Government policies are a great source of debate and controversy, which is just perfect for bloggers to write about.
Meg Lanker is among this throng of bloggers, who discusses Florida's mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients in her blog Cognitive Dissonance. She effectively uses critical language and referenced statistical details to point out all the flaws in the program, while then utilizing syntax and imagery to appeal to our emotions.
Throughout her article, Lanker incorporates significant statistical data before even beginning to add her own commentary. While the tests total cost about $1,140, the state is "saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive (WFTV)". Without a degree in economics or political science, most people have enough common sense to come to the conclusion that Florida is obviously losing money.
After presenting a valid case through the use of numbers and data, she then contributes her opinions through judgmental and somewhat accusatory language. By saying she's "not at all shocked by this (Lanker)," she makes it seem as if it was obvious from the start that this program was not going to succeed. She then talks about how "Florida should have learned this 10 years ago, when they tried this program and had to dump it for cost reasons (Lanker)."
Furthermore, she also merges her strong language with differing syntax. She employs regular indicative sentences, while also alternating those with interrogative questions. For example, we can really see the combined effect of syntax and language with questions like "So drug tests aren’t infallible and they’re not saving Florida any money? (Lanker)" that really make us realize how unsuccessful Florida's strategies have proved to be. Clearly, Lanker does not agree with Florida's mandatory drug testing policies and uses her strong language to convey that.
But Lanker does more than just make us oppose the program; she makes us sympathize with the welfare recipients who must endure this program by means of strong imagery. In the last paragraph, she puts forth a hypothetical family of innocent kids with parents who may have done drugs just once or twice. By evoking the images of powerless, almost even vulnerable, kids, Lanker makes us question whether Florida's drug testing program is preventing drug abusers from getting money or simply preventing helpless kids from getting the necessary aid that they need to grow and develop. She ends on this emotional note, truly making us wonder if this program is effective .
Nice job with his entry! It is clear that you are getting a stronger hold on DIDLS with each Close Reading, I particularly enjoyed your analysis of Lanker’s use of syntax, very insightful! On a related note, I can’t seem to find a link to the original article on your entry. You might want to investigate this.
ReplyDeleteWow! Great job on the introduction, and writing this whole piece in general. You actually took the time to put it into an essay format!
ReplyDeleteWell, your time was well spent, as this is a very well organized essay, and ideas flow logically from one paragraph to the next.
When you talk about Syntax, you do a good job of coming up with examples and points of argument, but you never explained how using indicative sentences and interrogative sentences affected our understanding of the play or its meaning. You kind of state that there are indicative and interrogative sentences, and expect the reader to know how that should affect writing.
I think that your strongest paragraph is your last one in which you talk about imagery. That’s because you hit everything you need: Idea, support, and how it affects meaning. Here, I can see that the imagery you pointed out makes Florida citizens question the effectiveness of the drug testing program. Although I do wish you had a more general meaning or message, something that could be applied outside of the article, and could exist in the real world.
Good formatting! I didn't realize how much coherent a paper is when you put it inot paragraph form! I also liked how when you gave an example, you didn't leave it at that, you explained the effect it had on the passage as a whole. Your examples were good and nicely chosen! Great work!
ReplyDelete