Gladwell stated what he wanted the readers to get out from his book and what we were expecting. Also, while at the same time Gladwell is persuading the readers to think the way he does. When I read this passage, my first initial thoughts were that learning how to control my judgments and first impressions is impossible. To me the statement, “be in control of your judgments” means the same as the statement, “I have control of my own heart beat,” which is impossible. My judgments are my own and it’s unique.
This is mainly due to the purpose of the representation, which is to inform based on factual detail and not to give out a message meaning the representation is free of Phillip Sauvain’s opinion. However, the text extract does not comment on supporters of the war although this could possibly be referred to in other sections of the book. Representation 3 being a cartoon fully supports the cartoonist anti-war point of view and, by that measure cannot be objective. The purpose of the cartoon is to give out a message and to provoke debate and John Fischetti does this by satirising the anti-war movement and stereotyping the characters. He also makes a conscious decision about what information to include and what to leave out in order to support his point of view and the anti-war message the representation is trying to give out.
Chou offered to draft the contract, but BTT send an email regardless. Things that could work against Chou are he said he would draft a contract, but never did so, and went with an email as an accepted contract. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes because the parties were in communication by email, and since the company wanting to distribute the new game for Chou sent the email with all the details of the contract it showed they were still interested and put it in writing the terms of the contract.
My name is LCPL James and I'm doing this paper on initiative and integrity. When I'm done I hope to inform my readers on how to take initiative of anything they want. Also having the fortitude to have integrity and good judgement in anyday situation. In my particular situation I didn't use anyone of these necessary tools to better myself. Therefore I'm doing this research paper to get a better understanding of these words.
This assignment is not just summary of the book. Rather, you are asked to analyze McMath’s arguments and use of evidence. This assignment is also not a book review. While you’ll have a chance to offer your assessment of the book, don’t make that your focus. Your personal reaction to the book is a small part of this assignment.
Also, Freeman seemed hesitant to take questions after her reading was over. Tim Seible had to be cut off because he wanted to keep answering questions. This makes me think that Freeman isn’t such a people person and would be hard to approach. I would feel more comfortable asking Seible a question or talking to him than I would
I knew the story had to be told. Not to transmit an experience is to betray it”(1) People would read what he wrote down and think about it. It usually comes the illusion after civilization but after reading it people might rethink about it. The impact on literacy is to let people consider what had happened with more points of view. Even though it is just Wiesel’s duty to write it down, the literacy may change people’s mind.
In this particular case, Murray does a great job sharing personal experiences upon his argument of whether there should be more vocational schools and stop using a college degree as a requirement for jobs, but stands defenseless due to the omission of statistics where only one statistic stands to defend his position. In Anglesey’s article “How Can I Incorporate Evidence into My Paper” she states that “[one needs] the author’s expertise to solidify [their] claim” which Murray does not do successfully in his paper, which ultimately weakens the evidence Murray can provide to specify his opposition and argument. Moreover, the type of evidence Murray could have recognized to portray a logical standpoint would have been to include facts of pursing high educational degrees and comparing them to those individuals searching for jobs without an efficient education. Also, including data of how past and present years have on individuals with the qualifications of education end of pursing high paying jobs. Murray could have went in so many directions rather than just providing one fact and relying on the rest of his essay on personal
I did not choose the harsher step of informing the journal, and giving them my results. I decided that since I wasn’t completely sure of what had happened, I was going to give Dr Waters a little leeway,by seeing if our in house investigation turned up anything. Thenmy next step would be to show all the data to the journal. . In the end I believe I took a low risk, and still had the option to report the findings to the journal, should the need be there.
However, what the novel fails to reveal is the answer to the deeming question “why?” Although this may be Cain’s way of allowing his readers to interpret the novel on an individual level, it seems to instead lead his readers down a path of misunderstanding and forced assumptions. For example, Phyllis initiates a dialogue between her and Walter, “‘Do you understand me Walter?’ ‘No.’ ‘Nobody could.’ ‘But we’re going to do it?’ ‘Yes, we’re going to do it’’’ (19). In this dialogue, Walter and Phyllis are confirming that they will follow through with their plan. Cain makes it obvious that Walter does not understand where Phyllis is coming from in her insistence of this plan and yet for reasons that are unclear to readers, Walter is still involving himself in the crime. The dialogue of a story is an important part of characterization because it allows the readers to see into the characters minds and examine their motivations.