Draft Workshop Questions 9/23

I am answering the draft workshop questions based on my reading of Richard Graven's paper in which he discusses the stances the presidential candidates are taking on social security.

2. I feel the paper does not meet the requirements of the assignment. Richard makes clear the stances each candidate has on social security, but fails to identify the ways in which the rhetoric of the candidates affects their message. It does present the views of the issue in detail, with substantial examples, and pertenant information relating to the economics involved.

3. The paper steers clear of bias for the first two pages. In his last paragraph, Richard becomes extremely biased. The sentence, "I believe that George W. Bush makes a more substantiating argument than John Kerry under the reforms of social security.," basically explains it all. In the beginning he uses, "he believes," "this program," and "his plan," which follows the rhetoric for a non-bias paper. In the last paragraph, he fails the non-bias test by using such phrases as, "I believe," and "Bush's...would allow funding," in which he gives his own opinion of who's plan is better.

4. Richard introduces the issue of social security and how both candidates have different stances on the issue. He then organizes his paper by describing Kerry's stance, then Bush's stance in different paragraphs. Then conlcudes it with a paragraph of his opinion on who's plan is better. I think his paper would read well if, after describing the candidates positions, he added a paragraph about Kerry's rhetoric, followed by a paragraph on Bush's rhetoric. There do not appear to be any rhetorical implications, because he describes Kerry's stance first, but then sums up his paper with a pro-Bush discussion.