Writing
ISS 310 Michigan State University People and Environment Research Paper

iss 310

Michigan State University

ISS

Question Description

I’m studying for my Writing class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

In Part 4, your final analysis comparing the rhetoric of the two papers, including all thesis statements, a discussion of strategies with examples, a comparison of the two pieces, their sources and success or failure at making a compelling case.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Note: This example is the work of an online geography staff member for the sole and intended purpose of giving you an idea of the type of paper you should be writing in terms of content. The topic and articles used in this example may NOT be the same as those used in the current semester/session. Also be advised that if you are given specific directives in your write-up and you do not follow those instructions, you will be marked down regardless of whether or not they are included in this example. Further, you must use in-text citations if you use any sources other than your two articles and provide a list of your references at the end of your work--this example does not use supporting sources to introduce or conclude the topic, however, it is likely that you will need support. You do not have to highlight your paper. The highlighting in this example is to direct you to important components. Yellow highlighting identifies the thesis of author Niraj Chokshi. Bright pink highlighting identifies the thesis of author Greg Re. Green highlighting identifies at least two rhetorical strategies used by each author. Blue highlighting identifies the source and its significance. Orange highlighting identifies a comparison of the two articles. Blue highlighting also identifies an evaluation of the success and failure of the author’s use of rhetoric. Karen K. Student ISS310, section 730, January 1, 2020 (Word Count: 1535) A comparison of the rhetoric of two authors reporting on the altercation that took place at the border on November 25, 2018. Article citations: Chokshi, Niraj. “Photo of Children Fleeing Tear Gas at Border in Mexico Sparks Anger.” The New York Times, November 26, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/migrant-caravan-immigration-lat in-america.html. Re, Gregg. “Trump: 'Grabber' migrants used children as human shields at border.” Fox News, November 26, 2018, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-grabber-migrants-use-children-as-human-shi elds. Over the past year, migrant caravans stemming from the politically, economically, and criminally volatile countries of the Northern Triangle in Central America, including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, have repeatedly made news as they have advance toward the United States - Mexico border. Policies surrounding the people traveling in these caravans have not only been dragged through American and International media channels, but have also strained relations between the United States and Mexico along the borderlands, as quite often the drive has culminated in turmoil at the border between the two. The advance of several hundred migrants, part of a much larger caravan, on November 25 proved to be no different, except this time United States border patrol agents unleashed canisters of tear gas on the rushing crowd. Author of “Photo of Children Fleeing Tear Gas at Border in Mexico Sparks Anger” Niraj Chokshi uses his piece to chastise the Trump administration’s immigration policies and rebuke the United States Customs and Border Protection agency for their hasty decision to fire noxious tear gas upon a crowd that included the many in the most vulnerable population, children. Reporting on the same event, Re, in a story for Fox News, asserts that the actions of the United States Customs and Border Protection agency were both routine and necessary, as agents acted in self defense, and in the same way previous administrations did, against a violent mob that included criminals and migrants acting to fatally harm children and agents in wanton disregard for the rule of law. To make his case, Choksi leans heavily on pathos, or an emotional appeal to readers, with charged words and narrative, and calls upon eyewitness testimony to give an account of the events that took place, all while understating the seriousness of the altercation. Re, likewise presents his own story, also using authoritative evidence to appeal to the reader’s fears of the event and those involved, and presenting statistical evidence to discredit the opposition, specifically those that would say the actions taken by border agents were extreme or unjustified. The Chokshi piece opens with the image of a woman grabbing the hands of her two children amid a cloud of tear gas seen in the background. The narrative Chokshi begins to weave is one of a scared mother, the children, he points out, are barefoot and in diapers. Chokshi, in perhaps what could be considered a strategy of understatement, then refers to the entire situation as “chaos,” while the Trump administration has deemed it, per Re’s piece, “an extremely dangerous situation.” Chokshi continues his emotionally charged narrative with a quote from the mother describing her fear and sadness and saying she thought her children were going to die as they inhaled the gas. The photographer also provides eyewitness support for Chokshi’s assessment in a firsthand account of what transpired at the border. He had been travelling with the migrants in the days before taking photos, when, as he describes to Chokshi, several members broke from the group and rushed the border, a few men started digging at the border fence. Within minutes, tear gas was fired and the men retreated, leaving behind about 12 fuming canisters, including the one near the family. Another photo used to illustrate this shows one of the same children from the previous photo clearly distraught and in tears; he had lost his shoes from running, so not only was the tear gas causing him pain, but his feet were hurting too. Chokshi is sure to provide readers with expert testimony from the Center for Disease Control to back-up what readers see in the photo, noting the harmful effects of tear gas including, shortness of breath, choking, chemical burns, and blindness, particularly in the most vulnerable populations, like children. If we turn our attention to Re’s piece, a different view of the so-called chaos is revealed. The story opens not with the photo of a mother and her children, but a video of President Trump and his account of the situation. The President describes the migrants who rushed the border as “grabbers,” a term he created for “violent people” who snatch up children from the caravan and use them as human shields so that they can charge the border without being fired upon. Trump also notes that border patrol agents were “very badly hurt” in the charge as rocks were thrown at them. The narrative then switches to the mother, who, as reported by Re, knowingly put herself and her children in danger. Re uses the President’s authoritative testimony to paint a picture of a dangerous showdown during which violent migrants put innocent people, including children and border agents, in imminent, potentially fatal danger. Turning that rhetoric to fear, Re informs readers that the Department of Homeland Security can confirm that most of the migrant caravan is not even eligible for asylum--they are not fleeing danger or violence, Re notes, they are coming for good jobs and to join family--and includes hundreds of criminals who have been convicted for serious and abhorrent crimes including child abuse and rape. Re, knowing that his article is clearly written for those who support stricter border and immigration policies, uses the end of his piece to anticipate any opposition with some statistical evidence. Those, like Chokshi, who would say that these are the overreactions of a rogue president and his draconian ideas about immigration and asylum. Re says that while democrats lined up to admonish the President and the actions of border agents, these actions were no different than those of the Obama administration, a beloved democratic president, whose time in office was marked by the use of tear gas at the border once per month on average. The opposition who is now calling the use of tear gas “horrendous” (the quotes are Re’s), are clearly hypocrites who supported its use throughout the previous administration. The comparison of the two articles above illustrates how one story can be presented from two opposing viewpoints. One relying mostly on emotional appeal and eyewitness testimony to show how a minor altercation by a few out-of-line asylum-seekers resulted in an overzealous reaction by border agents, who, acting in accordance with the President’s policies, put a mother and her young children in danger of irreparable harm. All of this the result of a President’s “harsh tactics and uncompromising policies” on immigration and asylum. The other view dismisses the idea that this was anything but a violent uprising that had to quickly be put down with swift force before agents, mothers, and children were harmed. Re reports that these were not desperate migrants fleeing a dangerous situation, rather they are the dangerous situation, convicted criminals not only ineligible for asylum, but also looking to force their way into the United States and bring harm to the American people. The Trump administration simply followed suit with the Obama Administration and used tear gas to prevent what could have been a deadly outcome for border agents and, ultimately, a scourge on the American population. For those familiar with the media, it may come as no surprise that Re writes for conservative news source Fox News, while Chokshi is a contributor to The New York Times, one sympathetic to the President, the other a harsh critic (Katz 2018). It is likely that there are truths found within both stories, perhaps Chokshi chose to ignore the criminal behavior of some in the caravan as well as the outcome of past border altercations that happened during the Obama administration. Re, on the other hand, chose to emphasize the caravans criminal constituent and dismiss the idea that any in the caravan where fleeing a violent situations in their home countries. For readers who believe Re’s thesis, these migrants are illegal immigrants coming to the United States for good jobs and family. These same people attempted to sacrifice children to protect themselves and, with serious criminal backgrounds, are ultimately a threat to the American people. Considering at the source of both articles and thinking critically about the rhetoric that the authors chose, including the information that was presented as well as that which was not, it is clear that writing to inform can also be a powerful tool to persuade or confirm one’s existing beliefs. While I feel that Re’s article relied too much on the President’s account, the account of someone who was not there and presenting a theory of “grabbers” without substantiation, I also believe the Chokshi’s account was a bit narrow in its reporting of the situation by focusing so much on the experience of one photo and one family, including information like the potential, but not probable, damage that can result from tear gas, even though the mother and her children were unharmed. However, both authors were successful in their appeal to their audience, Chokshi to that of younger, left-leaning liberals and Re to that of older, devout conservatives (Sawhill, Krause, and Sawhill 2018; Mitchell et al. 2018). Chokshi evoked strong emotion and sensitivity toward a vulnerable population preyed upon by those with power, while the latter displayed patriotism by supporting the President and those protecting our borders, while also stirring fear of the criminals who wish to enter our country, break the law and take jobs and entitlements meant for American citizens. References Katz, A.J. "Here's the Median Age of the Typical Cable News Viewer." Adweek. January 19, 2018. Accessed November 29, 2018. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-v iewer/355379. Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, and Katerina Eva Matsa. "Political Polarization & Media Habits." Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. April 26, 2018. Accessed November 29, 2018. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/. Sawhill, V., Eleanor Krause, and Isabel V. Sawhill. "Gauging the Role of Fox News in Our Electoral Divide." Brookings.edu. September 20, 2017. Accessed November 29, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/gauging-the-role-of-fox-news-in-our-electoral-divi de/. Grading Rubric: Comparing Rhetoric Points to be addressed in your response: 1. Title that appropriately describes the paper's content. 2. Introduction of the topic and two articles. 3. Two thesis statements, one per author/article. 4. A minimum of two rhetorical strategies used by each author. 5. Description and examples of how each strategy is used by each author to communicate their thesis to the reader. 6. Identification and significance of the source of each article. 7. A comparison of the two articles to one another. 8. Statement(s) that details the success of the two authors in communicating their theses and significance of their rhetoric. Criteria Content Superior Good All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed specifically and elaborated upon. All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed to an adequate extent. Incomplete Inappropriate All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed, but topic coverage, explanations, Paper's content and details are Paper's content demonstrates a minimal. demonstrates good Paper's content an excellent understanding demonstrates understanding of rhetoric and an adequate of rhetoric and the authors' understanding the authors' use use of rhetoric. of rhetoric and of rhetoric. the authors' use of rhetoric. One or more of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are not addressed. Two or more of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are not addressed. Paper topic and line of argument are very well laid-out and is easily discernible. Paper topic and line of argument are vague. Paper topic and line of argument are discernible. Focus is mostly clear. Adequate Paper topic and line of argument are vague in parts. Focus is not clear. Paper at times goes off topic. Paper is off topic and does not Paper's content address the assigned topic. demonstrates an incomplete Paper's content understanding demonstrates of rhetoric and little to no the authors' understanding of use of rhetoric. rhetoric and the authors' use of rhetoric. Focus is not clear with no cohesive purpose. Writing is very confused and excessively vague. Organization very poor, Focus remains Easy to read Readable but transitions and a clear. Easy to and confused in logical flow of read and understand; places; shows Difficult to read ideas are Coherence & understand and good some logical lacking. and follow organization well-organized. organization. organization. organization; Paper is concise Paper is Provides only writing is but not choppy sometimes minimal choppy and (flow was wordy, but flow coverage of confused. smooth was smooth topic; ideas are Transitions of throughout throughout not always ideas are entire paper). most of paper. presented abrupt or coherently; nonexistent. transitions are not smooth. Creativity Citations Paper demonstrates original thinking and embodies the spirit of the assignment. Paper demonstrates original thinking, with few lapses. Paper contains some original thinking. Paper contains little original thinking. Paper contains no original thinking. The format, writing style, The format, and verbiage The format, writing style, are in most writing style, and verbiage cases and verbiage are are appropriate appropriate for well-suited for for the the assignment the assignment assignment type. type. type. The format, writing style, and verbiage are inappropriate for the assignment type. The format, writing style, and verbiage are inappropriate for the assignment type. A citation style is followed consistently, and all citations are appropriate and correctly constructed where necessary. A citation style is followed consistently, and most citations are appropriate and properly constructed where necessary. A citation style is followed, but one or more citations is inappropriate and/or poorly constructed where necessary. A citation style is not used correctly or consistently, and/or two or more citations are inappropriate and incomplete where necessary. A citation style is absent and citations are inappropriate and/or nonexistent where necessary. Quotes and paraphrased material are used correctly and appropriately throughout. Spelling, grammar, and word count Correct spelling and grammar are used throughout the assignment. Word count is within word count parameters. Quotes and Quotes and paraphrasing paraphrasing are at times may at times used be used improperly or improperly, but without are cited. citation. Some (three or more) errors in spelling and grammar. Within 50 words more or less outside of word count parameters. Numerous (5 or more) careless errors in spelling and grammar. Within 100 words more or less outside of word count parameters. Quotes and paraphrasing are used incorrectly. Quotes and paraphrasing are used incorrectly. Pervasive (8 or more) errors in spelling and grammar. Excessive (more than 10) errors in spelling and grammar. Within 150 words more or less outside of word count parameters. Outside of word count by more than 150 words. Late assignments: If you do not submit an assignment by the due date, you have 24 hours (after the due date) to contact your Instructor to explain your situation AND submit your late response. Responses submitted within this 24-hour window will be worth only half credit. You will receive 0 points for all responses submitted after the 24-hour window. If you are unsure about the grading criteria above, please direct your questions and concerns to your Instructor. Our goal is to help you learn how to improve your writing over the semester, as well as gain a solid grasp of the course material. It is difficult for us to help you improve if you do not ask questions when you are uncertain of something. Your Instructor will also provide feedback for you on each assignment -- please read this feedback and use it to guide your future crafting of assignment-responses. Part 4: Comparing Rhetoric Final Paper In Part 4, your final analysis comparing the rhetoric of the two papers, including all thesis statements, a discussion of strategies with examples, a comparison of the two pieces, their sources and success or failure at making a compelling case. Deliverables You will submit one complete and polished paper that includes all of the following components. (1) A title that identifies your topic and intention. (2) A complete and proper citation (including the date and URL) for each of the articles you select. (3) A paragraph that provides an introduction to your topic and its geographic significance (Who does it impact? Where?), as well as a brief summary of the two news article (What is each article about?). Be sure to include all relevant dates, times, places, and people (or groups of people) in your summary, as well as the author’s purpose. (Note: A writer’s purpose may be to entertain, inform, explain, persuade, or reflect, and this will determine the type of article that is written -- expository writing, explanatory writing, persuasive writing, personal narrative, and so on.) (3) A paragraph that identifies the thesis of each author and your thesis statements about each paper. Remember that your thesis must identify a minimum of two rhetorical strategies used by each (so, two for each, four total), and no more than three, to support their thesis. [Note: the author’s thesis is NOT the same as their purpose. If you do not understand what a thesis is, please see the sample paper, suggested resources, and/or contact your ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Running Head: PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENT

People and Environment
Supervisor
Date:

1

PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENT

2

A comparison of the rhetoric of two authors reporting on “The US-China deal."
Article citations:
Natalie Sherman. “US-China trade deal: Winners and losers” BBC News, January 15, 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51025464
Jill Disis and Charles Riley, “A world trade war is brewing. The US-China deal won't stop it”
The CNN News, January 16, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/business/traderisks-2020/index.html
Introduction
China and the United States have been having trade battles over the years. This has led to
a lot of tension between the two nations that has been described as a trade war. To calm down the
trade war, China and the United States have had a trade deal that is meant to ease the fictions.
There is, however, a lot of uncertainty on whether the agreement will be useful in solving trade
fictions that have existed over the years. The two countries are among the nations with enormous
economies in the world; the trade fictions, therefore, have an impact on the world's economy as a
whole.
Thesis Analysis
Natalie, the author of "US-China trade deal: Winners and losers," uses his piece to
explain how the trade agreements between China and the United States may not be practica...

nkostas (31704)
University of Virginia

Anonymous
Return customer, been using sp for a good two years now.

Anonymous
Thanks as always for the good work!

Anonymous
Excellent job

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4