Gold's Gym: Encounter

***The other day I investigated a membership at Gold's Gym and was introduced to a very over-zealous personal trainer turned salesman...

1. The goal of Jason's sales pitch was to get me to sign a contract with Gold's Gym for 24 months so that Gold's Gym could make that much more money and so that he could make commission. He wanted me to sign a contract that very same day.

2. His argument was that if I signed the contract that day (and that day only) I would not have to put money down, and I would have a low monthly payment. He said it was a deal that they only offered once a year, and that I was so lucky to have come in when I did. He said that there was no better time than now to get in shape with swimsuit season just around the corner.

3. The audience was myself, someone interested in joining a gym to get into shape in a safe, cool environment during the summer. I care about fitness, about health, and self-improvement is important. I'm also a poor college student.

4. His sales pitch used pathos in that he brought up swimsuit season, which he knows will go straight to a girl's emotional response. No one wants to be self-conscious or embarrassed in a swimsuit, and he appealed to that fear. He also used logos by arguing that it was the smartest decision to sign up that day instead of wait until the next day. When I told him I wouldn't be here in Provo for two more years, he pulled out his calculator and used logic to say it would still be cheaper to sign the 24 month contract instead of one for less. Go figure....

5. His sales pitch was effective because I ended up joining. I was already planning on doing it anyway, so maybe that influenced my decision more than his sale, but he was willing to work with me, and that helped convince me that I wanted to do it.

STAR:
His evidence was relevant. He talked a lot about payments, which is something a poor college student would be very concerned about. His evidence was also typical, since it connected with me and he talked about things I would expect at other gyms.

Speech: The Perils of Indifference by Elie Wiesel

1. The goal of this speech that Wiesel gave at the White House was to inspire the American people to act in times of human suffering, injustice, and violence, in order to prevent future events like the Holocaust. He says, " ...together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope."

2. His argument is that indifference is worse than anger. He argues that while indifference may seem easier than disrupting our own peaceful lives, it ultimately reduces the Other to an abstraction, and allows the bad things of the world to occur. He says that indifference is always the friend of the enemy,because it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. 

3. The audience is the President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, "Excellencies," and friends at the White House. At the same time, he is addressing the American people.

4. This speech uses mainly pathos. He appeals to human emotion by talking about the suffering and injustices. He uses guilt to make people aware of their indifference in the past. He says that so many knew about the Holocaust and didn't do anything - "And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew." He also uses ethos. He holds a huge amount of credibility being both a survivor of the Holocaust, as well as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

5. I find this speech very inspiriting and thought-provoking. I would say it was effective. I know it made an impact at the White House.

STAR

I think the evidence was very relevant, since he used examples illustrating indifference in the world. 

The evidence was also typical. He used many American illustrations, and he is talking to an American audience. They will have already been aware of these things. 

Word Count: 324

SPEECH: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html

Paper A: Achieving the “Glorious Goal:” Is More Really Best?

1. The goal of this paper was to get high school seniors to realize that BYU is not the only place they have to go in order to date or marry. It could, in fact, hurt those chances. If they go to BYU they should put the educational benefits as their first reason for going.

2. The argument is that by going to BYU, you could in some ways hurt your chances of getting married while in college. The reasoning behind this is that when we have too many choices, it can actually debilate us and prevent us from making a decision.

3. The audience is LDS high school seniors who are applying to colleges and think they have to go to BYU in order to get married.

4. The paper uses logos to make its argument, talking about the Paradox of Choice. It argues that because of how our brains work, it's logical that when we have too many choices, it will make it harder to make a choice. The paper also uses ethos because it presents facts from the BYU website itself, as well as the Paradox of Choice argument from a psychologist.

5. I think this paper could make people possibly think about the issue, when they otherwise wouldn't have considered the fact that it might not be all love at first sight and wedding bells. But as far as affecting someone's choice of college, I'm not sure it would have much of an influence.

STAR
I think the evidence was typical. A reaosnable/intelligent high school audience would accept this. It uses personal example, references from Church magazines, and a psychologist.
I think that the evidence is relevant, as well. It is directly connected to the argument. Most everything points towards the argument.

Word Count: 296

Movie Trailer: BABIES

1. The goal of this movie trailer is to get people to go see "Babies" in the movie theater so that they can fund their production costs and make a profit. They also want to demonstrate similarities between human beings by focusing on universal similarities and stages in human development, while at the same highlighting unique cultural differences.

2. The argument is that if you are concerned about human life, about the world, or merely interested in babies, you must see this movie. "The Babies Are Coming" it says. Therefore, you must go see them.

3. The audience is not necessarily the general public. I never saw this preview on television. It is an independent documentary and is only being released in select theaters. The producers are going to rely on word of mouth and selected channels for its publicity. They will want to target people who are culturally sensitive, globally minded, and interested in people. I heard about it from an International Relations major.

4. The trailer uses primarily pathos to get the audience to go and see it. The movie actually doesn't have any narration, it's purely music, as in the trailer. The music was carefully selected for the trailer because it portrays the hope of human life that these babies represent. At point in the song it says "All that he has given to the world is the joy that he will carry to the door." And babies in general generate a number of emotional responses, most always positive. The trailer also uses ethos because at about 47 seconds it shows the "Focus Features" shot, demonstrating that it is endorsed by a major motion movie studio.

5. I think it's an effective trailer. It will leave audiences intrigued. It gives away very little and immediately draws you into the lives of these babies. I definitely want to see it.

STAR:
I think that the trailer was typical to what it was about. It's about babies, so that was what they focused on. A baby was in every shot. It was representative.
It was also sufficient to convince people to go and see it. It didn't give a lot away, but it definitely showed enough to get people hooked. It's good to have intrigue in movie trailers.

Word Count: 379

Source A: Celestial Marriage

1. The goal of this talk is to persuade people that marriage in the temple brings greater possibility for happiness than does any other relationship, and that temple marriage is the only way for families to be together forever. Elder Nelson wants to persuade people to get married in the temple.

2. The argument is that only those who are married in the temple will continue as spouses after death and receive the highest degree of celestial glory, or exaltation.
He argues that the noblest yearning of the human heart is for a marriage that can endure beyond death. Fidelity to a temple marriage does that. Elder Nelson says that the best choice is celestial marriage.

3. The audience is members of the LDS church, since it was given at General Conference. This is evident in the beginning when he says, "Together we feel a profound sense of gratitude for the gospel of Jesus Christ." On a broader scale, he is reaching out to everyone. At one point he says that "members of this Church invite all people to learn..."

4. Elder Nelson uses pathos in his argument. He talks about the yearning of the human heart. He also instills a fear in listeners that if they are not married in the temple, they won't be with their families. For example, he tells the story of the couple, where because they had not chosen temple marriage, husband and wife were separated at death. He also uses ethos, because he turns to the scriptures as doctrinal proof of his argument. He uses, for example, D&C 131:1-3, talking about temple marriage and exaltation.

5. I think this talk is effective. On my mission we watched it with husband and wife investigators and their eyes were opened to the possibility of an eternal family, and then they became anxious to do it because they did not want to settle for less when they could have more.

STAR:
The evidence that Elder Nelson used is definitely accurate. He is speaking to a religious group (Mormon), who have already been taught the importance of temple marriage. He is not arguing anything that they didn't know about when they were baptized.

He is also using relevant evidence, because he's taking into account the scriptures, the Proclamation to the Family, and other Conference talks, things that people in the audience would adhere to when addressing marriage as a spiritual matter.

"Celestial Marriage": http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9b964bb52a73d110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#footnote7

Word Count: 403

Advertisement: I AM AFRICAN

1.       The goal of this advertisement is to get people to donate money to the “Keep a Child Alive” organization in order to buy AIDS drugs.

2.       The argument is that we all are the same (look! Gwyneth Paltrow is African). There are no differences. Because of this, we must help each other. We must help in Africa like we would help our neighbors here.

3.       The audience is the target audience of the magazine in which these ads ran. The magazines vary, but it would more likely be in TIME magazine than Automotive Digest. They are reaching out to an audience that is somewhat globally minded and culturally opened, people who would respond to a message addressing global social issues.

4.       They go about arguing their issue through using specifically ethos and pathos. Using a celebrity like Gwyneth Paltrow gives their cause credibility. If someone as famous as her is willing to put their face on the campaign, it can’t be a scam or an organization that would otherwise damage her reputation. Gwyneth’s face says you can trust the organization with your money. They also lean on emotional appeal. In the white print on the bottom it asks for help in stopping people from dying. It specifies family members – a child, a mother, a father. Everyone has families, so by bringing the family into it, instead of just saying “an African” or “a person,” they are connecting to the heart of the readers. Because of this connection, not giving could produce feelings of guilt.

5.       I think it is effective. They create empathy and make people on the other side of the world relate to problems in Africa. I don’t know how much money the organization actually receives, but if they have the support of celebrities (Paltrow is not the only participant), they must have quite the foundation.

STAR

Is the evidence sufficient? I think that for the purpose of this ad, it is sufficient. They grab your attention by saying “I am African” which lets you know that the problems are in Africa. And then they tell you on the bottom what is going on (people are dying from AIDS) and tell you that you can help save them by helping buy AIDS drugs. They also give the website and the name of the organization in case I want to help.

Is the ad relevant to the argument? Yes, I think it definitely is. The AIDS epidemic is raging most strongly in Africa, and the ad makes this clear. They want Americans to help, so they brought in a very American-looking movie star to say that she is African. Turning her African is very relavent to getting people to help in the campaign. And then the white text at the bottom is the heart of the matter, and is definitely related to what they are trying to argue.