Activity#6 When reviewing and annotating Groucho Marx’s letter to the Warner Brother. The speaker (a student) describes the type of wording and motions Marx write in the letter to the Warner Brother concerning about the title they choose to name their movie after. Clearly, the speaker chooses the side of Marx, as she gathers evidence in the letter to answer the question, why? She acknowledge Marx wording to be humorous and sarcastic, yet also including phrases like, “jabs and feint” to show that Marx is trying to defend himself with a style of boxing while facing his opponent, the Warner Bro. I can agree with her evidence because she has done some research into the situation, while mentioning, “In the two letters that follows.” This shows
that she clearly knows what she is saying and goes straight to the point to defend Marx. What she could improve by not only mentioning combats that Marx have written about, but also include the Warner Brother’s saying into this. This leave the argument one sided. The speaker also mentions how she sees Marx smaller than the Warner Brother which got me a little confused. How was she able to tell that the Warner Brother are a strong opponent compare to Marx, when she mentions, “Marx wore out his bigger opponent.” Yes, she is using the style of boxing but why include Marx as a smaller opponent instead of a bigger one. Warner Brother and Marx are in the same job style. Besides that, the speaker, no doubt, have her claims and the evidence to support it. So whenever she has an argument with someone who questions her research or annotations, she can quickly upper punch her knowledge right out of the questioner.
In her article “Shitty First Drafts,” Anne Lamott creates an argument attempting to prove to her readers that every good writer begins with a “shitty” first draft. This is a very bold claim to make about writers, and obviously should have some solid evidence to back it up. However, contrary to what one might think, Lamott has little to no “real” evidence to support her statements. Instead, she uses humor and sarcasm to cover the fact that she has no real support for her views. By doing this, Lamott lacks much of the credibility (usually) needed in a rhetorical argument, and her humorous tone does not suffice for a convincing argument. Even though Lamott incorporates a great deal of sarcasm and absurdity in her work, she lacks the most important
argued film due to his lack of decorum and his pathetic use of informal fallacy.
It is argued that the evidence, if admissible, was not sufficient to prove that the defendant Schenck was concerned in sending the documents. According to the testimony Schenck said he was general secretary of the Socialist party and had charge of the Socialist headquarters from which the documents were sent. He identified a book found there as the minutes of the Executive Committee of the party The book showed a resolution of August 13, 1917, that 15,000 leaflets should be printed on the other side of one of them in use, to be mailed to men who had passed exemption boards, and for distribution. Schenck personally attended to the printing. On August 20 the general secretary's report said, "Obtained new leaflets from printer and started work addressing envelopes" &c.; and there was a resolve that Comrade Schenck be allowed $125 for sending leaflets through the mail. He said that he had about fifteen or sixteen thousand printed. There were files of the circular in question in the inner office which he said were printed on the other side of the one sided circular and were there for distribu|tion. Other copies were proved to have been sent through the mails to drafted men. With; out going into confirmatory details that were l proved, no reasonable man could doubt that the defendant Schenck was largely instrumental in sending the circulars about.
What is the author’s main argument in “How and how not to love mankind” The main argument in the essay, How and how not to love mankind is about how alike, yet how different Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx are. They were both born the same year in 1818 and they both passed away the same year in 1883 and they were both European writers as well. They studied the same things, attended the same university, and wrote about the same topics although they both had different personalities and distinct beliefs also different views on the world around them, especially in humans. Their perspective in While Turgenev saw man, Marx saw classes of man and while Turgenev saw people, Marx saw the people. They both were so alike yet so different in so many different
In An Inspector Calls J.B. Priestley has a message to deliver, what is this message and how does he deliver this message? In the play 'An Inspector Calls' the playwright John Boynton Priestley, uses real people in artificial situations to create the well-rounded performance, he does this so effectively because the people of the time could relate to these situations, setting and the issues raised but could also place themselves in the play with each person in the audience becoming an actors. We are constantly kept on the edge, never knowing what to expect next.
...arm principle, the boss is at fault because he was not harmed physically whatsoever, but instead used his power to remove Lynne from her job based on her political opinions. Marx believes workers are treated very unfair and should be treated better and respected for the hard work they put into their work. He believed the workers do not get anything out of their work and that the boss tends to have the upper hand and get everything that they want. To conclude, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill both have legitimate beliefs, and with both beliefs taken into account, there is no doubt in my mind that they would do everything in their power to prevent the boss from winning this case.
I am writing this letter to the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation as an explanation for my inability to file taxes. One of the major reasons was my lack of deep knowledge of the tax systems in both Ethiopia and America. When I first arrived in the United States as an international student, I didn’t know what tax returns were, why they were used for, or who needed to file them. It was a hard topic to individually understand because I was focused on getting acquainted with several other topics like Social Security. I later found out that the United States government requires all international students to file taxes, which is why I selected the "Yes" option on the filing requirement question. The second reason for my inability to file taxes was that
It was a hot, muggy, sunny morning on the Circle I Ranch ten miles south of Nacogdoches Texas. Mr. Fischer, the owner and supervisor of everyone on the Circle I had gone into town for supplies, stopped by the post office where he picked up a letter. The envelope was wrinkled like it had been hand delivered by someone; it also was ripped and had dirt all over the front. The letters on the front of the envelope were big and bold, as if the person who wrote it was mad. In the big and bold letters it said MR. FISCHER.
Groucho Marx begins his letter to the Warner Brothers with hits and jabs on their illogical point of view on their use of the word “Casablanca” in their new movie title. Both the Warner and Marx brothers address the issue with two separate tones that clearly support their arguments. As the two go back and forth, the letter written by a Marx brother reveal not only a clear picture of their point of view but as well as an extremely persuasive one through his use of rhetorical appeals.
A school student read Groucho Marx’s letter to the Warner Brother’s Studio, wrote a close analysis essay, and made a statement that the letter focuses on the way “Groucho Marx jabs and feints - humorously, of course - until Warner Bros. couldn’t possibly take its own claim seriously.” After stating her position, the student then moves on to making claims. She says that Marx “wore out his bigger opponent, fast and cleverly, although not logically.” She doesn’t stop with a single claim; she provides her audience with some evidence that she researched herself, saying that “it took two more letters from Marx to get Warner Bros. off his back.” The student doesn’t forget to mention some of the sarcasm that Groucho used in his letter that gave it
What other information might the author use? Has the author remembered to acknowledge the opposition? To repeat myself: the sources are insufficient. Look for magazines, journal articles, and scholarly books. Run subject searches on InfoTrac.
Marx defines truth in a pragmatic way. The truth value of a judgement is due to
Bensaid, D. (2002) In Marx for our Times: Adventures and Misadventures of a Critique. New
Wright testifies that the principles of Karl Marx seem perfect on paper; yes, it would be ideal if everyone were to be treated equally, but even this supposedly “perfect” society is flawed.
In their essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, two of the most eminent figures of the New Criticism school of thought of Literary Criticism, argue that the ‘intention’ of the author is not a necessary factor in the reading of a text.