the scenario from the three scenario.Due in 24 hours
Choose one of the followingprompts to respond to. Make sure its clear which prompts you chose, perhaps by numbering your responses. Each response should be a solid paragraph in lengthbe sure to explain your answers.
Be on the lookout for anargument(as defined in this weeks module) somewhere in your workplace or community this week. Explain the argument as you witnessed it, and then conclude with a summary with this structure: The arguer wants us to believe that [arguers claim] because [arguers evidence].
Select a topic that sparks local or national debate. Without revealing your position on the issue, pick one side of the debate to analyze and identify, with evidence of each:
that sides claim,
the evidence they use to support their claim,
the assumptions held by its supporters, and
the rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, pathos, etc.) used by that side.
Upload (or link to) an editorial cartoon addressing a current issue. Identify the widely held assumption challenged by the cartoon.
Be sure to respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings. When responding to your classmates, you must address your postings to the person you are responding to on the discussion board. You must write in complete sentences using proper grammar rules.
a better paying job vs a lower paying job
Contains unread posts
Alexandra Schioppo posted Aug 23, 2020 10:23 PM
Subscribe
Last night two of my co-workers were arguing about higher-paying jobs in the environmental services being better, as the other was saying that is not always true. While I was studying and listening to the reasons it had me thinking. Arguer 1 was stating that for the work environmental service does for this one company is not worth the pay due to it being barely anything, also went on to explain how we are all on the front line and we should be receiving COVID pay. The one other important part arguer 1 went on about was how no teamwork and people are leaving for other jobs because they might get more respect and recognized for the work they do. Arguer 2 had stepped in by replying that is not always true, the reasons that were given were even though the company may pay more how much more is the workload? and all bosses, managers, and employees will tell you what you want to hear so they get the person in the door. Also, benefits may not be as good as the lower-paying and but it is not a big workload, thus a little stricter than usual.
What I came to conclude was both arguers made a lot of sense and very good points on the topic, but it is more up to the individual. This is because maybe some individuals like a strict and bigger workload to make time go by and enjoy a fast pace field. As others may like a slower pace and taking their time to get other work task done also, but that is a choice only the individual can make, no matter what though nothing is always better than the other because there is always a downfall for each company, but one big key is there is always going to be problems with teamwork and being recognized for the hard work. It is about how you can handle the situations and understand that work is a place to do the job the company pays the individuals for not making friends and finding fault, as easy as they can hire many is how fast they can let go of the employees who complain.
Contains unread posts
Benjamin Stripling posted Aug 24, 2020 4:52 PM
Subscribe
Within the editorial cartoon above, there are two main themes. One is the well documented and highly publicized “College Admissions Scandal” that exposed some of Hollywood’s elite in a bribery scheme. The other is the hotly debated Electoral College policy that has been in effect since the 18th century (Kurtz). The artist’s play on words combines two issues currently at the forefront of scrutiny with the looming election and the tarnished integrity of the college admissions process.
Actress Felicity Huffman was named as one of many individuals who used her prominent status to provide monetary bribes or doctored resumes for their children to receive acceptance into prestigious universities. In an article by “The Washington Free Beacon,” the writer also correlates the accused with previous donations to the Democratic party, which ties into the editorial cartoon(Smits).
The integrity of the Electoral College is highly debated among the Republican and Democratic parties. This is especially true when cases arise, such as in the 2000 and 2016 presidential election. During these years, the Democratic nominee’s Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the overall race due to the collective electoral votes(Kurtz).
Through humor, this cartoon highlights some glaring deficiencies of a process that has cost hard-working students an opportunity to further their education at the desired university, while also reigniting political strife during an election year.
“Editorial Cartoon: March 24, 2019.”The Miner. N.p., 24 Mar. 2019. Web. 24 Aug. 2020.
Kurtz, Howard. “Why Democrats Want to Abolish Electoral College, Pack Supreme Court.”Fox News. FOX News Network, 20 Mar. 2019. Web. 24 Aug. 2020.
Smits, Mikhael. “Democratic Donors Charged in College Admissions Scam.”Washington Free Beacon. Washington Free Beacon, 13 Mar. 2019. Web. 24 Aug. 2020.
