<ol>
<li><p>I argued in favor of ads. I said that they can promote charity (giving blood, feeding starving children in Africa, etc.), promote health (I argued that there's at least one anti-tobacco or anti-cigarette ad for every ad for them, so that advertising doesn't solely promote the behaviors, and that most of the time, the anti-negative behavior ads are more direct and less subtle, therefore more effective), and then I mentioned that they help with social conditioning, like learning how to read, where to buy a house, or a good car- that they overall make life easier to live through in this day.</p></li>
<li><p>Word vomit. My organization was off, because there was no correlation between the order of the analysis in my essay and where what I was analyizing appeared. But I talked about figurative language (the simile with cookie cutters and dough being a simple symbol to understand), parallel structure (it gave the presentation of Rushdie's arguments as playful, almost pedantic), and then I started talking about mythos in the way he talked about cowboys, sailors, etc. and our Promised Land being over the next horizon. I talked about something else...but I can't remember.</p></li>
<li><p>I liked this one. I talked about being on my school's literary magazine staff, and how we have to convince English teachers to give out bonus points to come to our poetry slams and buy our magazine. I said that it cheapened what we try to do- which is spread literature to the school. Then I talked about Honor Society requiring community service hours, and how the people end up being grumpy workers at elementary school fairs and animal shelters so that they could stay in and put it on their college applications. I talked about our Interact Club in pretty much the same light. So, I'm hoping that all counted.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I had like, five minutes to read over everything and realized that I changed thoughts mid-way in some of my sentences. Gah.</p>
<p>How bad does your handwriting have to be before they give up on you? Mine's pretty bad, and I'm worried that the ink's going to smudge.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Argued against. First body paragraph was my concession. I refuted using "rugged individualism" car commericials (which I think I stole from an SAT) and the Got Milk? campaign. My second paragraph was about political ad hominem campaigns. The last was about Phillips Morris and a giant Camel cigarette pop-up I saw about a week prior to the AP exam.</p></li>
<li><p>Wrote a generic syntax, metaphor, diction thesis. I talked about how Sander's syntax in the first paragraph introduces the context and hints at his agitated position. His second paragraph directly refuted Rushdie's sentiments and trivializes his arguments through rhetorical questioning. The third paragraph provided some metaphors and allusions. Sander's conclusion had very good syntax and addressed the "so what?" question.</p></li>
<li><p>BS'ed this with 20 minutes left. Talked about basic economic principles such as "there is no free lunch" and "people respond to incentives". Hope I can pull off a 5/9 for this one.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>snipez90: "My second paragraph was about political ad hominem campaigns."</p>
<p>That was unfortunately all I could think about while I was trying to defend advertisements as necessary agents of political awareness. It was kind of funny, sitting there arguing that advertisements can be used to make the masses aware of the current political situation in Washington while I sat there disbelievingly refusing to accept any of what I was writing as actual fact. Thank God one of the sources essentially said the same thing that I was so, even if there was no real-world or logical basis to it, I had a citation to back me up :P</p>
<p>I spoke to my teacher about that essay. She said you could either agree, disagree or qualify.</p>
<p>1st essay: against, used a lot from source F to set up paragraphs
and used the smoking one and others for the specific examples</p>
<p>2nd essay: used what I thought was the strategy of his essay: compare/contrast and argue
combined that with Sanders' use of sarcasm/mockery in his tone, and something else... can't think</p>
<p>3rd essay: I was concerned about time, but I wrote a weird essay. It had many rhetorical questions in it and the examples were all hypothetical. I talked about the problem with the Salvation Army giving back a nickel for every dollar donated (IDK, I was just trying to get something down), the reputation of a company when people find out how little it donates as a percentage of it's profit, and how ethical would Superman be if he charged individuals/cities for his services. I ended with what can probably be considered a(nother) logical fallacy. It was a statement about moral substance and backbone and how arguing for incentive-based charity is paralysis. </p>
<p>First essays, when read, were on point
third, hope the reader feels what I am saying</p>
<p>My last essay is the worst I have ever written. I essentially rambled on about how charity with incentives is false charity. I had no idea what examples I could use. It was so much rhetoric and not enough examples. Gahh. I hope that somehow I pull off at least a 4.</p>
<p>1st - a qualifying argument... I said that advertisement is basically a tool/vehicle for conveying messages, and that its effects depend entirely on the purpose of its creator.</p>
<p>2nd - I thought the essay prompt primarily asked for strategy, not literary devices :S ... I believe I discussed about the use of examples and examined the overall structure (progression from the building of an illusion-like image to a subsequent destruction of the image and the increasingly-direct refutation of Rushdie's ideas)... can't remember.</p>
<p>3rd - Couldn't think of many examples, but did okay for this one. Started off by showing how incentives are not necessary, and concluded by arguing that incentives undermine the credibility of the charity, its associates, and the donors.</p>
<p>1) being the overly idealistic fellow i am, i bashed advertising and argued that it created a consumer-oriented society</p>
<p>2) appeal to authority (dhistorrical example), ethos (because it mentions about making life better for our progeny), rhetroical questions</p>
<p>3) i agrued against incentives and took a little twist on the prompt. i focused on charity as a type of self-sacrifice, and asserted that incentives will taint the sancity of honor...lol something like that. and i mentioned that incentives only fuel society's hendonism</p>
<p>used a bunch of t.s. eliot quotes , because they seemed oddly appropriate when discussing the failings of society</p>
<p>How much would they dock your score if you didn't mention ethos, pathos, or logos in analyzing the 2nd essay? (assuming you did a pretty decent job otherwise.)</p>
<p>None? I doubt that would be a real issue.</p>
<p>None. A.P. graders reward what you do right. They dont expect you to dish out every rhetorical device.</p>
<p>alright, thats good to hear.</p>