<p>i got a general question. is imagery a rhetorical device? i have a really bad feeling the answer is no.</p>
<p>Hmmm... well it's more of a literary device BUT it does fall within the realm of FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE which is used often in rhetoric. If you made a good case for it, you should be ok ;)</p>
<p>"There was absolutely no satire. The beginning of the second sentence said said something about a man who desires money. The author pretty much is against money, as it is a deceptive and dominatory force in ones life, and society burdens people to feel the need for money. I'm good at rhetorical analysis, but terrible at argumentation (1st & 2nd essays I thought were easy, 3rd I blew off because I used absolutely no examples). However, I don't know how I truly did as I got 6 hours of sleep the night before, after having been up for 38 hours.</p>
<p>BTW, anyone who's worrying they didn't write enough with TWO pages, I never write more than 1.25 pages and I almost always get 8's (and my teacher is an AP grader)...and to people who say that they mention about the authors diction, syntax, etc, if you use those words do not expect to do well. You should have argued the authors purpose, not the strategies, as those will naturally fit into a well-written essay focused on the purpose."</p>
<p>I completely agree, it made it seem as if money was more of a burden than it was worth. It also used a gargantuan amount of Syntactic Permutation combined with a freight train style. Mood was almost hyperactive like Hazlitt was having trouble holding himself back...</p>
<p>I also have never written more than 2 pages and consistently pull 7/8.</p>
<p>did anyone else talk a tiny bit about cause and effect? cause of greed leads to all the negatives things he mentioned?</p>
<p>i talked about his purpose but then i thought i answered it incorrectly... so is it really purpose or rhet?</p>
<p>For #2, it was straightforward, right? Without money, life is bad?</p>
<p>For #3, I just used two examples for public opinions and 2 against. I said it depends on the public opinion whether they are good or bad. Is this going to be a problem?</p>
<p>Ok please someone help me understand. What was the first essay about. </p>
<p>On the second essay I talked about the following rhetorical devices (its been 48 hours so..)
-parallelism
-anaphora's
-hyperbole's (when the money was talking about the success and failure of like acting in a play)
-understatement's (when he talks about the cold comfort. At first I believed it was a hyperbole.. but cold comfort is being TOO nice).
-His use of contrasting continually what money was and wasn't.
The third essay was ridiculously easy.
I chose the side most wouldn't.
I argued with basically Russia and the public and how they overexaggerated the situation with their public statements (included Red Scare, etc)</p>
<p>OK but SOMEONE tell me, what was the first essay talking about? I said that because of the last paragraph that she was ashamed and kind of mad at american's. What did u guys put.</p>
<p>1st essay I felt was how the Flamingo helped lighten the mood of America, the people born in the Depression Era needed to look to a brighter, more relaxing future, and the flamingo aided in that. The brighter future also relates to Civil Rights and such...</p>
<p>For the second essay, I think I talked about how he used like a slippery slope fallacy when he starts to describing all those hideous consequences for "wanting money". And I thought the first paragraph is like talking about how pink flamingos represent American's pursuit of extravagance or something...</p>
<p>I felt pretty confident coming out of it, MC was easier than expected,
1st essay = preoccupation with extravagance and wealth (seems to be a consensus on that)
2nd essay = cant remember that much but talked about the effect of the long 2nd sentence and the irony at the end ... etc blah blah... wasnt that difficult unless I completely missed the point
3rd essay = great topic, was in favor of expression of opinions, several examples from u.s. history, also worked in celebrities like Bono, strong conclusion</p>
<p>expecting a good score!
computer science, however, is a different story....:-/</p>
<p>My english teacher told me that "want" = lack
So a person who is "in want of money" is not neccessely desireous of money, but lacks it.</p>
<p>I breezed through the multiple choice with 15-20 minutes to spare, but I was a little freaked out because two girls at a table next to me finished before I did. I relaxed a bit later when they were talking about how many questions they just skipped, how tired they were, .etc... I didn't have to skip anything, and I only even had to pause to think much a few times.</p>
<p>The first essay, I thought, was critical of America's extravagance and wealth. I also mentioned that Americans have seemingly forgotten their own hand in the flamingo's extinction. The two most important sentences in the passage, the ones that stand out very clearly in my mind, were at the beginning of the second paragraph, and went something like this...</p>
<p>"Of course, by the end of the 19th century Americans had hunted the flamingo to extinction - for it's meat and plumage. But no matter."</p>
<p>Building on this "Americans ignore/forget history" angle, I talked about the significance of the Depression-era adults growing into spendthrifts. People who experienced a time in America where unemployment grew to 25%, even with the federal government providing jobs under Roosevelt's New Deal?</p>
<p>The second essay was definitely the tougher one. I think the author wasn't arguing about money so much as he was speaking about class. If you remember, the second sentence began with a lot of "It is..." statements, speaking on what it was like to be poor. A few clauses in, however, there is a changeup. The clauses start to mention, "It is not..." and the author tells us about the experience of being wealthy. To paraphrase, "It is not to be invited to court, or to dinner, or to have your opinion referenced and checked or made a mockery of; it is not to have your accomplishments questioned, or derised, until you lack the wit or the courage to speak your opinion." This, combined with a second reference to possessing wealth (If you remember the author talks about the jobs poor people are forced into, then briefly mentions that an artist may work for years attaining wealth, only to find himself surrounded by false friends with cruel intentions), made me think that the essay argued against the "class" system that money created. I felt that the big point of the essay, which was mentioned in the case of the wealthy and the poor, was that this class system, this society, robbed people of their intelligence. That's what I wrote my essay on.</p>
<p>The last one, for me, was really easy because I am also taking AP government and AP US History this year. I argued that all speech was important to the workings of a democracy because it was a way for people to control the government. I mentioned the first amendment, but not in a cheesy freedom of speech way. I mentioned the right to petition the government for redress of grievances because I felt that it had historical implications. It is also implied in "free speech" so the fact that the framers had to say it twice seemed significant. Then I talked about the 'Alien and Sedition' acts early on in our history and McCarthyism in the 50's, and how both instances were put down by the everlasting strength of the constitution. Building on the "way people speak to the government," thing, I talked about how we enfranchised women, african americans, native americans, and other minorities at various points in our history.</p>
<p>What I didn't mention much of was rhetorical features... in the first essay I said something about how the word 'pink' was italicized... Italics in Academia are typically reserved for foreign language so I thought that was a clue that the essay wasn't serious... I think I got the point of the essay, but I don't know if I got much of the rhetoric into my essays. I mentioned antithesis in the second, but I think that was the absolute only thing I mentioned.</p>
<p>this is what I thought the second essay was going on about.</p>
<p>first sentence - waiver seperate from rest of passage saying that in life, money IS helpful.</p>
<p>2nd sentence - passage begins --> to be in WANT of money (to desire it) = all the terrible things that he listed after.</p>
<p>3rd sentence - after you're dead, people commemorate you (satire)</p>
<p>Want can also mean 'need,' as previously mentioned. I think this would be the case when you consider the author's timeframe... I believe he liked in the 18th century? Same England that Dickens wrote about.</p>