TOW #30- Dear Future APELC Student

Dear Future APELC Student,

This is going to be no easy task.

You are probably walking into this class with some impressive grades you have earned the past two years, specifically well in English courses the last two years. With that said, no matter how successful you have been previously this course will challenge you in ways you have never been challenged academically.

For myself, I decided to take this course at the end of my sophomore year as I had done well in both freshman and sophomore honors language arts classes. I felt like I was ready to move up to an Advanced Placement course and succeed in that course similar to the success I have found in every Language Arts class I have taken in my time at Wissahickon. The only problem is, this course is not like every other Language Arts course offered previous to Junior Year.

You will be challenged like you have never been challenged before in writing and your analytical reading. You will be given readings to analyze that are not easy to pick up the first time going through. You will have homework assignments that are nearly impossible to save until the night before. Along the way you will see grades that you may have never even seen or imagined that you would ever receive in school.

However, after going through the course, you will see yourself as a better writer, reader, analyzer, and growth as a student. The difference between a student first walking into Mr. Yost’s room in September and a APELC student who is up at 8am on the day of the AP Exam is exponential, and through the course of the year everything is purposely instructed to prepare you for that day in May in which you show everything you have learned. At times you may have regrets in taking the course, or may be in fear of receiving grades that have never been present on your transcript. Nevertheless, at the end of the day this class is truly a marathon, and after the ups and downs of taking this course you will feel satisfied with the growth you will experience in only a year with Mr. Yost. 

Trust me, it will all be worth it even during the times where nothing seems to be going right in the course. You can really take my word for it as I had some of the worst lows I could ever have imagined in the course. There will be times of disappointment, but it will surely be reversed into the success and gratification that are associated with the growth gained from taking this test.

Best of Luck to You,

Drew Geller

TOW #29: Our Obsession With Guns

In Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine he has many claims that collectively make up for his overall argument regarding the gun issues in our modernized American society. With that said, one of his most focused on claims is the fact that Americans are obsessed with guns. At first, such a statement comes off nearly as a hyperbole when seeing the documentary, however after seeing Moore’s argument, it soon begins to make sense that this obsession could very well be the reasoning behind our gun problems we face today.

Moore interviews people from his own state of Michigan who are nearly obsessed with guns to the point where they stress it is a necessity in their life. The militiamen he interviews stress that guns are a right of being an American, therefore if an American does not own a gun, they are simply not capitalizing on one of the many opportunities there are for being an American citizen. Additionally, Moore compiles many different commercials we have all seen on TV, primarily commercials with an intended audience of children, which advertise child guns that are almost identical to those that an adult would have. Thus, Moore even goes out on a limb and says that this obsession is not even with adults, it begins with children therefore by the time they are adults the obsession has already developed and can lead to the issues we have today with firearms.

Furthermore, Michael Moore depicts America’s obsession with guns with more evidence as he travels to locations such as a barbershop where you can get your haircut, but also purchase a gun while you’re at it. He also goes into the house of a man who has a gun hidden right under his pillow, and the man’s simple yet convincing response to having the weapon under his pillow was for protection. Moore adds to this claim that Americans are obsessed with guns by tying it to another claim of his that Americans are obsessed with guns due to the fact that Americans live in fear. Hence, having a gun is what makes Americans feel safe, and with so many guns in circulation, this is when the catastrophes we hear on the news begin to make sense as these guns end up in the wrong hands.

After watching this documentary, the progression of Moore’s argument seemed to come alive in my mind, as it seemed to come together like a puzzle. The main claim, that Americans are obsessed with guns, begins to make sense when you look at the illustrations of fear in which our people live in portrayed from the media and other sources. This claim is further emphasized when Moore compares the safer Canadian society without guns to that of Detroit and other major cities in which there is atrocities everyday related to gun violence. 

TOW #28: "Bowling for Columbine"

Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine dives into the heated discussion regarding gun control that exploded throughout the nation after the Columbine High School Shooting. Moore was born in Michigan, a region where he calls “A State of hunters” since many individuals there have hunting down as one of their hobbies. Additionally, to gain a sense of ethos Moore specifically mentions that he is a member of the NRA, and more importantly, as actually a national champion as a teenager for rifle shooting. With the film including an immense amount of additions such as commercials, past videos, and more importantly many interviews, Moore orchestrates a documentary that collectively consists of many valid speakers and also enhancers to his documentary that speak much louder than the sole voice of Michael Moore. Moore has a snarky sense of humor, which is depicted in many of his interviews that adds a touch of relief to such a serious topic. Moore has fun with some of his interviews as he comes face to face with some of the most stubborn individuals who advocate the need to bear arms in the 21^st century American society in which we live in.  Even though the Columbine shooting is what sparked the interest of Moore, he travels throughout the country as well as Canada to interview individuals years after and questions them about overall gun policies that may not even pertain to the exact shooting at Columbine. With that said however, Moore definitely originates his search with the Columbine shooting and expands it to the bigger picture when he questions those of the NRA and also others around the country about their experiences with guns. Moore purposely creates this documentary into a movie in order to expand the general audience who will see his film, mostly because he wants the audience to be American people and they will therefore realize that Moore has created a strong argument. His purpose of the video is to question the reason we all need guns in such a safe modern society, and thus the audience will now be shifted in their opinions after watching his film.  

Moore first points out the obsession Americans have with guns, then transitions it to the fact that Americans have guns for the lone purpose of living in fear and needing a sense of security. In order to reach his purpose that guns are not needed as a necessity in our American society, he uses various techniques in his documentary such as humor and juxtaposition. Moore has a creative sense of humor that is clearly exhibited early in the documentary when he sets the scene by saying everything was normal in America, “our president was bombing some country we don’t even know the name of”. With the topic of gun control connecting to the emotional topic of death caused by guns, the occasional joke of Moore brightens the mood of the overall documentary to relieve the sense of sadness that is provoked from the insanely sad stories he mentions such as the death of a 6-year-old girl. Additionally, the use of humor suggests to the audience that this is nearly common sense what Moore is informing his audience. All of his evidence is so convincing and complied coherently that he comes off as blunt as possible in a humorous way to suggest to the audience that change needs to be done. With the hard work Moore did to compile all of his interviews and videos, the use of humor is only necessary because the audience will have no other rebuttal to such an argument.

Moore also uses juxtaposition in his documentary to further stress the American obsession to guns, and how our policies need to change to adapt to such violence arising from uncontrolled gun regulations. Moore compares the deaths around the world from the largest countries similar to the United States, and with such drastic numbers this comparison technique clearly illustrates the American issue when it comes to guns. Also, to further the comparison Moore travels to Canada where he interviews many Canadians and even walks into their open houses to stress the fact that these people lack fear and therefore have a limited number of deaths per year from gun use. Even though I only mentioned two devices Moore uses to achieve his purpose, it would be foolish not to recognize the fact that Moore strategically composed his documentary into a progression from one event in our history to a larger question about our society in comparison to other countries. With such a drastic progression, Moore needed to transition yet maintain the audiences understanding of such a complex issue with our society. 

TOW #27: Reflection

After competing the APELC Exam on 5/9/14 I truly felt the growth that I had been waiting to feel all year long. After completing the exam I felt that I had been prepared enough for the test, and with all of my highs and lows I blew it out of the water on 5/9/14, the day that mattered most. I also experience this sense of growth when looking at my TOWs that range from September until now, and to really, REALLY, see the growth I even look at my summer work for this class.

When I first used to complete these TOW assignments, my responses were extremely formulaic and were lacking in analysis. They were purely descriptive, and they would simply explain the author, audience, and purpose, while only saying how the author achieved the purpose in a miniscule section of the overall TOW. With that said, my progression of analysis greatened immensely throughout the year, as well as my creativity. I went from listing everything about SOAPst to mentioning these concepts throughout my TOW and analyzing them to see the impact or importance they have on the overall text’s purpose. Additionally, I began to select tougher texts, which was a good challenge since the AP Exam obviously does not have the easiest or most interesting texts that you need to analyze on the multiple choice section and analysis writing section. While it is important to consider everything about SOAPst, I definitely think the progression of my TOWs mastered the compromise needed to maintain both a good chunk of analysis (much more than I had earlier in the year), however explain the reasoning behind why the author’s rhetoric was successful in achieving the text’s purpose.

With these TOWs I believe that I have gained much needed assistance in analyzing a texts purpose and then being able to write about it. I know with a lot of my analysis essays in class I used to always search for only devices, and also not even truly understand the author’s purpose, the most crucial aspect to analytical reading, before I began to write my essays.  Yet I have not mastered it completely, I feel that I have made great gains in regards to the ability to read a text and clearly identify its purpose; therefore, it is much easier to see how the author got to their purpose with the devices they implemented within their text.

Throughout the year I constantly struggled with reading when it comes to timed increments, therefore even with these TOW assignments I still have room to grow as a reader. Although these allow to me to better my skills when it comes to reading to find the purpose, I still need to get better so when it comes to timed reading, at faster paces I will still be able to finish quicker yet completely comprehend the text and be able to write an essay on it, or complete multiple choice questions on that text.

Even though at first I thought of TOWs as a weekly assignment that was just sort of irrelevant to the correlation of success on the exam, I began to see how important TOWs are to the ability to better one’s analytical skills. Similar to an athlete and their repetition to create muscle memory, a student who consistently did their TOWs would naturally become a better reader whenever it came to reading a text, finding the purpose, and then finding the devices the author used to get where they did. This increase in analytical skill also helped out with visual texts as well, and these assignments collectively helped increase a skill that is so vital to an audience since they will be able to see the big things and also the little ones that an author intentionally includes in their text to send whatever message is needed to the readers.  

TOW #26-Written Text: Should Scientists 'Jurassic-Park' Extinct Species Back to Life?

John D. Sutter’s text regarding the decision to bring extinct animals back to life challenges the moral argument to whether or not we should let science bring back things that are meant to be gone forever. Sutter finds success in achieving his purpose and addressing both positives and negatives on the topic with his research, mostly because Sutter lacks ethos for his text. This is quite interesting because many of my TOWS have revolved around authors who excel in their field, yet Sutter does so in his text with the use of collaboration of citations from others who excel in science fields that pertain to biology.

In the first sentence, Sutter states, “I thought this was a joke” in response to the question whether or not we should bring other animals back to life. Even though it was unprofessional, it starts out his essay with defining the situation because his audience, common people, would presumably have the same reaction when they open up his text online.  With a strategic arrangement, Sutter then begins his text by starting out with real life examples of research that actually brought animals back to life. Furthermore, Sutter addresses the fact that more research is being done to bring animals such as the Wholly Mammoth back to life.

After introducing the current tasks at hand for some of the biological centers around our nation and their quest to use DNA to recreate animals that no longer exist, Sutter then dives into his personal (and others) views about the morality and also ethical approach to bringing animals back to life. With the use of metaphors, Sutter is able to connect the complex jargon of Biology to the mundane concepts we all know as human beings that use the Internet. At one point, Sutter compares recreating animals to the computer shortcut “command Z” which basically is the undo button on the computer. Therefore, such a metaphor clearly depicts the things we are doing in our laboratories, and also if this is even the right thing for us to do as the ultimate comparison to bringing animals back is to the movie “Jurassic Park”.

After formulating an argument that starts off with what this recreation idea spawns from and also to what is being done within the laboratories within our own nation, Sutter now focuses on the “cons” of such an action. With listing the negatives of recreation, the audience will now understand how while it is good to be able to do so, we cannot afford to due to the mass repercussions that are associated with an action to redo the past basically. 

The Dodo Bird (Extinct since the 1600s)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/sutter-jurassic-park-endangered/index.html?hpt=op_t1

TOW #25: Visual Text: BMW Advertisement

Visual texts have the power to illustrate the physical evidence that written texts lack. In this BMW Advertisement, they depict the abuse of Drinking and Driving, and why it should be prevented. With the use of juxtaposition, the advertising team at BMW was able to create a coherent visual text that has a convincing central argument relating to the harmful effects of drunk driving. While this image was released within the last 10 years, the context could be anytime as there has been a rise in awareness for the prevention of drunk driving. Additionally, it looks good on the behalf of car companies if they promote current public interests such as a movement to keep the roads safer.

When first looking at the image, the viewer sees the contrast, or juxtaposition, between an actual leg and a prosthetic leg. The comparison between what we are used to normally seeing and a foot such as our own contradicts the robotic looking leg that you see someone that is disabled have. After seeing the contrasting images, you then read the text that creates irony saying that humans cannot be replaced such as car parts. This alludes to the notion that while in accidents, primarily caused by drunk drivers, the cars can always be replaced but not the damage to humans.

This creates emotional appeal to pathos, as the reader of this advertisement will now realize that the image is of someone who unfortunately was one hit by a drunk driver. The effect of the emotional appeal creates the moral obligation that is only makes sense that an innocent one should never be harmed permanently. Then of course, to reinforce the company’s message the logo of BMW is at the bottom of the page so the last thing the reader takes in is the idea that BMW supports good causes relating to driving, such as preventing the amount of drunk drivers and creating awareness.

Therefore, I believe this advertisement was effective in the way it was simple, yet in its explicit juxtaposition that illustrates two completely different ideas, the audience will clearly realize the purpose of creating awareness of drunk drivers. Nobody wants to be put in the situation where they themselves would be in danger of such individuals, thus they will join the public awareness movement of BMW and people will also buy BMW cars as they support their communities and are a company of the people.

TOW #24-Written Text: Want Green Cities? Lose the Cars

Eric W. Sanderson, a conservation ecologist, has had enough with cars. In his CNN article “Want green cities? Lose the cars,” he pleads to why we don’t need cars in cities. With the context being Earth Day, Sanderson states his claim that in order to have greener cities, we need to eliminate the cars within them.

In order for Sanderson to build his argument based off such a specific claim, he lists the harm of cars on our cities and also how they are detrimental to the environment. By listing the everyday nuisances when it comes to driving, the audience will eventually see what Sanderson is explaining. For example, he lists the negatives of driving such as noise, traffic, fuel costs, and so on. Therefore, the audience (mostly consisting of adults who drive because CNN is a news source for people of all ages) will now realize that they are in agreement with Sanderson because they have had at least one of these issues with cars most likely. After listing the negatives of cars and how they will prevent us from a movement to make cities “greener”, Sanderson now has to offer his plan in order to keep society functioning without cars.

The build up of Sanderson’s argument is effective in that it addresses a claim, why his claim is a necessary problem to fix, the effects it has on the environment, then completes his argument with avenues for us to investigate in order to fix the problem. The author could have simply just rambled on about how cities are not green, however Sanderson addressed an aspect of cities such as cars, and then built his argument towards how cities do not even need cars, so it only makes sense that if we limit our use of cars in regions where we have other modes of transportation, our cities will indeed become greener.

Sanderson also uses informal diction in his text when he talks to the audience on a first name basis, calling his readers “you”. When he does this it builds an audience with a common unity, people of the country who drive and suffer the negatives when it comes to driving. By uniting his audience, the text now more arguable since the readers will collectively agree that cars have a lot of ulcers such as traffic, noise, etc, and by eliminating them we can also make our cities greener. Sanderson’s text was successful in arguing its claim as it strategically builds the argument from an idea to why it needs to be changed and finally the way we should go about changing this; he essentially provides his audience with the full package of his idea. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/opinion/sanderson-earth-day-cars/index.html?hpt=op_t1