ARCS p. 318 2 and 3

2.) I would like to look at some of president elect Barack Obama's speeches. There were always insinuations, when he would try to show who he was talking to that he knew the issues they were concerned about and that he knew the answers to those problems. There were numerous narratives as he tried to put himself on level with his audience - he would always tell stories of people he knew or had met on the campaign trail. There were partitions as he broke the issues down to the audience, and there were perorations to end his speeches with a bang that people would remember - very emotional, very touching.

This was the case throughout the presidential election period - every candidate used these to try to make their own argument convincing and believable. I think modern rhetors do feel it necessary to use all of these parts of a discourse.

3.) I think her choices in arranging her various arguments make sense, she's not writing to the parents or to the students, but to a general audience. If she were writing to the alumni newsletter (who's readers probably send their children to the school) she could talk more about the benefits of letting go of your children, be more positive and not so 'you're ruining your kid' - although she could also add more horror stories, about how a kid didn't get a job because his dad was too 'into' everything he was doing or something. I think she would write a different introduction, one that doesn't say "parents must learn to back off" - that is very in the reader's face, especially if the reader is the parent in question, very confrontational. If I were going to rewrite this, I might add something like what I said above, and I might also add more numbers, like how more kids drop out if their parents remain clinging or something. I would also back off with the whole "you are wrong and you need to stop what you are doing right now" - usually when you are making an argument against your reader, you want to pad it as much as possible so they don't get offended.