1.      This article begins with a succinct summary of the American Dream. What is your understanding of this concept? What role, if any, has it played or does it play in your own goals and actions?

In discussing these questions, you might ask students to evaluate the extent to which they believe the American Dream is open equally to everyone in the United States. Are some people and groups more advantaged than others? Does everyone even want to participate in the American Dream as it has traditionally been defined?

2.      Paragraphs 2 and 3 summarize what others are saying. Paragraph 2 discusses ways in which the American Dream has been a success and is envied and emulated around the world. Paragraph 3 considers the downside of the American model. Why do you think that this article opens with a discussion of two seemingly contradictory perspectives on this issue?

The article opens with these two contradictory perspectives because its purpose is to go on to suggest that the two can, in fact, be reconciled—that faith in “the American model” is justified even though it may be marked by inequality because there are ways in which that inequality can be remedied.

3.      Paragraph 5 raises three key issues: inequality, meritocracy, and immigration. What does the article argue about each of these aspects of the U.S. economy?

The article argues, first, that inequality in the United States is a complex matter; yes, the rich are getting richer, but the differences between other economic segments of society are narrowing. Second, the case is made that, despite what critics say, immigration has not driven down wages; moreover, it is a fundamental aspect of the American Dream. Finally, the article praises the concept of meritocracy, at the same time admitting that it is not always practiced fairly in the United States and going on to suggest changes to the system that could make the concept more equitable.

1.      According to this article, paragraph 9 in particular, economic inequality is not inherently wrong, as long as three conditions are met. What are those conditions, and what do you think about this view?

The article asserts that the conditions under which inequality isn’t wrong are that wealth is increasing for society as a whole, that a safety net is provided for the very poor, and that there is equal opportunity for all to climb through the system. Students’ thinking about this view—and the very concept of the “American model”—may be influenced by the severe economic downturn of 2008 (obviously not anticipated by the rosy assessment of the Economist a little over two years earlier) and by the ways in which the Obama administration has responded in the meantime.

Two Years Are Better than Four

1) What view is Liz Addison responding to?

2) Addison discusses her ow educational experience as part of her argument. What role does this use of autobiographical narrative play in her argument?

3) How does Addison make clear that her topic is really important--and that it should matter to readers?

4) In closing, Addison writes of community colleges "It is here that Mr Perlstein will find his college years of self-discovery, and it is here that he will find that college does still matter." Do you think college still matters? Respond to this point from your own perspective as a college student.

reality television

1.      George F. Will describes as a “race to the bottom” the TV shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” What TV shows might fit his definition? Where in his critique is a “they say” that defends such programming?

Students will likely come up with a variety of examples of “reality” shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” You might ask that they think about such programming in terms of genre: for example, those such as Fear Factor, in which contestants subject themselves to disgusting acts; those such as Survivor that require scheming and manipulation; those such as Temptation Island and I Love New York that are based on sex; and so forth. Which kinds seem most degrading? Will’s “they say” comes in paragraph 10, where he includes the counterargument that works once considered scandalous are now seen as great pieces of art, and in paragraph 12, where he includes the counterargument that television producers are simply providing what viewers want.

2.      Will uses strong language to convey his negative view not just of television programming but of many other aspects of society. He discusses “today’s endemic exhibitionism,” for instance, and talks of life “in an increasingly infantilized society.” How does he see TV fitting into this larger picture?

Will feels that television is exacerbating the coarseness, exhibitionism, and infantilization of contemporary culture by pandering to the lowest common denominator, airing more and more shocking programming to an audience that is more and more desensitized to shock.

3.      This piece was syndicated to more than 400 papers, and yet it’s written in language that is quite formal, even academic. How does Will’s formal style relate to his argument about the “downward spiral” of popular culture today—and to the kind of people he wants his readers to become?

Will’s stylistic formality, his sophisticated diction, and his obvious erudition set him strongly apart from the coarseness and stupidity he decries in contemporary culture. In a sense, his writing provides an example of the level of intellectual discourse to which he believes the culture should aspire.

4.      Compare Will’s views of television viewers today with the views of Steven Johnson (pp. 213–30) or Dana Stevens (pp. 231–34).

Johnson actually has good things to say about reality television. As suggested in the discussion of his essay earlier, he thinks shows such as Survivor and The Apprentice keep viewers on their toes by constantly introducing new challenges and changing what seem to be the rules; they also test social networking skills by requiring that viewers pay close attention to participants’ personality traits. This is exactly the opposite of what Will argues. Stevens, in arguing against Johnson’s position, is perhaps closer to Will, but she still refuses to characterize television as “brain-liquefying poison,” which would clearly be Will’s view of reality television. 

ads

fruit loops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdsV1ROQTZg

mcd's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oACRt-Qp-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmrTDZy3f2M

your trusted friends

advertising to kids

synergy?

similarities b/w ray kroc and ronald mcdonald?

golden arches!

Warner

1) Citing such influential figures as Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck, Judith Warner suggests that changing people's eating habits could prove far more difficult than many imagine. Why does she think this change will be so challenging?

2) How are historical changes in public attitudes toward cigarette smoking, discussed in paragraph 8, related to Warner's argument about Americans' eating habits?

3) Does Warner include any possible objections to her argument? If not, do it for her. Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to her argument and then respond to the objection as she might.

Warner seems to consider it unlikely that Americans will adopt a healthier diet anytime soon, despite efforts by Michelle Obama and others to promote better eating. How would you respond to this? Do you agree? Disagree? 

warner

Turned the campaign around by referring to it as an attempt to destroy our pursuit of happiness

Both Palin and Beck mock government efforts to lead Americans to live less fattening lives.

their critique of Obama: your incapable of making your own decisions

Seems so apolitical, so uncontroversial

balko

1.      What does Radley Balko claim in this essay? How do you know? What position is he responding to? Cite examples from the text to support your answer.

Balko’s claim in the essay is that government intervention to curtail obesity (including limiting access to high-calorie foods, requiring menu labeling of nutritional value and fat and calorie content, and taxing high-calorie food), as well as treating obesity as a public health issue, is wrong-headed; instead, personal responsibility should be encouraged. He also argues the larger point that the socialization and government subsidization of medicine leads people to become less responsible for their own health and encourages them to continue to behave in unhealthy ways. See paragraphs 2–3, 5, and 8–9.

2.      Reread the last sentence of paragraph 1: “In other words, bringing government between you and your waistline.” This is actually a sentence fragment, but it functions as metacommentary, inserted by Balko to make sure that readers see his point. Imagine that this statement were not there, and reread the first three paragraphs. Does it make a difference in how you read this piece?

Without the fragment that ends the first paragraph, Balko’s negative stance would not be clear through the end of the second paragraph (unless one noted the negative connotation of language such as “agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives”). But he makes his position explicit at the beginning of paragraph 3.

3.      Notice the direct quotations in paragraph 7. How has Balko integrated these quotations into his text—how has he introduced them, and what, if anything, has he said to explain them and tie them to his own text? Are there any changes you might suggest? How do key terms in the quotations echo one another? (See Chapter 3 for advice on quoting, and pp. 109–11 for help on identifying key terms.)

The first is a direct quotation, which Balko introduces by naming both the speaker and the organization she represents. The second is not so much a quotation as a phrase included in quotation marks so that Balko can distance himself from it;  “personal responsibility bias” is a concept promulgated by trial lawyers that Balko finds ridiculous. He comments directly on the title of the ABC News documentary as a way of emphasizing the point made in the two previous quotations that the idea of personal responsibility, in his view, is being given short shrift.  

1.      Balko makes his own position about the so-called obesity crisis very clear, but does he consider any of the objections that might be offered to his position? If so, how does he deal with those objections? If not, what objections might he have raised?

Although Balko offers examples of what is being proposed by those he opposes and provides a brief summary of their views, he does not consider direct objections to his own position in any detail. For example, he doesn’t explore the issue of the cost benefits of governmental intervention to curtail obesity, an issue that would be raised in opposition to his “leave it up to individuals” approach.

dont blame the eater

1.      What are his arguments against the practices of fast-food companies? How persuasive are these arguments?

Zinczenko argues that fast-food companies do not provide alternatives to the fat- and calorie-laden meals they serve and that they do not prominently display caloric and other nutritional information for these products. As he writes in his final paragraph, “Fast-food companies are marketing to children a product with proven health hazards and no warning labels.” Opinions may differ as to how persuasive these arguments are, but his statistics about diabetes suggest a definite health risk. These arguments also support his larger point that lawsuits against such companies are justified.

2.      One important move in all good argumentative writing is to introduce possible objections to the position being argued—what this book calls naysayers. What objections does Zincenko introduce, and how does he respond? Can you think of other objections that he might have noted?

Zinczenko introduces objections to his arguments at two points: in his first paragraph when he raises the question “Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” and in paragraph 7 where he also phrases the objection as a question (“Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants?”). He responds to these objections by pointing out that fast-food restaurants are “the only available options for an American kid to get an affordable meal.” No alternatives.  "No calorie information charts on fast-food packaging." Calorie info is misleading (all the ad-ons.Ads don't contain warning labels the way tobacco ads do". Students may think of other objections, such as the argument that parents should do more to supervise the diets of their children, teach them good eating habits, and work to counteract the advertising of fast-food chains.

3.      How does the story that Zinczenko tells in paragraph 3 and 4 about his own experience support or fail to support his argument? How could the same story be used to support an argument opposed to Zincenko’s?

By showing that he himself faced the same predicament as the young people who are suing McDonald’s, Zinczenko humanizes the problem and perhaps makes readers more sympathetic to their suit. The fact that he was able to learn to manage his diet, however, could be used to support the opposing argument that other young people should be able to do so as well instead of blaming fast-food restaurants for their weight.

4.      So what? Who cares? How does Zinczenko make clear to readers why his topic matters? Or, if he does not, how might he do so?

Most students will likely feel that Zinczenko succeeds in making clear that his topic matters. He starts out by noting the lawsuit against McDonald’s, something that has gotten significant publicity, and he goes on to document the skyrocketing rates of childhood diabetes, directly linking them to obesity. Further, paragraph 9 provides an eye-opening example of the staggering calorie count of a supposedly dietetic chicken salad offered by one company. More sick, obese kids. Statistics act diabetes.

Not everyone is as motivated as him to turn their lives around.

diabetes

graff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s

school smart v street smart
blaming schools for "missing the opportunity to tap into street smarts and channel them into academic work"

street smarts equated with anti-intellectual concerns

life of the mind associated with weighty and academic subjects

cars, fashion, video games, dating, sports: not intellectual topics

can generate a lot of discussion!

don't need to read a lot of intellectually challenging stuff to become an intellectual

should take on subjects that interest them, not us (p. 298)

1.      So what? Who cares? Graff does not answer these questions explicitly. Do it for him: write a brief paragraph saying why his argument matters, and for whom.

Possible paragraph: Graff’s argument matters because entering college students often find it difficult to become a part of the intellectual life that matters if one is truly to benefit from formal education. Such students start off either bored or intimidated by academic texts, but at the same time they deserve to be given a chance to develop the intellectual skills that they will need in college and later in their careers. Instructors need to find ways of doing this, and Graff believes his model is one such possibility.