TOW #16: A Breifer History of Time by: Stephen Hawking

As I continued to delve into Stephen Hawking’s work, A Breifer History of Time, things began to make more and more sense to be, but at the same time confuse me. Obviously, all of his topics in his book are extremely complicated, so to put them into “simple terms” (still extremely complex to the average person, like me) is hard. Even in the second half of the book Hawking kept up his simplification skills with the continued use of pictures and metaphors to help the reader comprehend. Although this may not work for every reader, one reason Hawking’s rhetoric was effective for me was that it tapped into my “memory”.

Chemistry class technically is not a distant memory to me, but we are currently (and surprisingly!) learning about quantum mechanics. Hawking’s book is a great overview of all of the concepts that we are currently covering more in depth in chemistry. Therefore, although conceptually, I may not fully understand the concepts as I am reading (even with the metaphors and pictures), I start off in a much better place than the rest of my class because I have begun to already try to grasp these topics. Hawking’s effective overview helps me to get a head-start when I try to understand these concepts more in depth, and that is what partly, even if just for me personally, helps to make his writing effective.

In conclusion, I really did love A Briefer History of Time. It was challenging, intriguing, and, sometimes, truly mind-blowing. I can’t say that it fully changed my views of the universe as I know it, because I am still processing some of the concepts discussed. But, it has helped me to think in a more abstract sense, and given me a leg-up in school! Who would have thought! So, Hawking, thanks for an enjoyable and intellectual read, from one nerd to another.

(Source)

TOW #15: Smug Couples Patronize Singles to Feel Better About Themselves by: Samantha Joel

With Semi-formal coming up here at Wiss, everyone is vying for a date. For many singles, it may be a very depressing time, with all the couples that have their dates already lined up. But no need for the Wiss singles to worry any longer, Samantha Joel, a student at the University of Toronto has dating figured out. In her article, Joel aims to explain why people in a monogamous relationship tend to look down on those who are single. Although the concept is interesting, Joel struggles to achieve her purpose to educate about this phenomenon due to her lacking syntax and confusing order.
       As Joel attempts to explain this interesting topic, her syntax hinders how effective her message is because it is unacademic and basic. Joel uses very basic terminology to explain the premise of the study. As she gives background, she says, "For single people, they measured how difficult single participants thought it would be to find a romantic partner. For romantically attached people, they measured how difficult they thought it would be to leave their current relationships". Although this does explain the study very simply, these two sentences are identical in structure, thus making her argument seem less academic.
     On a less microscopic level, Joel detracts from her argument because of her confusing order, which does not lead the reader clearly through to a conclusion. Joel begins her article by defining what this phenomenon is, which is clear enough. However, as Joel begins to explain about the actual study, she gets confusing. She explains different parts of the study, but fails in some places to identify what these findings mean, which is essential to reader comprehension. Finally, in her conclusion, Joel basically just re-states the point that "people look down on people with opposing relationship statuses as a way to feel better about their own," without driving home the fact that the study she was reporting on proved that. 
   Therefore, although this could have been an extremely interesting an article, the way that Joel wrote the article did not do the subject a justice.

(Source)

TOW #14: Alec Baldwin Hulu Commercial

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHiJ7v18-EM)

The company Hulu is in an extremely competitive field. Hulu is stacked up market-wise against power companies such as Netflix and other live TV and movie streaming providers. Essentially, all of these companies provide the same service, to deliver streamed TV shows on any media device in the customer’s home. This commercial from Hulu attempts to reach the average TV lover and convince them that Hulu is a great way to watch TV.

Although overall this ad was effective, it does contain a few fallacies that detract from the overall message. The first fallacy that the advertisement has in the false authority fallacy. In the beginning, Alec Baldwin says that he’s credible for talking about TV because he is a TV star. However, Baldwin is not in fact credible because he has clear ulterior motives, such as gaining popularity for his own TV shows. Baldwin is just a star on TV, he does not necessarily watch TV so although he is credible in the acting realm; the watching, not so much. This Hulu ad may have been able to avoid that fallacy if they had used a TV fanatic to talk about why Hulu is great for streaming.

Not only that, but this Hulu ad is also based largely on the claim that many people believe TV will turn your brain to mush. The ad then uses this claim to create a satirical promotion of Hulu that shows that it is good that human’s brains become mush using streaming because the people at Hulu are aliens. Although entertaining and amusing, this claim falls to the ground if the audience does not agree that TV has the capacity to turn one’s brain to mush. Yes, this fallacy may be having to do with something extremely fictional but the difference in effectiveness of the ad if you don’t go along with the premise, even a fictional one, is substantial. So, although this advertisement is effective in that it is memorable and creative, fallacies take away from its credibility.