Response to Questions

Question 1:
My roommate and I tend to argue about everything from politics, to bars, to money, etc. JUST EVERYTHING! I have decided that in Kaufer's levels our main conflict is at a level 4. Typically we tend to argue about things that we each do that are a product of our upbringing. I do not think that a job or a course of study is good or interesting just because the end result means it pays well. I believe in choosing to do something I love and worry about money later. However Gina has chosen a major which she consistently curses and complains about. Another example is the way she talks in general. I am quiet and soft-spoken which annoys her endlessly. She is loud and abrasive and doesn't see anything wrong with that. We tend to disagree a lot. If we could clarify maybe why we behave the way we do, and what specifically these values mean to us (money, language) we can come to an agreement. Maybe not an agreement in the sense that I think that I was wrong and she is right or vice versa, but an agreement that language and money issues are barriers for our discourse. We must find ways around our conflicting values to continue on with our discourse (and live happily in a very small apt.)

Question 2:
Savio is claiming that the University is not doing enough to promote student's political feelings and ideas. Savio says that basic civil rights are at stake and in both places are being controlled by a powerful minority who influences the university. Later it is said that a conception of a university is that it be "in the world but not of the world". The opposite is that the university can only promote two kinds of speech, one that promotes nothing but what already is, and the other, which is too radical to ever be taken seriously. The university does not permit sit-ins against discrimination and re-affirms Savio in that fact that the university is controlled and suppresses what the students actually want. This works to give another example a better idea of what Savio means but saying the university is run by bureaucrats and does not allow students to express themselves. If I were an administrator I would feel compelled to attempt an explanation, but they have already admitted to being pressured to not let students speak about important issues. Berkeley has failed its students by providing them with a life in which "all of the rules have been made up".

Question 3:
Senator Obama begins his argument by telling you who he is. He provides credibility by being a black man, with having a mixed background, and African-American wife, and by being at least somewhat privileged in going to the best schools in America. Senator Obama creates his diverse background on purpose. He gives an image of someone a little bit like us, but for most of us much more educated, and that helps some people to believe him--simply on the basis of his intelligence. I think it works. Senator Obama is explaining himself against a radical pastor that he was associated with. He gives a background, a reason, he uses cause by answering this, "Why am I here talking about this reverend and who am I?" Senator Obama uses the history of his relationship with the reverend such as how he brought him to his faith, and explaining what a good man he is, but also acknowledges that he may at times be very critical of America and does not share the same values as Senator Obama. Responding this way sets the Senator apart. It provides an extremely valuable ethos description, and also answers questions about the pastor he is associated with. If the other two authors had constructed a more whole ethos the audience would be more apt to take what they are saying as truth. When reading the audience asks itself, “Who is this, why believe them, etc.?” These are questions that make the writer or speaker seem much more of credible source if they are answered up front. Constructing an ethos is obviously extremely important to an argument.

-AJ