Group Members: Elizabeth Perez, Alexandra Kersten, Aaman Shah
https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-europe.html
Even though you may have a copy of the image, describe it carefully in your writing on the assumption that your description is all readers may have to go on. Then make a judgment in your writing about its effectiveness, supporting your claim with clear evidence from the “text.”
Ukrainian soldiers preparing an underground bunker in November. Conflict with Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine has continued despite a cease-fire.
Credit: Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
- Context: the image above is taken in November 2022 during the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Russia plans to take over the Ukrainian land which led to numerous deaths, wastage of resources and migrations after civilians fled the country. The tension between the two countries has been simmering since 2014.
- Effectiveness: This image is effective because it shows the trouble that Ukrainians had to go through just to be safe from Russians during this time of war. They are working hard and are tired, but they still have to protect their people.
- Description: In this image 5 Ukrainian soldiers are working to build an underground bunker to protect themselves from Russia in a deserted area. As the soldiers in camouflage stand around with shovels in their hands, they look tired and distraught from the hard work they are doing as their sleeves are rolled up and they are taking deep breaths.
- Claim: We believe that this image was effective in relying on evidence to the readers in a factual way, but also with strong apples to ethos. It makes it so that the reader is faced with the harsh reality of the war without explicitly making any opinionated statements in the article.
- Evidence: Although there were many images within the article that relied on pathos. Like in the use of the first picture of the article which depicts a soldier standing in a demolished house. But the text that comes after only relies on logos- “Now, following the launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, the largest mobilization of forces Europe has seen since 1945 is underway.” Leaving the reader to come up with their own viewpoints on the subject.
The image above was taken in November 2022 during the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Russia plans to take over the Ukrainian land which led to numerous deaths, wastage of resources and migrations after civilians fled the country. The tension between the two countries has been simmering since 2014. This image is effective because it shows the trouble that Ukrainians had to go through just to be safe from Russians during this time of war. They are working hard and are tired, but they still have to protect their people. In this image 5 Ukrainian soldiers are working to build an underground bunker to protect themselves from Russia in a deserted area. As the soldiers in camouflage stand around with shovels in their hands, they look tired and distraught from the hard work they are doing as their sleeves are rolled up and they are taking deep breaths.
We believe that this image was effective in relying on evidence to the readers in a factual way, but also with strong apples to ethos. It makes it so that the reader is faced with the harsh reality of the war without explicitly making any opinionated statements in the article. Although there were many images within the article that relied on pathos. Like in the use of the first picture of the article which depicts a soldier standing in a demolished house. But the text that comes after only relies on logos- “Now, following the launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, the largest mobilization of forces Europe has seen since 1945 is underway.” Leaving the reader to come up with their own viewpoints on the subject.
Citations:
“The Roots of the Ukraine War: How the Crisis Developed.” The New York Times, 2022, www.nytimes.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-europe.html. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022.
Reading Responses:
YVONNE TAN
“After reading Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz and Keith Walter’s ‘Everything’s an Argument’, I understand that a Rogerian perspective is to seriously consider the benefits and the drawbacks of every side of the argument and opinion, and come to a conclusion where both sides must accept some drawbacks, but also have equal benefits. According to them, invitational perspectives are “arguments that begin with careful attention to and respect for the person or the audience you are in conversation with. Foss and Griffin show that such listening — in effect, walking in the other person’s shoes — helps you see that person’s points of view more clearly and thoroughly and thus offers a basis for moving together toward new understandings.” Therefore, when making an argument by using a Rogerian or an invitational perspective, one should place equal emphasis on the opponent’s argument, and even argue for the merit within their argument as well. Furthermore, when coming to a conclusion, one must not simply stick with their proposed argument, but instead come to a middle ground in which not all their requirements are fulfilled in order to partially support the perspective of the opposing party.
Elliot Ackerman’s argument and usage of Rogerian perspective contributes to his overall proposal in several ways. Firstly, he starts his argument by bringing in a comment from a very divisive figure, Donald Trump. By agreeing with the comments that Trump made to a certain extent, he establishes his position that he isn’t wholly completely supportive of the stereotypical left-leaning view point, and is willing to make concessions. He then goes into the historical significance of a highly contested location, showing both the negative mark on history that it represented – why the left wanted to remove all symbols of showing it in a positive light – and the historical importance and why people are advocating for its preservation. He also brings in facts that both sides would not support – such as the digging up of graves. Through his telling of the history of the Arlington National Cemetery, he brings in both good and bad aspects of both sides of the argument, which helps to lead the reader to support his final centrist argument.”
Response:
Yvonne describes her understanding from the reading in her own words, providing references from the book and using examples that follow the reading response guidelines. She shares how he interpreted Rogerian’s perspective to evaluate the drawback and strengths of both sides of the argument, and how “walking in the other person’s shoes — helps you see that person’s points of view more clearly and thoroughly.” She supports her understanding by providing an example in the next paragraph where Elliot Ackerman counters Donald Trump’s views but as well respects them after observing Trump’s perspective. Ackerman also showcases facts that both sides would not accept to create a common ground in the argument. Overall, Yvonne’s response shows a clear understanding of her reading and following the guidelines.
