1. My job requires making calzones. The drivers criticize how quickly I make calzones. They argue that the customers will be happier if they receive their calzones quickly. I argue that a better product offers a more satisfied customer. This is a level three argument in that the drivers and I give weight to different evidence. The drivers receive better tips when the calzones are made quickly. However, the customer has not seen the product at this time. I argue that making the calzones correctly will result in a more satisfied customer. It only adds one minute of extra work to make the calzones correctly. I believe this out ways making the calzones sloppily and getting them out a few minutes faster.

2.Savio's analogy that "Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississipi is to civil rights" is relatable to his allusion that states the university is "in the world but not of the world," in that the the comparison of Sproul Hall to Mississipi points out the essential rights and due process that are missing in both places. This is to the allusion of the university in that there is a certain censorship in the school that takes away from these essential rights of expression and culture. Some of the students are barred from expressing themselves in that their views are seen as controversial and therefore, not good for the schools identity. If I were the Administrator, I would be responsive to what Savio defines as depersonalization. However I would not let the school run rampant. There would need to be civil and logical debating.

3.Obama makes the case that while he associates with individuals who have made mistakes in the past, it does not affect his ideals. Moreover, everyone's identity is different and made up of complex components of family, belief, and environment. It is important to weigh our view of him on these ideals he holds prevalent. Putting people in boxes based on race and identity gets us no where, besides attaining a mass of unopened boxes. Obama argues on the stasis of cause in order to very basically point out the misconception in order to identify how different we all are and how we cannot base one man's actions on another's. What Wells-Barnett and Savio could take from this is that ethos must be presented in a way that can be accepted by a more diverse populace.