TOW #19- Argument (Advertising Medicine)

In yesterdays New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal published on article on the amount of advertising that is done in the U.S on medicine.  After examining the facts, it is scary how money hungry hospitals and healthcare providers are, when in reality they should be more focused on what they are meant to be for, providing health care to rid the world of sickness.
As Rosenthal states, The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow advertising for medicine.  When we are sitting on a subway, watching t.v, or driving down the highway, we always seem to see some sort of advertising which is promoting a drug that we may not need, and its affects will be minimal, while its price is maximal.  Drug companies are promoting drugs that may be only needed for one hundred people, while even those one hundred people may not actually benefit from it.  They are too focused on a customer based market, as opposed to a patient based market.  Even in 2016, two Superbowl sponsors were health care providers, advertising their service to a market much broader than the patients that need their medical service.  We have come to the point in our world where CEO's would rather make an extra million dollars to their worth by advertising their products, as opposed to spending the money they would spend on advertising on something worth while, like further medical research to make medicine even more effective than it is now.
Pharmaceutical companies to healthcare providers have lost focus on what is right about the service that they provide.  They focus on advertising their products in mass, drawing in customers, and making the profit.  Doctors have been well respected professions in the past, as they contribute to society to make the world healthier.  Yet in a world where now all they care about is making their own money, healthcare is changing for the worse.  Healthcare providers should be more focused on what they are meant be more, which is improving the world and getting rid of illness.

TOW #18- visual

Brandon Stanton is a photographer from New York who created a blog called "Humans of New York."  He documents the everyday lives of humans and the struggles or feats that they run into.  More specifically, Brandon photographed a young man walking home from school.  This photo went viral as the young man goes to a troubled school in the projects yet still succeeds in life and is surrounded by people that want him to succeed,  Yet as we look closer as to why this photo blew up on the internet, Brandon's appeal to pathos and use of color attract the audience into this photo.
  Brandon wants others to hear the young man's story, and he does this through capturing the image while the young man is half smiling attracts the audience into the photo.  This half smile shows all of the struggles that the boy has faced and continues to face, yet also shows the motivation and true happiness that he has.
The happiness that the young man has even though he faces struggles everyday, like not knowing if he will have dinner at night, is truly amazing.  The use of minimal colors in the photo sets up a somber vibe that appeals to pathos by pulling out the remorseful emotions of the audience.  The black jacket and hoodie and the dull grey background of impoverished Brooklyn make the photo even more meaningful.
Brandon's goal was to show the world the story of this young man, and he did so in one photo by appealing to pathos with the boys half smile, and using colors to his advantage to capture the audience.

SNOWDAY TOW (Bet with Mr. Yost)

America is a country that claims it is the land of the free and stands on principles of democracy and easy going government, yet clearly today we are a time of separation within our government.  In the online edition of The New Yorker, columnist and professor at NYU in Economics Paul Krugman wrote an article on "How America Was Lost."  He addresses the divide today in political parties and the chaos that follows it.  He uses rhetorical questions and slight humor to achieve his purpose of getting the audience to understand why the republican party has fallen so far off.
Krugman first uses a rhetorical question, where he asks those who are reading the New Yorker, "So why do I say that only one party has gone off the deep end?"  He leaves this question up in the air for interpretation for the readers to answer it, but then answers it himself by telling readers to compare the Democratic Debates versus the Republican debates.  This engages the audience yet provides an answer later for them to comprehend as well.
Krugman has the audience engaged, and uses slight humor to make his dull topic something of interest.  As he finishes the article with a solution on how to make the republican party better, he adds, "Maybe we should all be wearing hats that say 'Make American Governable Again'."  This adds something of humor to the article so that readers are left with a positive and light impression over a very serious topic, yet at the same time readers are given a viewpoint that is ironically true about our country.
America is a country that should be governed by those who agree with each other, and do not insult other politicians just to gain more votes from the people.  Krugman uses rhetorical questions and appeals to pathos through adding humor in the article to inform the audience why the republican party has fallen into the deep end, and how we may be able to fix our government system.

TOW #17- Is Humanity Getting Better? (non-fiction)

From millions of years ago when the earth formed, to today, where we as a society determine how the earth continues to be formed, the question if we are getting better remains among many.  Is humanity getting better?  Or are we simply adjusting to the way everyday life is, so it merely is an illusion that we are "advancing" into the future.  Writer for the New York Times, Leif Wenar, who is a renowned professor at Oxford University and well known writer for the Times, touches on this so commonly asked question, and uses anecdotes and real data to prove his point, that indeed, society is getting better.
To start off his essay, he recalls London in 1665, while it was being ravaged by the Black Plague.  He tells short anecdotes from this era and place to show what life was like back then.  He recalls how the "government" at the time ordered hunters to kill all the cats and dogs for example. This is an appeal to pathos and logos too, as it provides information and emotional attachment to the essay to gain the readers attention immediately once they begin reading it.  Once he has their attention, he moves along to spit facts about how we truly are getting better.
Wenar goes into details using real data to prove that we are getting better in humanity.  He refers to Joshua Goldstein, a successful and credible writer as well.  He quotes Josh from his essay "How we are winning the war on war."  We do still have many wars and conflicts today, but as the world grows, the casualties decrease. and the amount of peace increases.  Specifically, Wenar quotes from Goldstien that "In the first half of the twentieth century, world wars killed tens of millions and left whole continents in ruins."  This data is used to appeal to logos, as it applies to the more logical side of the argument.  It shows that we are getting better, because we do not have World Wars that leave millions dead.
By simlpy utilising anecdotes and facts, Leif Wenar succesffuly answers and argues his answer to the question of "Is Humanity Getting Better?"