this is a peer review essay to go throught it and see if there is aything wrong and you comment Collapse SubdiscussionLinda Dega

Linda Dega

Professor Kim

ENG 124-1949

7 April 2022

Effective strategies that make our article useful

What goals does the author take in his argument for his article to become a source of attraction for the audience to read? Defining the rhetorical strategy and logical fallacy well will give strength to the author’s argument. Logical fallacy and rhetorical strategy have a great influence on the visibility of one article over another. The article we read earlier written by Helen Olin discussing “It is time to reopen schools”, the article illustrates the negative impact of keeping schools closed due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, Olen supports that school closures will have a significant negative impact on children’s future and a significant loss on education. The negative impact of keeping schools closed will affect cognitive ability, and distance learning will be the worst alternative to in-person classes. Olen supports the idea that it is time to reopen schools because most studies show that closing schools does not protect us from the spread of Covid-19. The California Secretary of Health and Human Services stresses that “we have not seen any link between increased transmission and reopening of school or in-person learning.” Encouraging to keep schools closed cannot be a good solution to protect students from contracting COVID-19. Olin’s argument, and the rhetorical strategies and logical fallacies she used, were successful in convincing the reader and in attracting the attention of those interested in such articles, which means that her point of view is distinguished. Moreover, using logical fallacies and choosing rhetorical strategies correctly, will add more strengths to support her argument in convincing her audience. Put another way, in Rachel Baird’s article, “California Schools Should Stay Closed Until Science Says It’s Safe to Reopen,” the article highlights how important it is to wait until epidemiologists decide to reopen schools. Rachel stresses that if we want to open schools, we must not sacrifice teachers, school staff, children and the greater community and we must wait until it is safe. In addition, to make the decision to open schools, the metrics used are the main indicators established by public health professionals and public welfare professionals, including positive test rate, hospitalizations, deaths, and health care system readiness, ensuring safety equipment, being patient and ensuring that the environment Safe to reopen schools. She pointed out the importance of preparing a healthy and safe environment for students. COVID-19 is a contagious disease, which is why we must wait until we are sure through the scientific evidence that will be issued that the school environment is safe and healthy for students. We can see that Baird failed in using logical fallacies and rhetorical strategy correctly, which made her argument unconvincing. Olin and Baird presented the differences and similarities between the use of a logical fallacy and a rhetorical fallacy. Olin supports logical fallacy and rhetorical fallacy in a clever way that grabs the reader’s attention. But Baird failed to use fallacy and strategies. Olin succeeds in convincing the audience of her argument and because of the strategies she has used, such as prejudice, compassion, and assumptions; Conversely, Braid’s argument is weakened by the failure to use bias, pathos, and assumptions significantly to capture the audience’s and readers’ attention.

Olen supports her article and powerful argument by using a bias strategy to convince her audience. At first, bias was one of the most obvious strategies in Olin’s argument. For example, Olin discusses, “We haven’t seen a link between increased transmission and reopening of school or in-person learning.” (Olen). Bias Olen has used a logical fallacy strategy by supporting and encouraging not to close and keep schools open, because keeping schools open does not cause an increase in COVID-19 cases nor affect students. On the other hand, we see Baird’s argument fail to use the bias strategy. For example, Baird argues, “If we are to open schools without sacrificing teachers, school staff, vulnerable family members, children, and the larger community, we need to wait until it is safe. We need objective and clear metrics to help us determine that” (Baird). From this we understand that if we want to reopen schools and have students attend them in person, we must wait and not rush until the situation remains safe and the epidemic disappears completely, so that we can return to schools in person. In the argumentative articles, we can know how the logical fallacies were used and determine in which article they were used successfully. In Olin’s article he used logical bias so forcefully that she was able to convince her audience of her argument, but in Baird’s argument he did not use so forcefully a logical fallacy that he made his argument so unpowerful.

In Olin’s essay and using the rhetorical strategy of pathos, she succeeds in convincing her audience of her argument, it is very effective and powerful. Olin strongly supports rhetorical strategies in her argument. For example, Olin endorses, “The United States is a country that loves to profess its love for children. Unfortunately, that love is often honored more in sentiment than in action. Keeping our schools closed provides more of the same, with a new twist: We not only protect our children, we destroy their future too—while telling ourselves we are acting in their best interest.” (Olin). Showing love to children is not enough in America, keeping schools closed does not help build a wonderful future for children. Keeping schools open is a great solution, supporting children and providing them with a high level of educational environment and caring for them, through which we will be able to provide a wonderful and successful future by personally supporting the reopening of schools. America offers its love and support to children, so America gives priority and attention to children a lot. Olin says that keeping schools closed will have negative effects on children’s future and the extent of their education. The rhetorical strategy is used by the writer as support and force to attract the reader’s attention. In contrast, Baird uses a strategy of compassion, but he cannot forcefully convince the reader and audience in his argument, For example, Baird argues, “if we want to open schools without sacrificing teachers, school staff, vulnerable family members, children and the larger community. We need to wait until they are safe, and we need objective and clear metrics to help us determine this. Not allowing school boards to force people back until these measures are met” (Baird). In other words, if we want to reopen schools again, no one should be harmed, and educational staff, students, and vulnerable family members should not be sacrificed, we should stick to all of these settings and we will need clear and balanced measures to help us confirm this. Not allowing the educational staff to return to schools in person until these procedures are met. Olin’s argument is more powerful and persuasive because they used the effective rhetorical strategy that made her argument support.

In Olin’s “Time to Reopen Schools” we can see the assumptions being used explicitly in the article in order to more effectively convince readers of her argument for reopening schools after the pandemic. Eileen says school closures have a negative impact on the country’s GDP, for example, Olin explains, “Our country’s GDP could continue to suffer for decades into the future, when COVID-19 is just a paragraph in the history books.” (Olin). From this we understand that closing schools may negatively affect revenues in the country. We can consider this statement in the article as an assumption due to the lack of sufficient evidence and information to support this statement, but it plays a major role in convincing readers of the negative economic impact on school closures and because the return of the economy to what it was before the pandemic has become a source of concern for many people. In the Bairds article supporting schools to remain closed we see assumption through science and its critical role in reopening schools. Science is expected to be the main and deciding factor in reopening schools, for example, Pride argues, “The metrics used should be the key indicators established by public health professionals including positive test rate, hospitalizations, deaths, health care system readiness, and testing our contact tracing capabilities and capabilities. We must set challenging goals and not move to reopen the door until we achieve these goals for at least 14 days.” (Barid) The main assumption is that it is science that will make the decisive decision in reopening schools. But this is not true because most people have been affected by the deterioration of the economy with job losses, low levels of income and poor financial condition. If people remain while waiting for science to decide, economic life will deteriorate further. By comparing these two articles, we find that the hypothetical strategy presented by the two authors does not help much in supporting their arguments, because it lacks the necessary evidence and evidence that helps the reader to believe it more

1. Does the author present the issue (rhetoric!) in his or her introduction? Is the attention
grabber effective? Is the background information (introducing the articles) sufficient?

2. In the thesis, does the writer clearly make a claim about which author presented a
stronger argument and why? (there should be clear comparison; you are arguing one did
it better, not just showing what each author did)

3. Does the writer support his/her thesis with specific rhetorical strategies/fallacies? Does
the writer use the point by point method of comparison, focusing on one strategy or
fallacy per paragraphs and showing how both authors do with it?

4. Does the writer give specific examples from the text to show each rhetorical strategy at
work? Are there at least two examples per body paragraph?

5. Does the writer explain how these examples either make the argument stronger or
weaker? Is there a clear comparison being made between the two writers?

6. Are all examples from the articles cited properly with in-text citation? Is the paper

formatted in MLA style? Is there a works cited page in the end?

7. Does the writer have a conclusion that restates the thesis and gives a final thought?

8. Are there any obvious/distracting grammatical or structural errors?

9. What is this paper’s greatest strength? What still needs work, and how would you
suggest the writer revise to correct that problem?