Unit 4 Arguing for the Poor AP Language and Composition Mr. Coia

Transcription

1 Unit 4 Arguing for the Poor AP Language and Composition Mr. Coia Name: Date: Period: Thurs 12/10 (Fri 12/11) Reaction Paper due Novel turn-in [no book=no paper] New unit guide overview Discuss next set of rhetorical terms The Scarlet Letter visual rhetoric examples Discussion on comics ( Eye of a needle ) Read SOAPS handout on tone Read, annotate, SOAPSTone Barbara Lazear Ascher s On Compassion Complete questions on Rhetoric and Style HW: Find example of Visual Rhetoric comic on the issue of poverty; be prepared to explain it Mon 12/14 (Tues 12/15) RT quiz 1-50 Visual Rhetoric Presentations Practice AP multiple-choice quiz ( On Compassion ) Lesson: Appositives (LC ). Compete exercises 1-5 Wed 12/16 (Thurs 12/17) Notebook check #4 Visual Rhetoric presentations I Am What I Am Not poetry writing HW: Finish and type poem. ALL POEMS, REGARDLESS OF A/B DAY, ARE DUE FRIDAY, 12/18 Fri 12/18 (Mon 1/4) MC 3/4 Practice AP Quiz I Am What I Am Not poetry reading Tues 1/5 (Wed 1/6) RT quiz 1-55 Best of 2015 lists Intro to the Argument Essay (Handout) Read/discuss sample topics from past tests HW: Complete reading and marking Intro to Argument Essay Thurs 1/7 (Fri 1/8) Practice AP timed essay ( Singer ). [40 mins] Read and grade student in-class essays; read anchor papers HW: Read Singer Solution to World Poverty. Annotate and SOAPSTone. Respond to any three of the Rhetoric and Style questions (LC 324). Each answer should be a college-level paragraph minimum, typed Mon 1/11 (Tues 1/12) RT quiz 1-60 MC 4/4 Practice AP Quiz Discuss Singer Solution. How would your paper differ after reading his complete essay? Share essay markings and responses in small groups Begin your writing for The (Last Name) Solution HW: Type 500-word argument for The (Your Last Name) Solution ; give your argument for an idea to address world poverty in the format of The Singer Solution Wed 1/13 (Thurs 1/14) Film clip: FWP Share/Analyze Papers The Onion: Steinbeck/Science Begin A Modest Proposal HW: Read, annotate, SOAPS Swift s A Modest Proposal ; Respond to any three of the Rhetoric and Style questions. Each answer should be a collegelevel paragraph minimum, typed Fri 1/15 (Tues 1/19) Film clip: SNL Tech Talk Practice AP multiple-choice test ( A Modest Proposal ) Discussion on A Modest Proposal HW: Study for RT Test Wed 1/20 (Thurs 1/21) RT TEST on ALL 1-63 Outline an Argument Prompt Fri 1/22 A DAY ONLY Film clip: Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia The Onion: Science Write a satirical piece in the style of The Onion focusing on some aspect of school. Use the two articles as models HW: Type your work, add a picture A4: Tues 1/26 Review Session: Sharing satirical writing Practice Argument essay outline Multiple-Choice practice A4: Wed 1/27 Semester 1 Exam 60 MC questions 1 rhetorical analysis OR argument question B2: Wed 1/27 Review Session: Practice Argument essay outline Multiple-Choice practice B2: Thurs 1/28 Semester 1 Exam 60 MC questions 1 rhetorical analysis OR argument question 1

2 Assignments for this Unit We ll focus on these three essays in this unit: Barbara Lazear Ascher s On Compassion Peter Singer s Singer Solution to World Poverty Jonathan Swift s A Modest Proposal For each, you will read, annotate, and complete a SOAPStone Notebook Check 10 points Homework You ll need the following for our notebook check. Be ready anytime at the start of the unit. LA Handouts: Unit guide 4 (on top) Unit guide 3 Rhetorical Terms packet SOAPS handout (unit guide 1 p. 5) Essay Graphic Organizer (unit guide 2 p. 3) Syntax Overview (unit guide 2 p ) Generic AP Scoring Rubric Letter from Birmingham Jail Good Country People short story Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon Sedaris and Alexie readings AP Scam readings How Do I Format My Paper? (unit guide 1 p. 3) Class rule sheet, initialed LA Classwork: Notes from lectures, presentations, mini-lessons. Remember you should be taking notes each class period. You will also have at least 25 sheets of loose-leaf paper in your binder, and your pens, pencils, highlighter, etc. Unit Objectives: Analyze and interpret samples of good writing, identifying and explaining an author s use of rhetorical strategies and techniques; Apply effective strategies and techniques in their own writing; Create and sustain arguments based on readings, research, and/or personal experience; Demonstrate understanding and mastery of standard written English as well as stylistic maturity in their own writings; 2

3 3

4 Girl Moved To Tears By 'Of Mice And Men' Cliffs Notes AUGUST 18, 2006 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA In what she described as "the most emotional moment" of her academic life, University of Virginia sophomore communications major Grace Weaver sobbed openly upon concluding Steinbeck's seminal work of American fiction Of Mice And Men's Cliffs Notes early last week. "This book has changed me in a way that only great literature summaries can," said Weaver, who was so shaken by the experience that she requested an extension on her English 229 essay. "The humanity displayed in the Character Flowchart really stirred something in me. And Lennie's childlike innocence was beautifully captured through the simple, ranch-hand slang words like 'mentally handicapped' and 'retarded.'" Added Weaver: "I never wanted the synopsis to end." Weaver, who formed an "instant connection" with Lennie's character-description paragraph, said she began to suspect the novel might end tragically after reading the fourth sentence which suggested the gentle giant's strength and fascination with soft things would "lead to his untimely demise." "I was amazed at how attached to him I had become just from the critical commentary," said Weaver, still clutching the yellow-and-black-striped study guide. "When I got to the last sentence 'George shoots Lennie in the head,' it seemed so abrupt. But I found out later that the 'ephemeral nature of life' is a major theme of the novel." Weaver was assigned Of Mice And Men a novel scholars have called "a masterpiece of austere prose" and "the most skillful example of American naturalism under 110 pages" as part of her early twentieth-century fiction course, and purchased the Cliffs Notes from a cardboard rack at her local Barnes & Noble. John Whittier-Ferguson, her professor for the class, told reporters this was not the first time one of his students has expressed interest in the novel's plot summary. "It's one of those universal American stories," said Ferguson after being informed of Weaver's choice to read the Cliffs Notes instead of the pocket-sized novel. "I look forward to skimming her essay on the importance of following your dreams and randomly assigning it a grade. Though she completed the two-page brief synopsis in one sitting, Weaver said she felt strangely drawn into the plot overview and continued on, exploring the more fleshed-out chapter summaries. "There's something to be said for putting in that extra time with a good story," Weaver said. "You just get more out of it. I'm also going to try to find that book about rabbits that George was always reading to Lennie, so that I can really understand that important allusion." Within an hour of completing the cliffs notes, Weaver was already telling friends and classmates that Steinbeck was her favorite author, as well as reciting select quotations from the "Important Quotations" section for their benefit. 4

5 "When I read those quotes, found out which characters they were attributed to, and inferred their context from the chapter outlines to piece together their significance, I was just blown away," said a teary-eyed Weaver. "And the way Steinbeck wove the theme of hands all the way through the section entitled 'Hands' he definitely deserved to win that Nobel Prize." Weaver's roommate, Giulia Crenshaw, has already borrowed the dog-eared, highlighted summary of the classic Depression-era saga, and is expecting to enjoy reading what Weaver described as "a really sad story about two brothers who love to farm." "I loved this book so much, I'm going to read all of Steinbeck's Cliffs Notes," said Weaver. "But first I'm going to go to the library to check out the original version Of Mice And Men starring John Malkovich and Gary Sinise." High-School Science Teacher Takes Fun And Excitement Out Of Science OCTOBER 23, 2002 ISSUE VERONA, NJ Verona High School ninth-grade science teacher Mark Randalls has a unique talent for taking the fun and magic out of science, students of his comprehensive survey class reported Tuesday. Randalls awaits the beginning of fourth period, during which students will read silently at their desks. "I have a lot of information I'm required to impart to these children before they complete this grade and move on to dedicated physics, biology, or chemistry," Randalls said. "If I tried to illustrate each and every aspect of science with an experiment or anecdote, we would never complete the necessary coursework by year's end." A 25-year veteran instructor in Verona, Randalls teaches his students the periodic table using a standard wall-sized chart, the appropriate page in the same Houghton-Mifflin science textbook he's used since 1982, and a few minor experiments he runs by himself to save time. "As you can see from the math I assigned you last night, the element sodium combines with water in an exothermic reaction, which means it gives off heat and, in some cases, light," Randalls said, doing the work at a safe distance from his fifth-period students. "Now, I'm using just a small grain of sodium, so there isn't the large flash you might get, not that you could see it in this stainless-steel bowl. But you can see the temperature go up on our thermometer here." Randalls then asked the student with the highest grade on the last weekly quiz, Mike Lendberg, to come up and read the temperature change off the unwieldy dial thermometer. 5

6 "Mr. Randalls says science is a way of understanding how the universe works," said Lendberg. "At least he said that on the first day. I've kind of tuned him out since then." "I wonder if two-tenths of a degree is a lot," Lendberg added. "Well. Probably not." For his part, Randalls said he believes a firm grounding in the basics is the most important education he can give his class, and that he constantly battles distraction in school. "The other day, Amy Bethke asked me how sodium can be part of salt if it is poisonous," Randalls said, shaking his head. "I had to waste two minutes explaining how it has a stable bond with the element chlorine. Then, when I tried to go on, she realized chlorine was also poisonous, and said, 'Isn't that weird that two deadly elements combine to make harmless table salt?' I finally had to send her to the office to make copies just to get her to stop interrupting the class." Added Randalls: "These kids are getting worse every year. It's a wonder I get any teaching done at all." Other points left out of Randall's discussion of the periodic table include a discussion of how simple flammable hydrogen makes up more than 90 percent of the universe, a demonstration of sound waves propagating strangely in helium, and an explanation of carbon's role in the creation of both coal and diamonds, as well as its use as a building block for life. Nearly all of Randalls' students, or at least those who have chosen not to frequently skip class, have expressed dissatisfaction with his approach to science. "I was really looking forward to last month's electricity unit," said freshman Don Linzmann, whose prior exposure to Bill Nye and Cosmos reruns got him interested in physics. "I'd heard about these cool things called Van de Graaff generators, which make your hair stand up when you touch them, and this thing called a Jacob's Ladder that makes a really huge arc of electricity. But all we did was spend a week calculating amperage." After another week spent on the periodic table, Randalls will begin teaching a unit on anatomy. "I just hope these kids sit still for the frog dissection in two weeks," Randalls said. "I went to great lengths to procure a five-part filmstrip series that illustrates the frog anatomy step-by-step so we won't have to create a lot of mess dissecting the animals ourselves. Besides, the class always gets way too rambunctious when we try to do a lab." 6

7 The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer Published in The New York Times, September 1999 In the following selection, bioethicist Peter Singer argues for the individual s responsibility to the world community. In the Brazilian film ''Central Station,'' Dora is a retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people. Suddenly she has an opportunity to pocket $1,000. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given. (She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreigners.) She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted -- he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back. Suppose Dora had told her neighbor that it is a tough world, other people have nice new TV's too, and if selling the kid is the only way she can get one, well, he was only a street kid. She would then have become, in the eyes of the audience, a monster. She redeems herself only by being prepared to bear considerable risks to save the boy. At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the affluent nations of the world, people who would have been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy go home to places far more comfortable than her apartment. In fact, the average family in the United States spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora's new TV was to her. Going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts -- so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health. Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need. All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one -- knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need? Of course, there are several differences between the two situations that could support different moral judgments about them. For one thing, to be able to consign a child to death when he is standing right in front of you takes a chilling kind of heartlessness; it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help children you will never meet. Yet for a utilitarian philosopher like myself -- that is, one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences -- if the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a 7

8 Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers. But one doesn't need to embrace my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue. In his 1996 book, ''Living High and Letting Die,'' the New York University philosopher Peter Unger presented an ingenious series of imaginary examples designed to probe our intuitions about whether it is wrong to live well without giving substantial amounts of money to help people who are hungry, malnourished or dying from easily treatable illnesses like diarrhea. Here's my paraphrase of one of these examples: Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is running down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed -- but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti and the financial security it represents. Bob's conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children. We can give to organizations like Unicef or Oxfam America. How much would we have to give one of these organizations to have a high probability of saving the life of a child threatened by easily preventable diseases? (I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues.) Unger called up some experts and used the information they provided to offer some plausible estimates that include the cost of raising money, administrative expenses and the cost of delivering aid where it is most needed. By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old -- offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years. To show how practical philosophical argument can be, Unger even tells his readers that they can easily donate funds by using their credit card and calling one of these toll-free numbers: (800) for Unicef; (800) for Oxfam America. 8

9 Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it? Think again about Bob and his Bugatti. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own material comfort. The child was a complete stranger to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, personal way. Unlike Dora, too, he did not mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him. In all these respects, Bob's situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to overseas aid and differs from Dora's situation. If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and saved the child's life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations listed above. Unless, that is, there is some morally important difference between the two situations that I have overlooked. Is it the practical uncertainties about whether aid will really reach the people who need it? Nobody who knows the world of overseas aid can doubt that such uncertainties exist. But Unger's figure of $200 to save a child's life was reached after he had made conservative assumptions about the proportion of the money donated that will actually reach its target. One genuine difference between Bob and those who can afford to donate to overseas aid organizations but don't is that only Bob can save the child on the tracks, whereas there are hundreds of millions of people who can give $200 to overseas aid organizations. The problem is that most of them aren't doing it. Does this mean that it is all right for you not to do it? Suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars -- Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy -- all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? To answer this question affirmatively is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics -- the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better. We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob's situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it to an overseas aid agency. These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob was acting when he chose to let the runaway train hurtle toward the unsuspecting child. In the light of this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you should do it before reading further. Now that you have distinguished yourself morally from people who put their vintage cars ahead of a child's life, how about treating yourself and your partner to dinner at your favorite restaurant? But wait. The money you will spend at the restaurant could also help save the lives of children overseas! True, you weren't planning to blow $200 tonight, but if you were to give up dining out 9

10 just for one month, you would easily save that amount. And what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life? There's the rub. Since there are a lot of desperately needy children in the world, there will always be another child whose life you could save for another $200. Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop? Hypothetical examples can easily become farcical. Consider Bob. How far past losing the Bugatti should he go? Imagine that Bob had got his foot stuck in the track of the siding, and if he diverted the train, then before it rammed the car it would also amputate his big toe. Should he still throw the switch? What if it would amputate his foot? His entire leg? As absurd as the Bugatti scenario gets when pushed to extremes, the point it raises is a serious one: only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch. Of course, most people could be wrong; we can't decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. But consider for yourself the level of sacrifice that you would demand of Bob, and then think about how much money you would have to give away in order to make a sacrifice that is roughly equal to that. It's almost certainly much, much more than $200. For most middle-class Americans, it could easily be more like $200,000. Isn't it counterproductive to ask people to do so much? Don't we run the risk that many will shrug their shoulders and say that morality, so conceived, is fine for saints but not for them? I accept that we are unlikely to see, in the near or even medium-term future, a world in which it is normal for wealthy Americans to give the bulk of their wealth to strangers. When it comes to praising or blaming people for what they do, we tend to use a standard that is relative to some conception of normal behavior. Comfortably off Americans who give, say, 10 percent of their income to overseas aid organizations are so far ahead of most of their equally comfortable fellow citizens that I wouldn't go out of my way to chastise them for not doing more. Nevertheless, they should be doing much more, and they are in no position to criticize Bob for failing to make the much greater sacrifice of his Bugatti. At this point various objections may crop up. Someone may say: ''If every citizen living in the affluent nations contributed his or her share I wouldn't have to make such a drastic sacrifice, because long before such levels were reached, the resources would have been there to save the lives of all those children dying from lack of food or medical care. So why should I give more than my fair share?'' Another, related, objection is that the Government ought to increase its overseas aid allocations, since that would spread the burden more equitably across all taxpayers. Yet the question of how much we ought to give is a matter to be decided in the real world -- and that, sadly, is a world in which we know that most people do not, and in the immediate future will not, give substantial amounts to overseas aid agencies. We know, too, that at least in the 10

11 next year, the United States Government is not going to meet even the very modest Umited Nations-recommended target of 0.7 percent of gross national product; at the moment it lags far below that, at 0.09 percent, not even half of Japan's 0.22 percent or a tenth of Denmark's 0.97 percent. Thus, we know that the money we can give beyond that theoretical ''fair share'' is still going to save lives that would otherwise be lost. While the idea that no one need do more than his or her fair share is a powerful one, should it prevail if we know that others are not doing their fair share and that children will die preventable deaths unless we do more than our fair share? That would be taking fairness too far. Thus, this ground for limiting how much we ought to give also fails. In the world as it is now, I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children's lives. So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn't sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers. On the facts of human nature, they might be right, but they would be wrong to draw a moral conclusion from those facts. If it is the case that we ought to do things that, predictably, most of us won't do, then let's face that fact head-on. Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money. If that makes living a morally decent life extremely arduous, well, then that is the way things are. If we don't do it, then we should at least know that we are failing to live a morally decent life -- not because it is good to wallow in guilt but because knowing where we should be going is the first step toward heading in that direction. When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation. 11

12 Micro-Writing: I Am What I Am Not Poem It is possible to define ourselves not what we are, but rather, what we are not. Can you write in such a way as to tell your reader who you are by telling what you are not like, what you do not like, and what you ve never done? Try to give solid lines that cover a variety of subjects about you. What Doesn t Make a Man I Am What I Am Not Poem I m no longer a child nor a young man But I m not yet ready to slow down or settle or retire or die. (But I m not afraid of death, either.) I no longer live in Rhode Island or Oregon, or America, for that matter I do not view teaching as just a job I do not teach for the money I do not think that the three best reasons to teach are June, July, and August Teaching annoys me some days (Mainly when a student is apathetic, lazy, or rude) But that gives me passion to return the next day I am not a sports guy But I m not ignorant of teams and scores and major games (Kobe Bryant plays basketball, right?) I m not an unbeliever with faith in nothingness (I m not like either Manley Pointer or Hulga Hopewell) I m not an only child, nor the oldest or youngest I ve never watched an episode of CSI, ER, or other bloody television shows I try to avoid the commitment that new series demand I avoid mayonaisse and cilantro like communicable diseases I don t have any piercings or tattoos Or desires to have either (Neither is unique in today s society or job market) I don t need a new, slick car or LCD TV To make me feel like a man I don t need to be rich or famous Or need to be around those who are To make me feel important I don t understand the lack of civility in our discourse and culture (I won t raise my voice or my hackles when I disagree with your ideas) I m not a single guy Still waiting for her to arrive I m no longer alone or lonely But I no longer have the whole bed to myself I do not have a quiet, peaceful house With clean, organized shelves and floors My Hawthorne, Hemingway, Steinbeck are no longer in the front Giving way to Seuss, princesses, superheroes (And I wouldn t have it any other way) I m not an absent dad afraid to change a diaper, to wrestle on the floor, to play Star Wars to kiss these three children every chance I get My life is no where near completed And I can t see what life at 70 will be like I doubt I ll like mayonaisse then, either 12