Essay 1

　　In his announcement, Martin Luther King sought to persuade American people that the war in Vietnam, waged by the very government, who had always been advocating liberty, freedom, and the elimination of poverty, was under no circumstances justified. King’s argument was developed in a way that addressed three key issues related to the Vietnam War: the suffering of poor in domestic America, the loss of soldiers in Vietnam (or perhaps the so-called “great irony”), and the war-inflicted failure of peacemakers to persuade teenagers on the abandoning of violent force. In addition, King also considered the legitimacy over his objection against the Vietnam War, relating to the war to an ideal he erected when he attempted to uphold rights for Negro decades before the announcement.

　　First of all, in trying to affirm the fallacy of Vietnam War, Mr. King managed to reinstate the poverty-elimination programs predicated after his efforts decades ago. He admitted that over the years before Vietnam War was started, there was a “shining moment in the struggle”, where signs of poverty elimination appeared, and hopes emerged, both for white and black. By describing the progress made BEFORE the war, Martin Luther King successfully rekindled the hope American people had always dreamed for. However, he then described how the war managed to destroy such hope, saying the war in Vietnam was like a “destructive suction tube”, where financial resources, skills and people were just depleted, without any hope for any real progress in rehabilitating the poor. Thus, he succeeded in exposing the negative impacts of the War on the poor.

　　Secondly, Mr. King drew a great irony, faced by both American White and Black citizens. Again, he reintroduced the hope American people had towards racial equality, under which Black and Whites were supposed to share the same rights. He defined as “manipulation of the poor” US government’s effort to send troops to Vietnam, citing evidence of how black and white soldiers fought, struggled and finally died side by side in Vietnam yet unable to live side by side in domestic America. This is a great irony, according to King, reflecting the hypocrisy, the insincerity, and the deception of the Vietnam War, as deemed by Martin Luther King.

　　Thirdly, in the third paragraph, Martin Luther King’s aim was to use his own experience to persuade his audiences. He made good use of his own fame, as a social-activist whose influence transcended beyond borders. He described the great efforts he’d been making to advance peace as the sole, and most effective weapon against social injustice. Then he made the US government an exception, a government intent on using murdering and killing as means of realizing its goals. The logic was simple: if I myself could not extricate me out of the means of violence, how could I persuade others to do the same thing?

　　Finally, Mr. King addressed some people’s concern over his identity as a civil rights activist. Under normal circumstances, civil rights activists were not supposed to assume in public a ground on issues of political concern, such as the Vietnam War. However, in the announcement, Mr. King clearly expanded his role and fame as someone dedicated to racial equality, describing himself as one “who defended America’s souls”. He attached meanings to this “soul”, implying it is one with people, both white and black, freed from the past “shackles”. The Vietnam War, he asserted, was such “shackles”; and the only way to allow Americans to pursue their own dreams was to get rid of such shackles, to live in an environment of integrity, honesty, and hope.

　　In fact, Martin Luther King’s announcement was written in a very comprehensive way. Not only did he manage to demonstrate his view on how the war wreak havoc on the founded moral principles, values and beliefs of the American dream, but he also carefully considered his role and status in the society. It is because of such comprehensiveness, along with all the evidence he put, that results in the convincing argument against War, and in favor of peace.

　　Essay 2

　　With this statement issued to the public, which is one filled with both personal sightseeing experiences and public propaganda, President Jimmy Carter intended to persuade American on abandoning the attempts to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. In his argument, Mr. Carter set his reasoning into three stages, with each one of them addressing a key issue with regard to the preservation of the Arctic Refuge: its importance as a symbol of US, the efforts of US political predecessors to protect it from spoiling, and its great importance to the indigenous people, whose life and culture had been relying on the reserve’s picturesque nature for generations.

　　First of all, Jimmy Carter used his personal experiences, the marvelous journey he once had with his wife Rosalynn, to reflect on the great value, both in terms of animal species and landscapes, of the Arctic Refuge. He described how plants like lichens, wildflowers hugged the tundra, along with the sun hanging around the horizon scattering the land with its never-setting shining and in particular, a scene of a wilderness filled with animals migrating in herds. His word selection was so strong and precise that readers may find themselves immersed in a scene of beauty, magnificence and wilderness. Following the description, however, he expressed concerns over the havoc to be wreaked by the ongoing efforts to exploit the land for oil drilling, over how “web of roads and pipelines, drilling rigs and other industrial facilities” would completely destroy the wilderness character of America’s only Arctic Refuge and endanger the species of animals that depend on the natural reserve for living for numerous generations. The destruction of the treasury land, he argued, would be a complete tragedy, and thus it is wrong to do so.

　　Secondly, apart from providing his own personal experiences, Mr. Carter also cited other celebrities and political predecessors’ statements, policies and measures towards the protection of the reserve from development. According to Carter, although Republicans and Democrats were often divided over a great amount of issues, they often joined their hands when it came to the preservation of natural reserves, in particular for a region with such wilderness as is the case with the Arctic Refuge. He cited Mr. Eisenhower’s attempts to establish the first National Wildlife Range, along with his own efforts to expand the coverage of this region when he was in office, and thus he successfully raised the public awareness of the importance of the issue. He talked about how he helped initiate the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation, specifically restricting the development of areas incompatible with oil exploration.

　　Upon answering the question of why and how we did try to protect the Arctic Refuge with the first and second reasoning, the remaining question, for the author, was to master the support of the public. In trying to achieve this goal, Mr. Carter resorted to the support of the indigenous people, whose culture depended on the “Porcupine caribou herd” for thousands of years, which is a species living in the Arctic Refuge. By describing the aspiration of the indigenous people as a kind of “human rights”, Mr. Carter expanded his argument from one featuring environmental dealings to one upholding rights for all the American people, with the sense of human rights protection, racial equality, etc. Thus, the persuasiveness of the argument is strengthened, and is more likely to cultivate emotional repercussions with the audiences.

　　Finally, not only did Jimmy Carter develop his reasoning chain through his own experiences and those whose interests were at stake, he also addressed some of the possible objections to be filed against his proposal. One purpose of exploiting the Arctic Refuge was to explore oil, the still-most important source of fuel for human beings. For this concern, Mr. Carter argued that even if we abandon the oil exploration in the region, this gap will soon be filled by power explored elsewhere, and by the use of energy-efficient vehicles and devices.

　　Essay 3

　　With his listing of a series of possible benefits to children related to access to digital devices and technologies, the author tried to reverse the negative impression of parents on instilling education system with digital access, which, in the traditional thinking, was largely connected to the lack of creativity and innovation of children. The author did not draw the conclusion by extracting bunches of evidence alone introducing the advantages of such access provision, but by considering, and listing in detail, opinions of those who objected such idea. In fact, this part of argument took a large share of the article (almost 50%). And the persuasiveness of his idea came from the author’s proposition of technology-related benefits on new fronts, which the author implied previous analysis probably failed to take into account.

　　At the beginning of his argument, the author raised a debate between American father and mother over whether it is proper to provide, or to invest in, digital access for children. He drew data from an authoritative research institute, saying that there is currently a trend towards the wide coverage of digital technologies in schools, along with some parents willing enough to use their financial support to send children to “digital detox” programs. With these data, the author successfully raised the reader’s concern over the worthiness of such huge investments. “Would these financial input be justified, given all the objections and doubts”, the reader might ask.

　　Then, the author went a step further in citing previous researches, words of celebrities etc. to explain the objections against such use. He talked about how “photos with figures looking happy” and “cyberbullying” may make children depressed and insecure, how “sitting in front of TVs” contribute to teenager obesity, lack of attention and violence”, and how such use of technologies did no good to children’s creativity. In particular, he described efforts to correct for this trend---the Waldorf School, who asked the children to knit, paint and build things, kinds of activity its administrator deemed to be more useful in helping children become more creative and practical. By addressing all of these objections filed against the wide coverage of digital technologies in education, the author not only provided a good base for his subsequent analysis of its worthiness, but also proposed a question: now that so many bad things are related to the use of these technologies in education, why did so many people advocate it? How does the debate come?

　　The answer came in the next paragraph, in which the author talked about something previous analysis failed to take into account: opportunities for children to draw in a circle of shared interests and concerns. By citing words from a professor at UCI, the author implied the limits on children, set by schools yet diluted by SNS like Facebook. It is because of this reason that the importance of children given access to network services came; and it is partly because of this reason that people started to debate on the issue.

　　The crux and essence of the author’s argument came in the following paragraph, where he used data and evidence to affirm the “cognitive benefits” related to using digital technologies. Samorost was shown to be conducive to children’s performance at logic tests, empire-building game Civilization good to their interests in the history curriculum. Even the simplest move---browsing pages on either computer or Ipad --- help stimulate children’s brain. The traditional thinking, which described such technologies as contrary to the nurturing of cognitive skills for children, was probably wrong, or at least partial. Then the theoretical foundation was provided by citing a research of MIT. While children could remember only 10% of their reading and 20% of what they hear, they can hold 50% of their demonstration. All of these were evidence made by the author in his attempts to advocate the use of digital technologies in education system.

　　Finally, competiveness was mentioned, which the author deemed as the “most convincing argument for early-age tech fluency”. Again, this is a point objectors failed to address. Digital access was important for children to locate a job or university, learn essential kills in fast-growing sector like programming, engineering, and biotechnology. By mentioning all of these, the author strengthened the breadth and depth of his analysis, successfully evolving his argument to a more convincing, detailed and comprehensive argument.

　　Essay 4

　　In response to our world’s growing reliance on artificial light, writer Paul Bogard argues that natural darkness should be preserved in his article “Let There be dark”. He effectively builds his argument by using a personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions.

　　Bogard starts his article off by recounting a personal story – a summer spent on a Minnesota lake where there was “woods so dark that [his] hands disappeared before [his] eyes.” In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural darkness void of artificial light. By drawing in his readers with a personal encounter about night darkness, the author means to establish the potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess. He builds his argument for the preservation of natural darkness by reminiscing for his readers a first-hand encounter that proves the “irreplaceable value of darkness.” This anecdote provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find credence with the author’s claims.

　　Bogard’s argument is also furthered by his use of allusion to art – Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” – and modern history – Paris’ reputation as “The City of Light”. By first referencing “Starry Night”, a painting generally considered to be undoubtedly beautiful, Bogard establishes that the natural magnificence of stars in a dark sky is definite. A world absent of excess artificial light could potentially hold the key to a grand, glorious night sky like Van Gogh’s according to the writer. This urges the readers to weigh the disadvantages of our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting. Furthermore, Bogard’s alludes to Paris as “the famed ‘city of light’”. He then goes on to state how Paris has taken steps to exercise more sustainable lighting practices. By doing this, Bogard creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the reality of what Paris is becoming – no longer “the city of light”, but moreso “the city of light…before 2 AM”. This furthers his line of argumentation because it shows how steps can be and are being taken to preserve natural darkness. It shows that even a city that is literally famous for being constantly lit can practically address light pollution in a manner that preserves the beauty of both the city itself and the universe as a whole.

　　Finally, Bogard makes subtle yet efficient use of rhetorical questioning to persuade his audience that natural darkness preservation is essential. He asks the readers to consider “what the vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us, in our children or grandchildren?” in a way that brutally plays to each of our emotions. By asking this question, Bogard draws out heartfelt ponderance from his readers about the affecting power of an untainted night sky. This rhetorical question tugs at the readers’ heartstrings; while the reader may have seen an unobscured night skyline before, the possibility that their child or grandchild will never get the chance sways them to see as Bogard sees. This strategy is definitively an appeal to pathos, forcing the audience to directly face an emotionally-charged inquiry that will surely spur some kind of response. By doing this, Bogard develops his argument, adding gutthral power to the idea that the issue of maintaining natural darkness is relevant and multifaceted。

　　Writing as a reaction to his disappointment that artificial light has largely permeated the prescence of natural darkness, Paul Bogard argues that we must preserve true, unaffected darkness. He builds this claim by making use of a personal anecdote, allusions, and rhetorical questioning.