Author: Blake Montgomery
The author's diction eludes to the fact that they are probably excited for the new feature considering they are journalists, however at the end they are sectional because of the possible malfunctions of algorithm. The author's syntax is complex giving the article a slightly elevated feel. The author's purpose is to inform about the new feature and express possible excitement for the release.
0 Comments
Author: Alex Kantrowitz
The author shows very little emotional attachment to the subject, its most likely he doesn't care wether snapchat fails or survives. Logos is applied giving statistics and numerical values to the large sums of users and money used. The authors purpose is to inform the public about the pitfalls of snapchat and possibly warn them that their favorite social media may tank. Author: Julia Reinstein
The diction is comical because of the comedic matter of the subject. The tone of the diction is quite funny. Pathos is the largest appeal in that the purpose is to be funny, designed to make people laugh. The authors goal was ultimately to inform and poke fun at the whole situation. It is likely that she is critical of the Trump like the teens mentioned in the article, beaus otherwise she wouldn't have reported on the topic. Author: Jim Dalrymple II
The authors diction is appropriate for the article because they lack emotion. Logos is the main appeal in that lots of historical references are made to the time following the September 11th attacks. The author seems critical of the decision in that he uses quotes in the small blurb at the beginning of the article denoting uncertainty on the topic. The author may want to provoke change or start a change that others will follow to stop the proposed ban. The authors argument is mostly based of his diction that is mildly critical of the ban. Author: Claudia Koerner
Koerner's diction is similar to that of a normal new broadcast; it offers a level of sophistication yet doesn't use words that could complicate the message. No clear appeals ro devices were used however the use of former evens does appeal to Logos because it establishes a timeline and history for events. Similar to most articles, the tone could be describes as informative because of the lack of extreme description. The authors purpose was to disseminate information regarding the possible scandal with Russian interference of the recent Presidential Election. Ultimately her argument was sound and she provided sufficient evidence to backup her claim. Author: Sheera Frenkel
Freckle's diction is elevated enough to sound intelligent but to so high as to come off as arrogant. Her syntax is complex leading to long sentences with many clauses. Pathos is apparent in her article as it touches on the Syrian Civil War and how those who protest are often targeted and can be harmed even after protests are over. Her tone is almost hopeful and optimistic in that she is glad for the diverse group of Google's NightWatch. The purpose of the article is simply to bring light to the not-very-well-known group that helps Google prevent any kind of offense to ant group of people. There is no argument present in the article because it is just to introduce the team to the limelight. By: Vanessa Wong and Cora LewisThe authors used a very mild form of action that included low level syntax and simple sentence structure. The authors used quotes for the bulk of the article leaving very little to be interpreted about their emotional attachment to the piece. The strongest appeal noticed by far is Ethos in that Obama was the former president, little emotion or statistics are used. This is most likely to show the former president has a strong knowledge of the way the general public thinks. The authors' tone is very dry yet communicative, it is like they are there to convey the information and nothing more. There is not a clearly visible argument yet it is implied that the authors are in agreement with the president and believe in his argument, otherwise there would be very little chance they would write an article yet not pose a counterargument.
|