"They're Syrian Refugees, Not Migrants" Rhetorical Precis

Ellen Ratner, in her article “They’re Syrian Refugees, Not Migrants” (2015), argues that the United States has not done its part in allowing refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to enter its borders and that it’s time for us as Americans to take responsibility. Ratner makes her argument by first bringing in a quote from an esteemed member of the United Nations that asserts that the refugees are not migrants and need to be taken care of and treated with respect, then describing other occasions in which refugees have been turned away by the US and left to die, and finally, stating clearly that the United States has obligation to support refugees, as stated in the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Ratner’s purpose is to make the American people aware of the costs of turning refugees away in order to convince people to stand up for the refugees. She uses quotations and historical facts to create a logical argument that appeals to an educated audience.

I agree completely with Ellen Ratner in regards to her views on this issue. Taking in refugees, though perhaps a complicated process, is the moral and ethical thing to do, and politics should not matter. Taking in refugees saves people’s lives. Turning them away essentially means that you don’t care whether they live or die. Clearly I feel strongly about this issue, but I think that my ideas are influenced by how the Jews were treated during the Holocaust. Most countries, especially the United States, turned away the Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, and that makes me feel as though those countries now have the responsibility to make up for it. Ratner emphasizes that the US is getting around helping the Syrian refugees by referring to them as migrants, not refugees, which I think is disgusting. Why should the US want to get out of helping people? To me, it seems as though the US is being arrogant. If, for instance, the US was taken over and we all became refugees, you can be sure that all the people who are uncertain about helping the Syrian refugees would change their minds. I hope that someday soon the American policy regarding refugees will change for the better.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/theyre-syrian-refugees-not-migrants/

Mac vs. PC Commercial Analysis

Apple Inc., in their commercial, “Out of the Box” (2006), claims that a Mac can be used right out of the box while a PC takes an excessive amount of time to set up. The commercial does this by using people to humorously represent a Mac and a PC; the Mac first lists everything he can do immediately after being purchased, then the PC serves as a contrast by describing all the steps he has to take to be ready for use, and finally the Mac jumps out of the box, telling the PC, “let me know when you’re ready!” The ad’s purpose is to show that a Mac, as opposed to a PC, doesn’t require a lengthy set up, in order to convince buyers to purchase a Mac over a PC. The commercial uses pathos, specifically humor and wit, to reel in prospective buyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwiljBN5-8

The Virginia Shooting- Rhetorical Precis and Personal Reponse

          Nicholas Kristof, in his article "Lessons From the Virginia Shooting" (2015), argues that gun control in America is abysmal and needs to be addressed. He propels his argument first giving several statistics that show the massive amounts of gun homicides, then arguing against gun advocates, and finally, clearly describing steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Kristof’s purpose is to assert that guns are dangerous and should be regulated just as cars, ladders, and pools are in order to convince the general public and the government that gun control is something that needs to be taken more seriously. He uses logic and factual statements to appeal to a more educated audience that could perhaps have the power to make the changes he suggests.

Before reading this article I wasn’t really sure how I felt about gun control, but now I feel more compelled to agree with Kristof. His data and statistics are a little hard to ignore, especially when they seem realistic. When comparing guns to cars, his argument was especially effective. I’ve often thought about how cars are used to argue against people who wish to regulate gun control, and his response satisfied me. Cars were made safer, so guns should be made safer too! It’s so simple! He’s not on the side that wants to get rid of guns absolutely, he’s simply saying that they need to be regulated more carefully. Another thing that I liked about his argument was that he also gave specific steps that should be taken to fix the problem, and they all seem relatively easy. He’s not just saying we need to fix the problem, he’s giving actual instructions that could potentially be followed. All in all, I liked his argument, and I think his suggestions would certainly help lower gun homicide rates and benefit everyone. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html