Introduction Analysis Assignment

Directions: Read through the example traditional/classical introduction, paying close attention to the elements that make up an introduction and the 3 types of persuasive appeals. Then, annotate the example, identifying each of the strategies listed below.

Please note: Student papers have been selected as a sample based on their overall quality as a representation of the course requirements. In order to preserve the authenticity as a student sample, nothing in these papers has been revised. Therefore, these papers may contain some weakness in argument and errors in structure, grammar, and style. Students should use these sample papers as an example of what their essay will do and not necessarily as an example of what their paper will look like.

Introduction Strategy to Identify	How to Mark the Text
Attention grabber or lead	Change the text to BLUE
Overview of the primary issues/Background Info	Change the text to ORANGE
Definitions of key terminology	Change the text to RED
Revealing the controversial nature of the subject	Change the text to GREEN
Thesis	Change the text to PURPLE
Antithesis paragraph (optional)	Bold the text
Logos Appeal	Place **before sentences
Ethos Appeal	Underline the sentences
Pathos Appeal	Place ## before the sentences

English as the Official Language of the United States

Executive director of Pro-English, K.C. McAlpin recorded a disturbing instance in which a licensed driver who could not speak English caused irreparable damage. In 2005, the driver did not observe a Pennsylvania road sign that prohibited trucks from driving with more than 10 tons. Because of this inobservance, he continued to drive his 40 ton truck and was unable to stop. He collided with a car holding a family of five, killing all of them. The reason that the driver did not observe the sign is because it was in English, and the driver could neither read nor understand the language (7).

An official language is “used by the government for laws; reports; and public objects such as road signs, money and stamps” (Rubenstein 146). When people consider official language, they think of English. A large majority of Americans speak this language and that is what has been spoken for over 200 years in the United States. In 2006, McAlpin researched a Zogby poll from March 2006 which asked potential voters if they believe that English should be the official language. Eighty-four percent of these individuals agreed that it should be. The poll also showed that most people think the government has already established English as the official language since it is the most common (7). Yet, contrary to public belief, the United States government has never declared English to be the official language of the country.

According to the U.S. English website, when multitudes immigrated to America, it was expected that everyone would learn English, since the founders were from England. The issue of having an official language was “not controversial enough to debate.” Although there were immigrants from all over the world, they expected to learn English and assimilate into the English-speaking culture. Denis Baron says that Immigrants quickly stopped speaking their former languages at an impressive rate (qtd. in Gallegos 80). Yet, there are still many languages spoken. According to a census taken in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau, 380 categories of languages are currently spoken in homes across the United States (qtd. in Shin and Bruno 2003). Since this large statistic only states the categories of languages, it is certain that there is a larger number of specific languages spoken in homes across the country. Because of this linguistic diversity, some states have decided to make their own official language legislation. The ProEnglish organization states that as of 2009, 30 states, including California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Montana, have adopted legislation for an official language. Many other states are in the process of considering such legislation.

Minnesota is not among the states that have adopted or considered legislation, and it is not alone. There are many people who believe that having an official language policy would restrict freedoms of citizens as well as stifling diversity and growth. Lillian Comas-Diaz and Amado Padilla say that this type of amendment would make believable the idea that patients who can’t speak English are not important to doctors (6). They believe that making English the official language would encourage ethnocentrism, and no one would be able to exercise their cultural identities or linguistic traditions. These individuals also advocate for bilingual education, which is “the practice of teaching non-English speaking children in their native language” (ProEnglish). However, these individuals are sadly misled. The government should amend the Constitution to make English the official language of the United States because having an official language would increase physical safety for citizens, it would be more cost effective and it would improve educational systems.

One of the biggest controversies surrounding an official language amendment to the Constitution is that many believe that having an official language would promote racism. Many argue that such an amendment would restrict immigrants’ freedom, as it would be discriminatory. They claim that those who would agree with this type of legislation are uncaring and unfair. California congressman Xavier Becerra discussed this perspective in a recent debate about official language. He said that those who support this legislation “don't care for people who speak other languages” and that supporters are being exclusive until immigrants speak only in English (qtd. in U.S. English). Other sources, including Padilla and a panel of experts with the American Psychological Association, cite examples in which employees were suspended or treated negatively when they spoke in their native language at work (Padilla et al. 4). Although this argument is worthy of concern, it is not valid. An amendment to make English the official language is not prejudiced according to U.S. English chairman, Mauro E. Mujica. Mujica is an immigrant from Chile who is fluent and active in four languages. In response to section 203 of the 2006 Voting Rights Act, which called for ballots to be printed in more than one language in each state, Mujica tells the Senate Judiciary Committee that his conviction to establish English as the official language is “not the result of animosity to other languages or the people who speak to them” (Mujica). An amendment to make English the official language would not be prejudiced instead, it would focus on benefits for all citizens of the United States, including immigrants.

Rogerian Introduction Analysis Assignment

Directions: Read through the example conclusion, paying close attention to the elements that make up a conclusion and the 3 types of persuasive appeals. Then, annotate the example, identifying each of the strategies listed below.

Please note: Student papers have been selected as a sample based on their overall quality as a representation of the course requirements. In order to preserve the authenticity of a student sample, nothing in these papers has been revised. Therefore, these papers may contain some weaknesses in argument and errors in structure, grammar, and style. Students should use these sample papers as an example of what their essay will do and not necessarily as an example of what their paper will look like.

Introduction Strategy to Identify	How To Mark the Text
Attention grabber or lead	Change the text to BLUE
Overview of the primary issues/Background info	Change the text to ORANGE
Definitions of key terminology	Change the text to RED
Explanation of the opposing viewpoint	Change the text to GREEN
Acknowledgement of the merits of opponents	Change the text to PURPLE
Thesis	Bold the text
Logos Appeal	Place **before sentences
Ethos Appeal	Underline the sentences
Pathos Appeal	Place ## before the sentences

Rogerian Introduction — God’s Sovereignty

Ever since the days of the Apostles, a debate has been ongoing regarding human free will and God’s sovereignty. It is a dispute over the extent to which God exercises His control of the universe, including the actions of mankind, and the extent to which men can choose their own actions, whether for good or for evil. As an example, a man made himself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for breakfast. Some would argue that the man chose, for whatever reason, to eat the peanut butter and jelly sandwich from a host of other options, perhaps because he preferred the flavor of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich over the other foods available to him. Others would say that God ordained that he would eat that sandwich at that time on that day because God has complete control over everything, even to the most minute detail. Libertarians (those who believe in human free will) will use Bible verses such as the following to back their case, since the verses claim that humans must make choices, which is free will; “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Isa 1:19-20 ESV[footnoteRef:1]).[footnoteRef:2] Determinists (those holding the belief that God ordains every event) will validate their thesis with verses that state that God is in control of everything, verses such as Proverbs 21:1,[footnoteRef:3] “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He will.” Compatibilists use both sets of biblical proof to conclude that human free will and the sovereignty of God somehow work together. [1: All Scripture quotations in this paper are from the English Standard Version (ESV), regardless of the translation used in the original citation.] [2: John Cowburn, Free Will, Predestination and Determinism (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Marquette University Press, 2008), 17.] [3: Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2003), 540. Also: Jerry Bridges, “Does Divine Sovereignty Make a Difference in Everyday Life?” in Still Sovereign (eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 299.]

Theologians throughout history have had differing views on the issue. The Didache, which was written between A.D. 80 and 140, explains that because everything happens through the Lord, every misfortune should be received as good.[footnoteRef:4] This ideology was also reflected around A.D. 135 in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which further claims that the level to which one holds to the doctrine of determinism is conversely related to the level of his/her godliness.[footnoteRef:5] Not much later, around A.D. 150-160, Justin Martyr stated the opposite, that free will was what decided a man’s action, not fate, and that men were made by God to be “masters of themselves.”[footnoteRef:6] Of the early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian all seem to be compatibilists, while Irenaeus and Lactantius appear to be determinists.[footnoteRef:7] Augustine, the medieval church father who said, “[God] is the Cause of all causes, although not of all choices,” argued that the inexistence of free will is not a logical conclusion of God’s complete sovereignty.[footnoteRef:8] However, later in life, Augustine abandoned his belief in human free will totally.[footnoteRef:9] Another medieval father, Thomas Aquinas, was a compatibilist.[footnoteRef:10] Agreeing with Augustine’s earlier teaching, reformer Martin Luther wrote, “God controls the things He has created in such a way that He allows them to take their own natural course.”[footnoteRef:11] Reformer John Calvin, on the other hand, was a determinist.[footnoteRef:12] Post-Reformation, Jacob Arminius held compatibilist views with libertarian leanings, while Jonathan Edwards was mostly deterministic.[footnoteRef:13] Modern theological philosophers argue from all points on the spectrum, from extreme determinism to the farthest Libertarianism. [4: Geisler, Systematic, 544.] [5: Geisler, Systematic, 544.] [6: Cowburn, Free Will, 87.] [7: Geisler, Systematic, 545-546.] [8: Geisler, Systematic, 546-547.] [9: Cowburn, Free Will, 90-92. Also: Michael Azkoul, God, Immortality and Freedom of the Will According to the Church Fathers (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 2006), 192-193.] [10: Geisler, Systematic, 547-549.] [11: Geisler, Systematic, 549.] [12: Geisler, Systematic, 549-550.] [13: Geisler, Systematic, 550-553.]

Libertarian Freedom is the theory that people choose the actions they take. According to John Cowburn, Robert Kane, and Walter J. Schultz, for this idea to be true, then there must be options of action from which to choose.[footnoteRef:14] If only a single course of action is possible, then there is in all actuality no freedom to choose that action; it simply must be done. Cowburn, Kane, and Schultz deduce that it follows, then, that the action that is chosen from all the possible actions must be chosen by the actor him/herself for it to be truly done of free will; the action must be “self-determined” by the actor.[footnoteRef:15] Both of these conditions must be true of any action if that action is to be deemed as done out of free will. Therefore, if, in the example above, God, in His sovereignty, had removed all breakfast options (including the option to not eat) except for the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, then the man would not have eaten the sandwich out of free will. Likewise, if God, in His sovereignty, had left all breakfast options open, but compelled the man to eat the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, then the man would not have had freedom to eat the sandwich. Hence, Libertarian Freedom generally rejects the possibility of God’s sovereign intervention in human actions. [14: Cowburn, Free Will, 16. Also: Robert Kane, “Libertarianism,” in Four Views on Free Will (eds. John Martin Fischer et al.; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007), 5. Also: Walter J. Schultz, unpublished manuscripts (last revised 2009).] [15: Cowburn, Free Will, 16-17. Also: Kane, “Libertarianism,” 5. Also: Schultz, unpublished manuscripts.]

The Bible, philosophy, and common human experience all affirm human free will. There are countless Bible verses, such as the one quoted above from Isaiah, that give the addressee(s) options of action and consequences of each possible action. These verses, at the very least, fulfill the first requirement of free will. Also, although it is not explicit in the text, these verses in fact fulfill the second requirement as well, namely by holding the addressee(s) responsible for the chosen action(s) through the administration of consequences. This concept is affirmed by Cowburn and Schultz, who acknowledge that if an action is not free, then the actor cannot be held morally accountable for that action, and thus consequences cannot justly be delivered.[footnoteRef:16] Kane states that, philosophically, the same principle also applies to non-moral actions.[footnoteRef:17] Once the man in the examples above had swallowed the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it would be ridiculous to say that he was directly responsible for the act of digesting it, since digestion is an involuntary function of the human body (though he could be held indirectly accountable for digestion because he chose to ingest the sandwich). Cowburn and Schultz have noticed that as human beings, we experience free will through decision-making.[footnoteRef:18] Kane reiterates, “We feel it is ‘up to us’ what we choose and how we act; and this means we could have chosen or acted otherwise. … This ‘up-to-us-ness’ also suggests that the ultimate sources of our actions lie in us and not outside us in factors beyond our control.”[footnoteRef:19] Libertarian Free Will, it seems, cannot be denied. [16: Cowburn, Free Will, 29. Also, Schultz, unpublished manuscripts.] [17: Kane, “Libertarianism,” 14.] [18: Cowburn, Free Will, 25. Also: Schultz, unpublished manuscripts.] [19: Kane, “Libertarianism,” 5.]

However, God’s sovereignty over every human action must coexist with human free will because God is sovereign over every human action, and it is possible for Him to prevent any human action without negating Libertarian Freedom, and God specifically ordains all “good” human actions.