Questions in Margins of Avatar Review

        

   It seems that James Berardinelli is indeed professional movie reviewer. Berardinelli started the review of Avatar with superlatives such as most. I think by doing so he is laying down his credentials as a reviewer. He mentioned that the filmmaker of Avatar James Cameron is also known for other popular movies. Moving on to the second paragraph he talks about traditional film elements of Avatar. These elements such as story, character, editing, theme, and emotional resonance are decisive in reviewing 2D movies. Avatar even though it’s 3D property is what makes it so special, the reviewer thinks considering those elements the movie would still be good experience even if it were 2D. He also mentioned and compared previous productions of the filmmaker of Avatar to this movie. That might be helpful in introducing the filmmaker as someone who had a very good reputation. Berardinelli then continued with introducing a plot in the movie. I don’t think this was too much detail because that only gives brief experience of the movie. Berardinelli has discussed the assumption that 3D movies are gimmick, I think he is right because I happen to be one of those who think they are gimmick. But the reviewer witnessed this was not the case in the Avatar. In Paragraph six the review points out that the movie resonates with audience because it includes some of the hot topics of our time such as humanity and environment. I found it interesting how Berardinelli went over to talk about the expectation amid describing and introducing some characters. By evaluating the genre conventions the reviewer has shown that he is not mixing and comparing irrelevant films. Following the expectation of audience with this kind of films some critiques were discussed, this makes the review broad in terms of ideas and opinions. I think not only a film review but any kind of review needs to include both positive and negative reflection in order to be complete and that is exactly what he does in the last paragraph before conclusion. Finally Berardinelli concludes his review by summarizing his active experience of the film Avatar, again the reputation of James Cameron and that it was worth waiting long time since his last product Titanic. I thought it was great review in general and it was effective way of conclusion because he mentioned how engaging the film was, he describes details of his experience watching the movie, he also talks about the producer’s credentials. In doing so he is showing how much of experience he has as a reviewer. It was entertaining and if I ever decide to watch the movie Avatar it is probably because of this review.

Reference: http://sciencefiction.com/2012/06/26/james-cameron-shooting-three-avatar-sequels-at-once/

Writing Matters Section 11f: Logical Fallacies

 Writing Matters Section 11f details many of the logical fallacies often encountered in inductive and deductive reasoning, so that we may recognize them when analyzing and avoid them when creating arguments. The book describes and gives examples for each fallacy, so I'll just give an overview of the fallacies they list.

The book first lists fallacies often encountered in inductive arguments. In inductive arguments the conclusion (the point you are trying to make) is drawn from and supported by the premises (evidence) you provide to support your conclusion. Fallacies in inductive reasoning occur when one draws a conclusion that is not supported by the premises. Examples of these fallacies are: hasty generalization (jumping to conclusions), sweeping generalization, and false analogy. Another common fallacy often encountered in inductive and deductive arguments is bandwagon appeal (a.k.a. appeal to majority) one of many fallacies that--though they seem to provide evidence for the conclusion--are not actually valid evidence.

Next, the book details many fallacies often found encountered in deductive arguments. In deductive arguments a specific conclusion is derived from generally accepted and known premises; fallacies in deductive reasoning often take the form of misleading, wrong, or missing premises, or errors in form and logical strength of the argument. Fallacies in deductive reasoning include: begging the question (circular reasoning), post hoc, ergo propter hoc (false cause), and either-or (false dilemma or false alternative). Other fallacies often found in deductive (as well as inductive) reasoning include non sequiters (irrelevant arguments), ad hominems (personal attacks).

 The list of fallacies in the book is by no means exhaustive, but there are plenty of great resources online should you want to learn more!

Picture

"...consider the doubts you or other REASONABLE PEOPLE might have..."

I just like how it said "other reasonable people" so one knows not to talk to unreasonable people. I thought it was funny.

11h Effective arguments consider alternative viewpoints.
      This section, in my opinion, is very important because there are so many people, myself included, that don't consider other people's opinions while writing an argumentative essay. It even outlines three ways that one can go about including a consideration of the opposing views which are:

• providing counter evidence that disproves the opposing view
• acknowledge the opposing viewpoint and explain why it is that the writer is correct
• use qualifiers(some, usually, etc.) to admit that there is another view.

11i Effective arguments are organized using classical, Rogerian or Toulmin models.

     I like this section because I had to write these kinds of argument papers junior year of high school since my teacher was a mad genius. 

1. Classical(appropriate for persuasive arguments)- the format in which you state the purpose of your paper(in an interesting way so that people want to read it) and establish your ethos, provide your audience with information on why you are taking whatever position on what you are writing about, provide pathos and logos examples to appeal to the readers, acknowledge the counterclaim and disprove(don't be mean and be careful not to use a fallacy), conclude your essay in a way that makes the reader want to agree.
2. Toulmin(kind of an elaboration on the classical)- In this format one also states their claim, ethos and reasons(grounds) for their claim, but one must also warrant their clams. By this I mean that one must kind of make sub-claims, or assumptions,  that explain why the claim is supported by the reasons/grounds then support the assumptions with backing evidence, pathos and or logos to explain why these sub-claims are relevant. After all that the writer should address the counterclaims and their response to those claims.
3. Rogerian(used to establish common ground and make more productive discussions)- In this format the writer states claim and ethos, but then immediately explores and explains any and all counter claims. After all counter claims have been qualified or explained the writer may then provide an explanation of why they still believe their initial claim potentially including pathos and logos.

Congratulations, you can now write an outline for an argument essay!

Toulmin Model

I guess you only get Toulmin.

The difference between the fallacies Post hoc and Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization and Post hoc are similar fallacies that may be caused as a result of little reasoning to back claims. But they also have significant difference, because Hasty generalization refers mainly to the inconclusiveness of the argument. This fallacy might arise from too small sample being used to get in to a conclusion that involves a big population. A good example is, “students A and B speak Spanish so every student in our campus speaks Spanish.” Post hoc on the other hand describes a fallacy that might be caused due to weak reasoning used to correlate two incidents. For instance two events happening one after the other might lead someone mistakenly conclude that the first caused the second, and this makes Post hoc different fallacy.

Reference: http://www.marxists.org/archive/luria/works/1930/child/ch05.htm

Reading Response:

11.b-11.c  Types of claims and building credibility

The reading explains that persuasive and exploratory writings make claims of value or claims of judgment. Both of these claims are debatable, because they depend on the person’s perspective. Whereas informative writings make claims of fact, and these claims are either true or false. The difference between these two kinds of writings is clearly defined; however the two divisions of persuasive (argumentative) and exploratory writing seems to be not that different from each other. As the name implies claims of judgment are based on one’s opinions which in most cases are temporary. Claims of value on the other hand are statements of belief, but so often people’s judgment is based on their beliefs. The reading continues on explaining how to build credibility or ethos (greek word for good character, sound knowledge, or good reputation) and it offers two ways to do that. One is to state background, another way is to show it on the writing without directly mentioning background. It was overall interesting reading with detailed explanation and examples on each point.

                                  

Reference: http://openparachute.wordpress.com/

11d. Ethos and Pathos

Effective arguments can turn the light on in the readers head, getting you closer to actually persuading the reader. This can be done in two ways: logos and pathos. The more frequent of the two, logos, forces the reader to use logic to support a claim.  An example of this would be Usain Bolt is the greatest runner of all time because he holds the world record in the 100 metres. Pathos, on the other hand, refers to emotion to support a claim. An example of this would be a kid telling his mom "I will love you more if you buy me this."





http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/meaning/galileo-pope-church.html

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Ad hominem—short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument against the man”)—is a fallacy committed when one attacks the character of an opponent, as opposed to truth of their evidence or validity of their argument. The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, most commonly:

Abusive attacks, in which one belittles the character of someone, rather than addressing their evidence, for example:

Attorney: “Mr. Smith's testimony should not be trusted. He is a burglar, and as we all know, burglars are all dishonest.”

Tu quoque (Latin “you also”), in which one refutes the argument of an opponent based on the fact that they have acted inconsistently or made inconsistent claims in the past, for example:

Parent (to child): “You shouldn't smoke cigarettes, they're bad for your health.”

Child: “Why should I listen to what you say, you smoked when you were my age!”

The parent may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make their argument any less sound!

Guilt by association, in which one attacks an opponent by associating them with another person or group who happens to hold the same opinion, for example:

Person: “I believe socialized medicine is superior to privatized medicine for X and Y reasons.”

Talk Show Host: “You know, Nazi Germany also believed in socialized medicine. Anyone who supports socialized medicine must be a Nazi, so therefore you must be a Nazi.”

Circumstantial, in which the attacker calls into question the reliability of someone's claims because they may be predisposed to hold a certain opinion, for example:

Woman: “I support the right of a woman to have an abortion for X and Y reasons.”

Politician: “Of course you would be pro-choice; after all, you are a woman.”

Sometimes, if there is a clear conflict of interest it is completely valid to question the reliability of someone's statement; however, that does not automatically make their argument invalid.

Ad hominem arguments are used when people do not have sufficient evidence to back up their own claims or refute their opponent's claims, and so they resort to attacking the arguer's character instead. It is a result of lazy thinking, and is often used to manipulate the emotions of people and sway their opinion—particularly among those who do not recognize it as a fallacy. The best way to avoid using ad hominems is through careful preparation and gathering of information, so you can refute your opponents arguments without resorting to unfair and fallacious attacks against their character. And remember: no matter how mean or hypocritical a person may be, their character has no bearing on the validity of their argument—what matters is the truth of the evidence they provide and the logical strength of their argument!

Sorry for the ad nauseam explanation :)

Picture: http://ohinternet.com/Ad_hominem