David Langley’s piece on skateboarding was based mostly off of personal experience, and the piece by Michael Levin used more hypothetical situations and a few real life examples in order to possibly persuade the doubter and make them a believer.
David Langley presented many personal experiences to better his argument. He was able to give insight to the reader, which allowed the reader to learn more about skateboarding and relate to him. In addition to his use of personal experience, he does explain the other side of the story, and offered sufficient evidence as to why the opinions of skateboarders were false. For example, he stated, “for one thing, skateboarding tears up public and private property.“ Because Langley presented both sides to his argument he would be more likely to sway the opinion of the reader from maybe a doubter to a believer or vice versa.
However, personal experience doesn’t always connect with a reader because it can be hard for them to relate to the writer’s point of view. Michael Levin’s piece used hypothetical examples, and in class we had discussed that sometimes these types of arguments aren’t convincing.
2 comments:
I enjoyed your comment about how he attempted to share both sides of the argument. It illustrates that it cannot be a pseudo-argument, which allows the reader to believe the article even more.
Also on your comment relating to this blog:
I do agree that he is trying to relate to both sides, but if it flaws one's hypothesis then it shouldn't be used in my super smart opinion ;P
I agree with you that he used both sides of the argument. I think that this article had a lot of emotional appeal and that makes it easier for the audience to gain more insight and be more likely change their opinion.
Post a Comment