When you summarize capabilities, likes or dislikes, financial standing, personality traits, there are many ways. For example Mrs X doesn't like a program Mrs B is watching, but they can't
My texts both discuss grammar, but they are different because they have conflicting opinions on their definition of proper grammar. These definitions of the role that grammatical roles play in good writing differ because the rhetors of each text are targeting different audiences with different exigences. Audience The audiences that are targeted in these two texts are very different; the article “Why you need good grammar” by Michael Kwan is targeted towards a more traditional and conservative audience because throughout the text he emphasizes that proper grammar is necessary in all situations, and shows his repugnance to modern day bloggers and internet users for not using correct grammar on the web. Kwan also writes that he thinks that all the new ways of communicating and sharing your opinion through the web and other new technology is ruining grammar, and stresses that we should go back to traditional proper grammar. The cartoon in the Wall Street Journal is targeted towards a younger, open-minded, and more liberal audience as it shows a picture of modern day rock and roll
Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation. Frankfurt’s statement holds water, because it is a documented argument that elegantly depicts the fight between lies or bullshit being more problematic. I agree with Frankfurt, because I myself am guilty of bullshitting my way through a few essays I have written in the past. I believe bullshit is worse than lying because you don’t think as much about the topic you are speaking about. When you lie about something, you put a lot of thought into it and decide yourself whether the truth or a lie is better for you.
• If sampled carefully, the data should be reliable and representative. Disadvantages: • Questionnaires can constrain or distort the way respondents answer – they may therefore lack validity. • Respondents can be influenced to answer in certain ways by the researcher or the questions. • If the questionnaire is a postal questionnaire, there can be a high level of people who decline to answer. • Questions may be interpreted by respondents in ways the researcher did not foresee or intend.
However participants who are interviewed are those with a lot of time on their hands this can make the sample unrepresentative of the whole population as they may be lonely people who have a lot of time on their hands. When conducting questionnaires participants may find it difficult to understand what a question is asking them, however with a structured interview the interviewer is able to explain and clarify the questions in order to gain a valid response. However as the interviewer has to follow a set of instructions they can’t give more detail to the respondent if they say something particularly interesting. Structured interviews have many advantages
Prompt 1: “stereotypes exist because they are grounded in truth” With their limited knowledge, humans tend to make generalizations based on assumptions and simplified images, ignoring the complex and vital definition of a human being. Stereotyping is a reductionist approach which ignores diversity within different groups causing a behavior to be oversimplified. Instead of taking account of the holistic picture it focuses on what is making sense according to the society’s predefined norms than what is actually true. Stereotypes may refer to a specific sex, religion, race or country. Judging people without knowing them will lead us to make false assumptions, which is a dehumanizing act.
This is significant because many readers tend to misinterpret the masked information that the writer is trying to give. As human beings, everyone is
Will Carlson Politics is an extremely complicated subject to do research on because there are so many variables. Details are vague and people are either interested or not, this makes research a little bit easier. People’s views can be misconstrued and wrong but either way it’s their opinion and you have no right to change that. For that reason it’s a touchy subject for some people because they may not want to divulge any information. When researching politics I find that it’s best to be neutral to not stir up any confrontation that will hinder your research.
Why or why not? In my honest opinion prejudice is hard to measure because it cannot accurately be predicted or judge by a test. I feel like prejudice cannot be measured accurately because the test shows the association between different groups. The only thing I can see the implicit association test is measured are the groups that I may belong to or fit in. People cannot show the result of being or prejudice because people are known to select things that they are more familiar with, things that they are more commutable with, and things that they see in their everyday environment.
I think that in front of people espacially those who doesn’t know me I will be just judged about things I say because obviously they don’t know my personality and what I am really thinking about so I usually try to speak in a way that allows to people to have a good impression about my character espacially in first contacts and meetings. 6-As a group they tend to be highly individualistic; moderate in context; low in power ,rank , and status; and high in masculinity. For me working alone is much better than in groups .I feel more confortable I can be more creative and innovative , no body will judge my choice or ask me why I made a such decision. I don’t prefer share my ideas with others .I think that is better that everybody is responsible about his thoughts.Therefore while I get obliged to work in groups my effort will decrease and it doesn’t matter for me to just accept others ideas . 7-As a group African Americans are active, expressive , colorful, emotional, often humorous, more nonverbal, distinctive,stylized, open, demonstrative,and possses a positive outlook on life.