TOW #7: "Ramp Riot XV" (Visual)

            Ramp Riot is an annual robotics competition that our high school’s robotics team hosts. This year, I got my hands on a flyer for the event, and I was surprised to find persuasive strategies embedded in it as well. Through the use of large font and bold colors, the Ramp Riot flyer is able to show excitement and encourage families around the community to witness the event themselves.

            The flyers use of bold colors makes a statement to the viewer the moment that it is looked at. The ad’s title is colored in bright yellow, against a dark blue background. Additionally, the contrast of dark blue against the white secondary lettering shows the audience the information presented in an easy to read fashion. Thee bright colors allow the robotics team to show excitement in the event, since popping colors usually mean a fun-filled atmosphere. When viewing the flyer, community members get a sense of the fun and excitement at the event because of the bold colors. To add to that sense, the flyer includes full color, high resolution pictures of previous years Ramp Riot has been held. These pictures show smiles on attendees’ faces and even the Philly Phanatic getting involved. The pictures allow the audience to get an even better sense of the happenings at the event, and are therefore more inclined to go in order to witness it for themselves.

            In conjunction to the bold colors on the flyer, large fonts are also used in order to show excitement at the event. The title itself as presented in the largest font on the page, which shows the viewer exactly what is being advertised so that they can connect the event to its features. The features include music and robots, not to mention free admission. These topics are presented in the second largest font on the page, which brings attention to those happenings. Since music and free admission are persuasive for an audience to come to an event, the presentation of those topics large font allows the robotics team to show the excitement created at the event because of those topics. In that way, they are able to convince community members of the excitement at Ramp Riot and therefore encourage them to attend.

            The above strategies do seem to work, since Ramp Riot grows every year, raises over ten thousand dollars for the robotics team, and brings thirty six robotics teams from around the east coast to compete against each other. In addition to that, over twenty five hundred people from the local community attend each year. That goes to show just how convincing the flyers are and have been.

TOW #6: "We're Walking Here!" Written

Cities are defined by chaotic transportation and bustling business. In the US, nowhere is this most evident than in New York City. With famous business areas like Wall Street, and millions of people walking around each day, it perfectly showcases a city in the US. The chaos in the city usually works, although it can sometimes fail. In September of this year, a woman was run over and killed by a rushing cyclist. To address this problem, The New York Times Editorial Board wrote an article discussing the transportation laws and injuries on the streets in New York City. Their article was called "We're Walking Here!" a reference to the pedestrians often caught in the way of vehicles during the chaotic mornings. Through their use of statistics and suggestion, the Editorial board is able to convince New Yorkers to take care around the pedestrians in the city and slow down.

Statistics were extremely important in defining the problem in New York City. The authors used statistics to show the extent of the pedestrian fatality problem in New York City. For example, the board states that, “Drivers killed 178 pedestrians and cyclists in 2013 alone” (Board par. 5) in order to show that huge fatality rates within the city. They also stated that, “Lowering the speed limit for cars, to 25 miles per hour on most streets was a good move by the City Council this month” (Board par. 6) to show that speed was an issue in the fatalities. The statistics in the article allow the board to show the extent of the problem in New York City, and convince citizens that it is a big enough problem to resolve.

The Editorial Board also used suggestion to convince New Yorkers to take care around pedestrians. For example, they stated, “If racers want a velodrome, there’s one in Queens” (Board par. 6). This shows that speed was an issue in the pedestrian fatality rate, and therefore suggests to speed somewhere else. The tone of this statement is also interesting, because it is a little irritated. This irritation convinces the audience to slow down because it shows that other New Yorkers, namely, the journalists, are frustrated with their actions.

Above all, the board want people to slow down in New York City and take care around pedestrians. Despite the many fatalities that have already occurred, the board’s article insists the trend can be reversed. New Yorkers can look forward to a day when they don’t have to be afraid walking to work.

TOW #5: "Drones and The Democracy Disconnect" (Written Rewrite of TOW #2)

As America transitions into a conflict with ISIS, drones begin to play an increasing role in America’s war strategy. This is exactly what Firmin DeBrabander, a professor of philosophy at the Maryland Intitute College of Art, explores in his NY Times article, Drones and the Democracy Disconnect. In his article, DebraBander uses quoting and comparison/contrast in order to encourage the limited use of drones in the upcoming conflict.

            Despite being a professor of philosophy, DeBrabander still needs to establish credibility with the American public. To do this, he uses quotes from qualified people in the field of political conflict. For example, when describing the issue surrounding the use of drones in a war, he quotes Machiavelli. He uses Machivelli’s quote that new technologies, “‘prevents men from employing and displaying their virtue as they used to do of old’” (DeBrabander par. 9). First, Machiavelli’s quote allows Debrabander to establish his credibility, since Machiavelli is a respected military strategist. Second, his quote shows new technologies prevent the display of courage and bravery on the battlefield, something that can be extrapolated to drones. In another part of his article, Debrabander describes the use of drones from the victim’s point of view. To do this, he uses a quote from George Monbiot, a writer known for his political pieces. He paraphrases Monbiot’s writing, stating that Monbiot called “…the United States’ drone strikes in Pakistan cowardly” (DeBrabander par. 6). This quote went further to show that Pakistani civilians were being affected, but the American people were removed from the brutality. This quote also establishes Debrabander’s credibility, since the quote was made by a respected political qriter, and it also convinces the audience that drone strikes are not a good idea in conflicts, due to civilian casualties and the removal of people’s emotions.

            Debrabander also uses rhetorical questions to solidify his case against drone strikes against ISIS in the upcoming conflict. For example, he asks these questions at the beginning of his article, when exloring the ethics surrounding the use of drones in conflict.He asks questions such as, "Are drones compatible with patriotism? ... Or do they, as I fear, represent - and exacerbate - a troubling, even obscene disconnect between the American people and the wars waged in our name?"(DeBrabander par. 5). Right from the start of his article, DeBrbander begins questioning the use of drone strikes against ISIS. These questions force the audience to think about his viewpoint as he explains the reasoning behind it. Towards the end of the passage, he asks similar questions, which reinforce his viewpoint and allow the audience to be convinced of it.

            Overall, DeBrabander makes a strong argument against drone strikes in the Middle East. He is able to encourage the limited use of drones because of his usage of quoting and rhetorical questions. His argument is very interesting, since it brings up a different viewpoint to the already common one: drones save lives. It is an interesting article, both because of the differing viewpoint and Debrabander’s skillful use of rhetoric.