https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-harberson-college-admissions-scandal-data-20190328-story.html

In Sara Harberson’s article, she argues that college should disclose all the admission information and be fair to all student by favoring students who have extraordinary abilities instead of on races, financial aid, and so on. In her article, she lists many factors, which applicants do not know, that can affect the acceptance rates. She carefully explains the mechanism (tricks) of college admission and criticize that they are not fair for many middle and low-income students who demonstrate high academic abilities. Her language is clear and easy to understand, effectively conveying her opinion to her audience.

Harberson mainly appeals to logos and pathos to persuade her audience. Her argument is logical because she provides plenty of examples to show that colleges do not “operate with sound ethics”, which creates a need for disclosing of all the information for examination of honesty. Firstly, she discusses that early-decision programs, students who apply for these programs have to attend the colleges that offer them, is not fair for less wealthier students, because wealthy students “have the means to apply without needing to compare financial aid offers”. The audience, American parents and students, all know that colleges, especially renown colleges, are extremely expensive, and financial aid offer is indeed a great concern for many middle-class students who desire for a high-quality education, therefore likely finding themselves agreeing with her point. She also compares the data of Dartmouth college’s early-decision admission rate of 28 percent and regular ones 8 percent. This sharp disparity would allow audience clearly see the advantage that early-decision students have and probably rouses indignation toward the unfairness of the admission.

Furthermore, she also utilizes pathos to persuade some of her audiences. She points out that need-aware colleges tend to have a higher bar for students who apply for financial aid. She ends this paragraph by saying that “when low- and middle-income students apply and don’t get admitted, they assume they weren’t strong enough candidates. But this simply isn’t true”. This strong opinion can directly touch the hearts of some of her readers who are low- and middle- income students. Those students would feel that they are supported and cared by Harberson and develop a good feeling toward the author and strongly agree with her opinion.

I personally agree with her point because her supporting examples are real problems. Early-decision admission is indeed difficult for me because it limits my choice. I have to be extremely careful about applying which college’s early-decision program and weighing so many different factors. If I can see the admission rate of different admission programs, it is much easier for me to make good decisions and attend the college that fits me the best. Furthermore, disclosing of all the admission information would definitely discourage people from trying to get in to famous colleges through unfair ways, like buying into the college through relationship, and so on. Then, more students with great abilities can enjoy better educational resources, develop their skills, and become elites in the society. Think about it, maybe many students’ fates will change when their hard work is recognized and can bring them out of their poverty and social circle and take them to a higher level.

https://www.latimes.com/bs-ed-op-5g-moratorium-20190304-story.html?

Heather R. Mizeur in his essay “Is 5G technology the new fracking” warns people to remind the potential risks of 5G technology instead of blindly trusting the advantages of 5G technology. In the first paragraph, the author compares 5G technology to fracking to imply that people should be careful about the possible disadvantages because of the bad consequences of fracking, a technology to extract oil and gas from shale rocks that eventually have negative impacts on many aspects. After making a concession about numerous advantages that 5G technology can bring to our lives, Mizeur specifically informs his readers about the wireless transmission of information and the fact that microwave frequency technology is weaponized by military to warn people about risks of this new technology and should closely examine it before its implementation in communities.

In his essay, Mizeur’s purpose is to warn his readers that despite the advantages, it is important to consider the potential negative consequences on various aspects of 5G technology before accepting it into the communities. The author employs rhetorical questions, diction, and appeal to logos to persuade his audience. In the first paragraph, Mizeur asks a series of questions concerned about the potential disadvantages of 5G technology: ” Will 5G wireless technologies burn our skin? Decimate important insect populations? Disrupt sleep patterns? Cause severe headaches or even brain cancers?” These questions are slightly exaggerating, but they do not expect answers from readers. Those questions guide exciting readers who greatly look forward to enjoy the benefits of 5G technology to also ponder about these potential risks and closely examine this new technology. These questions would also probably generate certain doubts in readers and in turn attract his readers to further read his reasoning following his argument. Instead of generally introducing about 5G technology, these exaggerating questions mixed in the context of fracking, whose negative consequences are already well known, the author effectively draws readers away from the excitement for 5G and leads readers to think more logically. Mizeur also appeals to logos to persuade his audience. By discussing the fact that “[millimeter] wave frequency is able to bypass the skin and absorb into the sweat glands, [causing] severe burning”, which “has been weaponized by the military”. This example demonstrates that 5G technology can be a powerful weapon because of its potential threat to human’s health, which leads to his audience to conclude that this new technology contains health risks and therefore should be examined before implementing. Mizeur also uses his strong diction to further convey his argument. By leading readers to think “data that gets transmitted wirelessly as tiny energetic bullets”, since the word “bullets” can be easily associated with hurting and killing, Mizuer effectively cause his readers to regard 5G technology as harmful to health. Overall, Mizuer employs rhetorical questions, appeal to pathos, and diction to convince his readers about the potential threat about 5G technology.

I personally do not agree with author’s opinion for several reasons. Firstly, the cellular radiation does not have a strong correlation with harmful health effects. It is understandable that people like Mizuer have worries about cellular radiation because some researches indeed show the danger of it. A research conducted by The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has demonstrated that male rats exposed to radio frequency radiation (RFR) used in 2G and 3G cell phones cancerous heart tumors. “There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats” (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). However, according to John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist, this study on rats cannot apply directly to humans because “rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience” (Bucher). Therefore, the harmful effects discussed in Mizeur’s essay are not that serious. Furthermore, Mizuer’s rhetorical strategies generate doubts in my hearts also. Mizeur’s strong diction, namely exaggeration, is somehow emotional and can rouse fear and worries by simply telling how many data hit our bodies per second and describing them as “bullets”. Overall, I understand the reason that author has worries for 5G technology; however, if leading researchers and experts cannot discover any potential harms of this technology, let lone its tremendous benefits on our society, we can safely implement this new technology and enjoy its convenience.

Link: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-heffernan-new-zealand-mosque-video-terrorism-20190316-story.html

In Virginia Heffernan’s essay Do people really need to be protected from the New Zealand shooter’s footage on Los Angeles Times, she discusses the fact that the live videos of shooting made by the shooter in New Zealand shooting incident have spread too fast on the internet that the major media platforms like Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter cannot contain the footages. After asking her audience a question that whether should people be forced to avoid watching violent videos from white supremacist terrorists, she uses several historical examples to show that graphical information is the best way to expose “the horror of war, violent crime, terrorism, subjugation, and even genocide”, so people do not need to be protected from watching the video.

Heffernan appeals to logos in her audience to support her argument. She lists several historical examples of graphical dissemination of horrible incidents to demonstrate their effectiveness to reveal problems in our society. Firstly, she firstly describes that “1972 war photos of 9-year-old running from her destroyed village in Vietnam — naked, burned, desperate —” produced by Nick Ut displeases President Nixon and helped “build opposition to the Vietnam War”, which evidently shows its effectiveness of demonstrating the horror of the war. She also presents that “Alain Resnais’ 1956 ‘Night and Fog,’ a 32-minute film about the mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust” is re-aired by the French government and even used by some American high schools to show the horror of the war and to teach students about the evilness of racists. Then she compares these historical examples to New Zealand shooting incident, arguing that since the authoritative organizations apply graphic products for good purposes, Heffernan argues that people do not need to be protected from watching shooter’s graphic video. Readers who read about the successful historical examples Heffernan presents see the positive effects of seemingly horrible graphics and recognize that the shooter’s crazy video of killing people in the Mosque can also serve as a good reminder of the problem behind this incident.

I agree with the author’s opinion; however, I also believe that the graphic products need to be modestly modified to achieve its purpose. Because graphics directly display vivid images to people, they can efficiently rouse the sentiments and readily convey the emotions. It is also much easier for people to comprehend pictures than words. For instance, “The Thanksgiving Table”, a cartoon produced by artist John Cole, directly criticizes people’s inflated desire for seizing commodities during Thanksgiving holidays rather than being with family and appreciating their lives. This cartoon is effective because its visual effect forms a strong contrast to reveal to people how greedy and empty have people’s hearts become in this monetary society. Similarly, the violent video posted by the shooter in New Zealand shooting incident can make people realize the evilness of supremacist beliefs, because people can directly feel the horror and craziness of that shooter’s behavior. Nevertheless, I do believe that the video needs to be modified to convey the correct ideas to people. People who watch the video without proper guidance will experience a hard time due to uncomfortable content, and some people who are also supremacists might see this as a model to imitate, instigating more similar incidents. Therefore, the video should be modified to fit a anti-terrorism and anti-supremacist theme and serve as a negative example to warn people of extreme beliefs.

Nowadays, increasing numbers of Mexicans flow to American through the border to seek for higher salaries and better lives. To prevent this flow of illegal immigration from happening, wall is built on the border. Charles Bowden, a New Mexican journalist and essayist, analyzes the situation of the border in Naco, Mexico by interviewing local people and argues to his audience, who might be governmental people and others who concern about the illegal immigration problem, that the border wall fails to achieve its purpose and does not solve the problem. He maintains an informative tone and employs appeal to ethos to support his argument.

Bowden establishes his authority to persuade his audience by drawing connection between famous historical examples and interviewing the local people’s opinions. Firstly, Bowden discusses several famous historical walls that keep people out, such as The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland, the short Maginot Line in France, and the rabbit fences in Australia. One thing they all share in common is that they eventually fail to achieve their purpose: they are all overrun. Bowden defines the wall in border of Naco “one compact bundle” of “all the walls of the world” and presents the fact that this wall, like famous historical walls, has the same purpose but fails to achieve the purpose, to keep numerous Mexicans from entering United States illegally. Instead of only discussing the futility of the border wall, drawing connections to these famous historical examples lead audience to visualize and compare the similar traits in these different walls and derive the conclusion by themselves that the border wall does not achieve its purpose. Most importantly, Bowden argues his opinion based on the interview of the local people, include Rodolfo Santos Esquer, the author of a weekly newspaper in Naco, and Dan Duley, an American resident in Naco area. He uses the third person view, view of Esquer, to point out that the wall “hasn’t changed his life or the lives of most people in town”, that “coyotes, [“people who smuggle immigrants across the border for a fee”], raise their rates”, that “after the wall went up in 1996, the migration mushroomed”, and “people just climb over it with ropes”. Duley is against the illegal immigration of Mexicans; however, he emphasizes that “the real solution has to be economic”, which implies that the wall simply does not solve this problem. The interview of local residents fully support Bowden’s argument that the wall has no use of keeping illegal Mexican immigrants from entering America. By putting the opinions and experiences of local residents in both Mexico and America instead of drawing his own opinions about the wall, Bowden creates an objective tone, effectively convinces his audience that his information is trustworthy, and persuades his audience to believe that the border wall is useless.

I totally believe Bowden’s point. Things never happen without a reason. Why in the world would so many Mexicans move into United States, being away from their home and families? Do they not like their families and their home? In Bowden’s essay, he points out a fact that Mexicans who go through the border can raise the income tenfold. Imagine if American’s average salaries is ten times lower than Mexican’s, wouldn’t many Americans attempt to migrate to Mexico too? In fact, the real problem is really the big difference between the rich and the poor. Even though this is a wall that can totally block all Mexicans from crossing the border, they still live in harsh lives. I hope more and more people can help to support Mexican economics in the border to change the local people’s living qualities, and no more illegal immigrants will migrate to United States.

1. Gould in the essay refutes the viewpoint that women are intellectually inferior to men supported by Broca’s research data by arguing with his own logical reasoning and analysis, and he further points out that it is wrong to claim the inferiority of any single group by using false scientific evidence and reasoning.
2. Gould appeals to logos in writing his essay to further back up his point and persuade his audience. For instance, before refuting Broca’s general opinion, Gould lists a set of data that Broca uses. Gould presented that “Broca calculated an average weight of 1325 grams” from “292 male brains” and “140 female brains averaged 1144 grams”(Gould). Then Gould argues that Broca’s data are not reliable to prove his point because “the difference could be attributed to the greater height of males” and “he made no attempt to measure the effect of the size alone” (Gould). Later, Gould presented the small-size of Broca’s sample, the decrease in brain weight with aging, and higher brain weight with taller body to lower the difference of 181 grams to 113 grams. In addition, he discusses the decreasing effects of “lengthy, degenerative disease” on the weight of brain, which is common in elderly women samples in Broca’s study, and different “body build”  between men and women and conclude that there should be no difference between brain weight of men and women. Gould shows a large amount of details of Broca’s study and reasoning and that of Gould’s own refutation by presenting many numbers and using sufficient evidence to support his point, which makes his argument very clear, trustworthy and more persuasive to readers. Gould’s refutation of Broca’s conclusions in his study expresses his opinion that using inadequate scientific evidence and false reasoning to justify the cultural bias toward certain social groups is completely absurd.
3. I totally agree with Gould’s point because I believe that intelligence level has nothing to do with different sexes. There are countless examples to demonstrate that women have the same potential to be intelligent as men do. There are many accomplished women scientists like Marie Curie, Mae C. Jemison… In linfield, I also see many talented female students who have very high grades.             

1.Ehrlich in her article highlights that the popular view of the cowboys reflected on the advertisement is completely opposite of cowboys’ real characteristics. Instead of being stern, tough, manly, silent, and whatever that describes “the macho, trigger-happy man”, cowboys in fact have tender hearts, possess “resilience, patience, and an instinct for survival”, and are a little bit shy (Ehrlich). The author uses so much ink to depict the details of cowboys. She regards the spontaneous actions of those cowboys to save their animals stuck in difficult situations as selfless courage, “a form of compassion”, which reflects their extreme kindness toward their animals. She claims that the “toughness” of cowboys is their optimism when facing difficult situations. She discusses cowboys’ “androgynous core” that reflects manliness outside and a cute, gentle world inside (Ehrlich). She mentions cowboys’ shyness toward women and girls because of their isolated environment. All the detailed descriptions jeopardize the popular understanding of cowboys as manly, tough, and thrill for danger that “is built on American notions of heroism” (Ehrlich).

2. Ehrlich employs good diction to effectively express her viewpoint that our modern understanding of cowboys is completely wrong. She uses the word “hell-bent”, “perversely”, “pervert” to highlight that the populous view of cowboys are distorted, false understanding about their characters. Since those words convey a strong and negative tone that can slightly overwhelms the readers, Ehrlich apparently stresses the severity of our distorted depiction of cowboys and criticizes it. To support her opinion, she utilizes words such as “androgynous”, “midwives”, “nurturers”, “conservationists”, “tenderness”, “evasive”, and “vulnerability” in her argument. The word “androgynous” precisely points out that cowboys, besides having the masculine look outside, contains feminine tenderness as well. Also, when readers see the words “midwives” and “nurturers”, they immediately have females characters in mind; therefore, using these words gives readers a clear idea of the feminine characters of cowboys. “Evasive” and “vulnerability” convey the idea to readers that cowboys are shy and weak emotionally compare to people who blend in modern social environment. The careful choice of words explains why the modern understanding of cowboys is incorrect.

3. I totally agrees with Ehrlich’s opinions. Since she has the firsthand experience with cowboys and describes a large amount of details of cowboys, her sayings are solid and trustworthy to me. In addition, people often incline to make assumptions about things that they do not have much understanding about it. There are some examples in our lives. Many people regard Dubai as a extremely wealthy city in which everyone has infinite amount of money and gold. There is even rumor that in Dubai everyone can purchase many sport cars. However, the reality is that they are actually many foreign laborers in Dubai who toil but earn low wages, and their lives far from what people have thought they are. Indeed, they are many skyscrapers, luxurious hotels, and expensive sport cars in Dubai, but the publicity of the city obviously focuses too much on the extravagances of Dubai instead of the objective view of Dubai.

A university should focus more on its facilities, such as libraries, computers or laboratory, rather than on hiring famous teachers. Agree or Disagree?

Universities need to provide very good quality education to students, because it is the last step before students enter career live and society. Good education can build a solid foundation for those students and allow them to succeed in their future lives. Better equipment and better teachers can greatly improve the quality of university education, but it is difficult to judge whether should the university focus more. I personally believe that the quality of the teachers determine the quality of the education.

Firstly, good teachers not only deliver concepts to students, but also teach them effective studying techniques and promote students’ interests. All students must have some teachers who they do not really like maybe because of their bad teaching style. For instance, some teachers do not explain concepts clearly and go over them very fast, so that students are often left in confusion. Some teachers only teach the stark concepts in textbooks and speak in a drowsy tone, so that students often feel exhausted and want to go to sleep during the class. But it is going to be a different story with famous teachers. Famous teachers know how to make the class more interesting with different hooks, anecdotes, and their humor, so that students can develop interests in their classes. They also can employ ways that allow students better understand and master difficult concepts, and when those students succeed, they will also feel a sense of accomplishments and are willing to study harder.

Secondly, famous teachers can also inspire students and make an impact on their lives. They not only pass on knowledge to students but also give them inspiration and encourage students to apply what they learn to real life. This ability is very beneficial to students’ future career. Besides, famous teachers mostly have abundant life experiences and valuable characters, so they can provide students with unique insights into various things and influence students with their good characters. For instance, famous professors may use extra class time to discuss life questions with their students, broadening students’ horizons. An enthusiastic professor can also easily pass on his enthusiasm to students. The discussions in classes and valuable characters from professors can indirectly change students’ lives.

Overall, hiring famous teachers is very important because famous teachers not only can improve students’ studying abilities but also positively influence their characters. Even though good facilities also allow students to solve problems much more efficiently, but the influence of good teachers can have long lasting effects on students’ lives.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton