Introduction to Now You See It

Summary:
In the introduction to Now You See It, by Cathy N. Davidson, she talks about an experiment she participated in with a philosopher. The philosopher had them watch a video of people tossing basketballs back and forth and to only keep track of how many times they tossed the ball back and forth. Davidson, was one of the few to notice a gorilla in the middle of the players. Most of the people didn't notice this because they were so focused on the task of counting. The whole point of the introduction to her book is to get you to realize that when we are so focused on something, we miss a lot of other things going on. This is called attention blindness. Davidson's opinion on distractions is that they are a good thing.

Critical Commentary:
I think that the author makes a very good point about attention blindness. It really made me think about all the times I would focus on just one thing, I was missing out on other things happening. The gorilla experiment was really interesting. It's crazy that most of the people didn't even notice the gorilla even though it was right in the middle of the screen. I also thought it was interesting when she mentioned the card trick where while everyone was focusing on something else, the magician puts the chosen card into a stack of different colored cards so he could easily find the chosen card and no one even noticed. I never really thought about how many things I miss because of trying to focus on a specific thing, until I read this. Also, when she talks about the digital revolution and how some people think that the internet is bad and that its a distraction, but she thinks that its a good thing. I agree with this. I don't think the internet is making us dumb. I think that it is causing us to read more and to learn more than we ever have been able to before.

Rhetorical Analysis: Research

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/contraception-obama-administration_b_1265878.html


"Contraception Isn't a PR Game; It's a Woman's Right" By: Rev. Al Sharpton


Who is the author and what are his/her credentials?


http://www.aeispeakers.com/speakerbio.php?SpeakerID=568

This is a link to information about the author who wrote the article. "Rev. Al Sharpton is one of America's most-renowned civil rights leaders" (AEI Speakers Bureau). He is committed to equality for all people. Sharpton ran as a U.S. democratic candidate in 2004. In February 2007, he was called "the most prominent civil rights activist in the nation" by the New York Daily News. Sharpton started his ministry at a very young age. A few years after his first sermon he was licensed to be a Pentecostal minister. His civil rights career began at a young age too. 

Who is the publisher or sponsor? What does the organization typically publish? 

The Huffington Post is the publisher/sponsor of this article. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post


The Huffington Post is an American news website and blog, featuring columnists and various news sources(Wikipedia). This website provides a variety of alrticles: news, blogs, original content, politics, business, entertainment, technology, popular media, life & style, culture, comedy, healthy living, women's interest, and local news. 
(I got all of this from Wikipedia)


What are the leanings or biases of the author/publisher?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post


The Huntington Post claims that their political views don't affect how they cover their news, but reps. of the republican party believe that the Huntington Post writer's are hostile to their views. 
They have also been criticized by several science bloggers and also online news sources for including articles by supporters of alternative medicine and anti vaccine activists and censoring rebuttals written by science bloggers before publishing.  
(I got all of this from Wikipedia)


http://usliberals.about.com/od/thepressandjournalist1/p/Profile-Of-Rev-Al-Sharpton-Activist-Msnbc-Host.htm


Rev. Al Sharpton is a democrat, so that could make his articles biased. He is also a Baptist minster, so that could also make his articles biased.


What is the context of the argument? What preceded or provoked how others have responded to it?


Sharpton makes the argument that birth control/contraception isn't a religious freedom, or the federal government, but it's the right of women everywhere in the world. This provokes people to respond because the opinions/views on this issue are very controversy and usually extreme. You are either completely for it or completely against it. He also brings up in the article about how certain religious hospitals wouldn't provide birth control/contraception options for women and that the government has made some of them provide these options no matter what religion the hospital is.
(All of this came form the article)


I think that the argument in this article is put together very well, and seems very convincing. Knowing, the author is a minster, gives him good ethos. He also uses pathos and logos in his article.

Logos Abuse

http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/the-healthy-skeptic-dont-fall-prey1/

This link will take you to a website criticizing Hydroxycut weight loss supplement. This is an example of logos abuse because in this article it says that Hydroxycut claims that, fitness competitor and model, Brandy Flores' figure is due to their product. This is completely false. The "Before" picture they show of Flores is right after she  delivered a baby, which they failed to mention in the ad. They make the product seem to work better than it actually does.



https://www.asseenontv.com/belly-burner/detail.php?p=293063&v=best-sellers

This link will take you to "The Belly Burner" video. This is an example of logos abuse because they only show/talk about the best results. They don't mention the "normal" or "not so good" results. It also says in small print that "results vary", which means not everyone is going to lose as much weight as the people on the commercial.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ojjrLARMzA

This link will take you to the Lunesta commercial. This is an example of logos abuse because they say things like "clinically proven" and only talk about the "good results" not the "bad". They don't give both sides of the story. But they do say that results may vary.