The Peel Commission Precis

Precis

The Peel Commission, in their public report, “The Palestine Royal Commission: Report”, explains that the Jews and the Palestinians cannot live together in one state, and proposes for this reason that there be a Jewish state and a Palestinian one. The Peel Commission bolsters its point by explaining that the Arabs and the Jews cannot assimilate in one state. The Commission aims for the partition of the potential Jewish state into two, one Jewish and one Arab. The tone established with the intended audience - the general public - is respectful and formal.

The Scopes Trial

Precis

Clarence Darrow wrote a letter entitled: "Clarence Darrow to the Chicago Tribune" (July 4th, 1923), in which he asserts that in the court case in which he will be a lawyer, he will ask William Jennings Bryan certain questions about the bible and its interpretation. He gives the reader a list of questions he will potentially use against Mr. Bryan. Darrow is asking these semi-rhetorical questions in order to understand whether or not the bible can be understood literally. This letter is being aimed towards the Chicago Tribune since it is in a private letter from Darrow to the Tribune.

Rhetoric Analysis

Most of Darrow's argument consists of a long list of questions, presented in chronological order, that are meant to extract an answer to whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally. Thus, it is safe to say that these questions are the main strategy that Darrow is using. Some of the questions are rhetorical, and others, whether Bryan were to answer them one way or another, would make Bryan seem like a fool either way.
The other strategy Darrow uses within his main strategy of questions is that of bringing in facts that seemingly contradict each other. For example, "under the biblical chronology, was not the earth created less than 6,000 years ago?" and "does not geology show [...] that the earth is much more than a million years and probably many million years old?" contradict, unless the Bible is to be taken non-literally in its sense of time. Thus, Darrow forces Bryan into answering a question which he may have answered differently if there was no fact to disprove it.

Summary of H.L. Mencken to Raymond Pearl Letter

Personally, I find the irony in this letter to be hilarious. Mencken states that everyone in the town is a Christian, evoking a moralistic, anti 7-deadly sins idea about what is to come. Yet we are told exactly the opposite. Russell Sage, a prohibitionist and orthodox Christian, is drunk half of the time. Not only is this one of the 7 deadly sins, but it also shows the hypocrisy of this town (a drunk prohibitionist). Additionally, Mencken's uncanny ability to notice this makes the situation even funnier because Mencken is mentioned in the introduction to the letter, as a renowned hypocrite. Even the trial is "superb-an obscenity..."! This letter shows the extreme oxymora in this town.

Summary of Edgar Lee Masters to Edwin Reese Letter

Edgar Lee Masters, seems to believe in his letter that he understands the type of person that Bryan was. He says that Bryan spoke rather than thought, and that he turned to religion when he lost to Wilson. In general, Masters has quite a caustic view of Bryan, although he does have a few good points about Bryan, such that "his moral nature was as shallow as his mind." It also somewhat seems like Masters pities Bryan. An example of this is when Masters says: "He was unwise as a liver too." This statement does not seem so much an attack as it does a point saying that it's too bad he didn't watch out for his health.

Why Summaries for the Previous Two Letters?

Although I might be wrong, I feel as though a precis is specifically for a persuasive, argumentative, personal motivation-based piece of writing, whereas a summary can be for anything, especially a story. Thus, when Mencken tells stories about the town, and when Masters speaks of Bryan's life, it seems more appropriate to explain what the story was, rather than what was its motivation, why does this author tell us this, what's the author's purpose. There may be no purpose, it could just be a description. Thus, I feel that precises are not universally applicable to all pieces of writing, contrary to summaries, and that I would have an extremely hard time writing precises for these previous two letters whereas writing summaries was a relatively easy task.

Precises of Mayr's and Sagan's final points

Ersnt Mayr

Ernst Mayr, an opponent of Carl Sagan, in his article "Space Topics: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence - Response to "The Abundance of Life-Bearing Planets", states that the likelihood of highly intelligent lifeforms developing in other worlds is quasi-impossible. Mayr anchors his points using statistical and quantative data and concrete examples. The purpose of Mayr's article is to convince people not to support SETI in order to save people huge amounts of money that are going to projects by SETI. The people that Mayr intends to have read this article are people who have money to give to SETI but are on the fence about whether or not to give their money to SETI. Mayr creates a respectful tone with the audience by giving a rebuttal to an argument that Carl Sagan had previously given in this debate.

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan, an opponent of Ernst Mayr's ideas on Seti, in his response to Mayr: "Space Topics: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence - Is Earth-Life Relevant? A Rebuttal", refutes claims that Mayr had previously made. He does this by giving concrete examples and showing flaws in Mayr's process of thinking for his argument. Sagan wishes to convince people to support SETI in order to persuade them to give sums of money to fund SETI, to SETI. Sagan intends for this article to be read by those people who have money to donate to SETI, but aren't sure whether or not they should. Sagan does this by setting a refined tone with the audience.

Extra Terrestrial Precises (They're out of this world!)

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan, in his article "Space Topics: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence The Abundance of Life-Bearing Planets", refutes several of Mayr's statements that talk about the doubtful possibly of extraterrestrial life. Sagan bolsters his argument by showing examples against Mayr's ideas. Mr. Sagan's purpose in this article was to convince people to believe that there is strong evidence pointing to the existence of extra-terrestrials in order to help SETI recieve funding or support. Sagan's article is aimed towards people who are on the border and who are educated on such a matter. He does this through a sophisticated connection full of bombastic words.

Ernst Mayr

Ernst Mayr, wrote in his text: "Space Topics: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Can SETI Succeed? Not Likely", arguing that highly-intelligent extra-terrestrial life is unlikely to exist. Mayr proves this by countering arguments brought up by the opposing side. Mayr wrote this article in order to stop people from donating to SETI, a cause that he most likely believes is taking money and investing it in space, nothing. Sagan's and Mayr's audiences are the same. They both need a highly technical vocabulary about this topic and are on the fence about this topic.

Obama's interesting organization

Obama's structure of his speech is quite interesting due to the fact that he uses history and current events to collide with each other to make a semi-disorganized, semi-ordered speech. The disorganization caused by the current events helps show his point that the current events are causing racial differences between Blacks and Whites in America and that we should strive to fix that, shown through the order in the essay.

He starts his essay talking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, saying that everyone except the Black slaves were equal. Then he says one of his major points: "to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.", which he uses as a link between the abolishing slavery (something that comes a little after the Constitution in our nation's history) and his campaign. This then leads him into a personal anecdote followed up by a long story of Reverend Wright, after which the topic is changed back to the 1950's, a period well after the abolishment of slavery, the last point in US history where Obama left off in his speech. He then goes back to Wright once more before the conclusion. During the essay, it seems as though Obama is giving the history Black struggle during US history with breaks for Reverend Wright and current issues. The current issues are the ones that cause both the disunity in real life and the breaks in the history in the paper. The actual history is something that unifies the black people together, and that in the future, should unify both blacks and whites together.

Obama ends the essay with a story that takes place in the era of the end of conspicuous black struggle for equality in America, during the 1960's. This works as a good conclusion because it combines previous US history that Obama talks about with the beginning of "our union grow[ing] stronger", something that includes him and his potential future career. Thus Obama, as shown in this conclusion, effectively mixes the chronological order of US History, with breaks of the present (the idea of the union), creating an effect of a shrinking racial difference between blacks and whites. This idea is embedded throughout the essay by the the slow coming together of the black struggle for equality in US history and Obama's present career.

Precis of Obama speech

Barack Hussein Obama, the USA's potential next president, wrote a speech "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" (2008) stating that Reverend Wright's comments weren't entirely false and that the blacks and whites of America need to work together. Obama illustrates his point by explaining why we need unity in our country and telling the audience that Reverend Wright had the right (haha, I made a pun) bases for his ideas, but the details weren't thought out logically. Mr. Obama's purpose is to convince people he wasn't wrong in associating himself with Rev. Wright in order to gain more votes/the trust of more of the people of the United States of America. The speech is aimed towards people who are doubtful of the actions of Barack Obama in associating himself with Reverend Wright and also both black and white eligible voters in the US.

Clinton Vs. Palin speeches (redone)

The two sets of remarks prepared by Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, both women, have interesting differences in style and writing, however this essay shall concentrate on the former more than the latter.

Hillary Clinton tends to use pathos, attacks on the republicans, and a bit of logos as her main points. Her idea of pathos is becoming close to the common citizen, even becoming the common citizen's friend. A great example of this can be found within the first page when Mrs. Clinton describes her trip around the country: "You taught me so much, you made me laugh, and... you even made me cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives. And you became part of mine." Thus, one of the appeals of choosing Hillary Clinton as president would have been the pathos idea that she is a good representative of the people of the United States. Along with the copious amounts of pathos Mrs. Clinton uses, she also uses some logos, or logical arguments, against the Republican Party, or more specifically, John McCain. These arguments she probably deems as true, hence why she endorsed Barack Obama, can be found on the fourth page of her notes. "More economic stagnation... and less affordable health care. More high gas prices... and less alternative energy." are just a few of the things she says that "four more years... of the last eight years" would bring us, accusing McCain of being just like Bush. This is the third of Mrs. Clinton's strategies, attacks. A good example of this can be found as in the fourth paragraph, where she states: "I haven't spent the past 35 years [...] to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of out people." This is funny, because 35 years ago, Barack Obama would be in his teens, so either Hillary Clinton is saying she's been preparing Obama since he was a child to be in office, or a direct attack on McCain.

Palin's techniques are quite different however. She uses about as much pathos as logos, again with little ethos. Most of her pathos is when she talks about McCain's past experience, such as when she tells of an anecdote of Mr. McCain's experiences in Vietnam, or when she describes her family, a subject where emotion is appropriate. Another thing that Palin does is address the attacks sent from Hillary Clinton, without attacking Obama as Clinton attacked McCain. This can be found when Palin says: "There are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.", telling the reader that McCain will not be like the previous president, contrary to Clinton's beliefs. Palin also appeals to women across the country. For example she states: "This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity." It is peculiar that although both Palin and Clinton are women, only Palin appeals to the women listening to her speech.

However, there are also some points/audiences that both women address. One of them is autistic children or children with special needs. Clinton addresses this by connecting with one of her citizen-friends during her trip around the country, and Palin has a child with down syndrome, which she talks about.