Analysis of “Why school should start later in the day”

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed article from last fall, Lisa L. Lewis argues that schools should start later in the day in order to produce long-term benefits for both the schools and their students. Specifically, Lewis argues for a start time of 8:30 a.m. or later, supporting her central assertion with the claims that a later start time is not only “easy and efficient” but is also capable of producing such benefits as reduced absences, improved grades, and even reduced injuries from sports or car accidents; each claim is also carefully backed up by a number of statistics. Lewis makes some concessions regarding how the process of transitioning to later start times could be troublesome in the short-term, as well as how a later start time could negatively impact after-school activities; however, Lewis still asserts that the long-term results of starting school later are beneficial overall.

Lewis’ main purpose in writing the article is to persuade her audience into supporting later start times for schools. To accomplish this, Lewis makes extensive use of logos appeals, primarily through the presentation of numerous statistics from a variety of sources, to give numerical substance to her claims about later start times for schools. For example, Lewis cites a report conducted by the Children’s National Medical Center in 2014 to state that “absences dropped 15% in Bonneville County, Idaho” after enacting later start times for school; this simple yet effective demonstration of facts strengthens Lewis’ claim regarding the effect of later school start times on attendance records. Similarly, when discussing the contribution of later start times in reducing sports injuries, Lewis references a 2012 study of middle- and high-school athletes in Los Angeles to report that “two-thirds of the athletes who [did not get eight hours of sleep or more] got injured,” thus providing credible, factual support for her argument on the benefits of delaying the start of school in the morning.

As a high school student, I am one among many who would agree that students need more time to sleep in and get ready in the morning. As school start times currently stand, it is always a rush to prepare for school in the morning and rush out the door in order to get to school on time; a later start time would certainly reduce the amount of stress felt by students in the morning. However, for every hour shaved off of the morning schedule, an hour is added to the afternoon; this not only cuts into sports activities, but also into the amount of time spent on homework. This can be especially troublesome for students who face rigorous academic courses, who may find themselves staying up an additional hour at night to complete their daily assignments. Thus, the morning benefits of later start times have the potential to be completely nullified by the adverse effects felt in the evening; as a result, it may be better to leave school start times as they are until a solution can be found for this problem.

Analysis of “Ask Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch the hard questions. It matters”

On March 18, 2017, the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times posted an article on the LA Times website regarding the nominee for the Supreme Court seat, Neil Gorsuch. In the article, the Board advocates “[engaging] the nominee in a serious discussion of his views” in order to determine his beliefs on how to approach the Constitution, how to approach social change in America, and how to approach previous Supreme Court rulings. The Board voices its concerns on a number of potential issues with Gorsuch’s views, such as how his “originalist” perspective could influence the interpretation of civil rights laws or how he may attempt to make the court resistant against social changes in America. Since Gorsuch’s specific beliefs and intentions in such areas are presently unclear, the Board asserts that it is necessary to question the Supreme Court nominee about his beliefs in order to discover how he would influence the Supreme Court in the future.

The Editorial Board’s apparent purpose in writing the article is to convince its audience to be more skeptic towards the Supreme Court nominee, since his actions in the Supreme Court could have drastic consequences for the American people. The Board makes use of several pathos appeals intended to appeal to its audience’s sense of American ideals, such as “liberty” and “equal protection of laws,” with the apparent intention of turning the audience against Gorsuch, whom the Board appears to depict as a potential threat to these ideals as a result of his “originalist” views. This particular usage of pathos is more likely meant to criticize rather than antagonize, yet the Board’s use of pathos evokes rather strong emotions in readers that appear to be directed against Gorsuch rather than in support of him. In the same manner, the Board draws further skepticism to Gorsuch’s originalist beliefs by listing specific examples of cases in which interpreting the Constitution without regard to context would have drastically influenced the civil rights of Americans, such as those relating to “sexual discrimination” in the 20th century and GPS tracking in more recent years; such examples serve as ethos appeals, through which the Board establishes credibility for itself as a speaker on the subject while also strengthening their argument on the need to carefully and thoroughly evaluate the intentions of the Supreme Court nominee.

Personally, I agree on the Board’s argument that Gorsuch should be carefully interviewed for his potential role as a Supreme Court justice; such interviews should be conducted on any nominee for an important position, whether it is for the role of a manager of a small business or the role of an important leadership position in the federal government, and it is important to ensure that the nominee is the “right fit” for the job. However, I must disagree on the manner in which the Board depicts the originalist perspective throughout the article; while it is certainly important to be able to adjust legislation to a changing culture, it is equally important that we, as Americans, do not stray too far from the founding principles of this nation. If utilizing an originalist perspective will ensure that we stay within these principles, whereas utilizing a different perspective will cause us to drift away, then it is absolutely vital that originalism maintains an important role in reviewing American legislation. After all, if we do not stay true to our founding principles, then we risk placing ourselves in the positions of the Old Testament Israelites, who brought destruction upon themselves by straying too far from the commandments of God. (An extreme comparison, I know, but an effective one for the discussion at hand.) Therefore, although we should certainly critique and review Gorsuch’s beliefs and intentions for the position that he is about to fulfill, we should also respect the fact that the perspective that he is bringing to the Supreme Court has the potential to be beneficial to the nation.

Analysis of “Understanding the Angry Mob at Middlebury that Gave Me a Concussion”

In a recent article posted on the New York Times’ website, Allison Stanger, a professor at Middlebury College who was injured during the violent mob outbreak at Middlebury College on March 2, provides a summary of the event from her perspective and discusses the possible social and political causes of the mob outbreak. Stanger indicates that the source of the mob’s anger lay in their ignorance of the views of Dr. Charles Murray, the speaker at a lecture scheduled for that day, which caused the enraged college students to form their own ideas of what they thought Dr. Murray believed (particularly, several students focused on labeling Dr. Murray as a “white nationalist”). Stanger reflects upon the actions of the college students and speculates that things may have gone better had the students relied on rational thought rather than inflamed emotions in deciding their course of action. Stanger broadens the argument by stating that “our constitutional democracy will depend on whether Americans can relearn how to engage civilly with one another”and utilize reason rather than emotion when dealing with those whom bear a difference of opinion from them. In effect, Stanger says that the incident at Middlebury College was an example of the modern tendency for Americans to give in to ignorance of the opposing side and reject the use of organized reasoning, and that this tendency is a major threat to American democracy.

In writing the article, Allison Stanger intends to not only address the events which conspired on March 2 at Middlebury College, but also to persuade her audience to use “calm logic” and have informed conversations when debating about social or political views in order to avoid violent confrontations similar to what was witnessed at Middlebury. To accomplish her purpose, Stanger makes use of her diction to discuss the “righteous anger” of the furious mobsters and elaborate upon the “commitment to free and fair exchange of views” which she championed throughout the article. Stanger also makes use of logos in her article to reason with her audience on the need for reason, but she also adds a small amount of pathos by appealing to the ideals of American democracy which many Americans seek to uphold, particularly those relating to freedom of speech.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with Stanger’s argument on the need to approach discussions of political views with reasoning and informed opinions. Oftentimes, I feel that it is entirely unsafe to discuss politics in public even amongst friends, as such conversations have the potential to turn into heated arguments. The reason for this, as far as my understanding goes, is because both sides often go into a discussion without fully understanding the perspective of the opposing side, and sometimes without even knowing their own positions. Thus, each side has to go off of what they think they know of the opposition, which is often influenced by prejudices. Therefore, if Americans were to learn how to inform themselves of the opposition’s perspective as well as their own, ignoring all prejudices, then surely it would follow that people would be able to respect each other in their political discussions, even if they still consider the opposition to be wrong in their beliefs.

Steven Johnson Essay Analysis

In his essay, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” Steven Johnson analyzes the development of TV programs over the years in order to persuade his audience of his belief that the increase of shows with intellectual involvement is beneficial to the cognitive development of those who watch the shows. Johnson discusses a wide variety of TV genres and shows that have shown an increase in use of content that challenges the mind, ranging from dramas with multiple active storylines to reality shows that cause viewers to dissect and evaluate the behaviors of the contestants. Overall, Johnson aims to convince his readers that the increase in cognitive complexity on television has a positive effect on viewers, causing them to think more critically and analytically and stimulating intellectual growth.

To accomplish his goal, Johnson makes use of a particularly effective epigraph at the beginning of his essay. He quotes a dialogue from Woody Allen’s Sleeper, in which two scientists discuss the behavior of a subject whom asked for “wheat germ, organic honey and tiger’s milk” for breakfast, indicating that such foods had been considered to have “life-preserving properties” in the past while foods such as steak, cream pies, and hot fudge were considered unhealthy. While it is initially a bizarre quote to use, Johnson uses it later to illustrate the concept of the “Sleeper Curve,” the idea that things once considered unhealthy (in the case of Johnson’s argument, television dramas and sitcoms) can actually become beneficial for consumers after all; this idea is referred to several times throughout the essay as an essential part of Johnson’s argument. Thus, the Sleeper quote serves as an effective way for Johnson to introduce the theme of his essay, allowing readers to obtain an early understanding of Johnson’s arguments.

Personally, I can mostly agree with Johnson’s argument in his essay. Although I don’t watch any reality shows, I have watched a few dramas in the past, and those with complex story arcs that follow multiple characters are certainly more enjoyable than those that only follow one narrative. Certainly, it can be fun at times to look closely at the developments in a narrative, to see the interactions between characters, and to try to figure out what happens next; sometimes, I find myself quite satisfied when something on TV goes the way I wanted it to play out. If I had to give any sort of complaint about Johnson’s argument, it would have to be that making a show have more narratives packed into it does not necessarily make its plot more “intelligent;” there are definitely shows even today that practice the use of multiple narratives and other similar techniques, yet still have incredibly basic and predictable plotlines (most soap operas and similar shows would come to mind here.) Aside from this however, I would say that Johnson is correct in his evaluation of cognitive development in television.

Scott Brown Essay Analysis

In his essay, “Facebook Friendonomics,” Scott Brown analyzes the “economy of friends” on social media and observes the unnatural condition of friendships found there. He makes the point that the ability to perpetually be “friends” with everyone you meet causes the idea of friendship-and the friends themselves-to lose value as the amount of friends increases, just as money in real-world economics loses value as more dollars are printed. Overall, Brown writes to show his audience the hazardous effects of “Friending” on one’s social interactions, pointing out that Friending on social media violates the natural process of “losing touch” with friends that ordinarily allows people to grow and change during their lifetime.

To illustrate his point, Brown uses parallelism to connect the feeling of dehumanization found in social media friends to the content of his essay. When discussing his Facebook Friend roster, Brown states, “They’re all there: elementary school friends, high school friends, college friends, work friends, friends of friends, friends of ex-girlfriends…” Brown repeats the same general structure between phrases, reflecting the idea that all of these “friends,” despite being unique individuals from different backgrounds and environments, are all lumped together under one category, having no inherent value to the speaker other than the fact that they are “friends.” As a result, Brown’s utilization of parallelism excellently demonstrates how Friending on social media diminishes the value of friends as individual beings.

Personally, I find that Brown’s analysis of the state of social media bears a heavy truth to it. Although I personally do not use social media, I do use a variety of programs that contain the functionality of “friends lists;” therefore, I know exactly what Brown is talking about when he speaks of friends as collectibles or objects that hold little value as individuals. To me, these “friends” are often just names I see on the side of my screen when I log in to a program or service, and I hold little regard for most of them. I also agree with Brown’s statements on the natural process of “losing touch” with friends. As an introvert, I have found that I often lose touch with others if I do not interact with them in the real world on a regular basis; out of all the friends I’ve had over the years, there are hardly a few whom I have not lost touch with as a result of distance or differing interests. To try to hold on to these friends through social media would be unnatural, since I would inevitably grow so distant from them that I would hardly be able to relate with them anymore; how could I call them my “friends” then? Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with the points made in Brown’s essay; in addition, I believe it is better to focus on friends who have an immediate impact in my life, for it is better to have a few strong friends than a multitude of strangers.

Ellen Goodman Essay Analysis

In her essay, The Family That Stretches (Together), Ellen Goodman analyzes the situations of families that are fragmented and stitched together by divorces and remarriages, and asserts that these unique family trees, or rather “family bushes,” contain unique and valuable connections between people that are not normally found in traditional families. Goodman writes to convince her audience of the importance of these connections, and to explain that, despite their complexities, these extended family links do make up single family units.

In order to support her argument, Goodman utilizes logos in her essay to reasonably explain her point. She informs her readers of the prevalence of divorces and remarriages through statistics: “We know that as many as 50 percent of recent marriages may end. About 75 percent of divorced women and 83 percent of divorced men remarry. Of those remarriages, 59 percent include a child from a former marriage.” Reasonably, the fact that there are so many divorces and remarriages means that there are a lot of familial relationships that exist by marriages, ex-marriages, and remarriages, rather than by biological connections. Goodman uses these facts and reasoning to lead into the rest of her argument: that these extra-familial connections form strong bonds, and that these bonds form an elaborate yet complete network called a family.

Although I personally would not condone the formation of relationships outside of initial marriages, I find that I must concede to Goodman that there are undeniable bonds formed through divorces and remarriages. Certainly, there are those in my extended family who either divorced their spouse or married someone who had previously been married to someone else. As a result, I have come into contact with these new family members and, for better or worse, formed new ties with them, and I have come to regard them as family over time. Therefore, I find that the argument that Goodman provides in her essay is affirmed by the realities within my own family.

Where Does the Nintendo Switch Stand Against Competition?

In an article from Forbes.com, an important question was raised about the Nintendo Switch: how well will it perform when compared against consoles from other competitors? The author of the article seemed to claim that the Switch would do poorly against other home consoles, such as the Xbox One and the PS4, while it may have a chance of being a major competitor against iPads. However, I believe that the Nintendo Switch will revolutionize the gaming industry entirely, possibly reaching the same level as or even surpassing both the Xbox One and the PS4.

Where does such a bold claim come from, you may ask? The answer lies in the very design of the Nintendo Switch itself. As displayed in Nintendo’s reveal video, the Nintendo Switch has the power of a home console but can be played on the go as a mobile console-an unprecedented innovation in the gaming industry. Neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 provides this sort of mobile functionality, and none of Apple’s mobile products are capable of running the “home console”-level games shown in the Switch’s trailer. On top of this, the Switch provides an array of controller configurations that allow for both single-player and multi-player gaming, as well as a number of different controlling styles (the trailer displays at least two configurations for a single-player controller: one appears to be a “classic” controller, which the Switch’s so-called “Joy-Cons” can easily slide into, while the other involves wielding the Joy-Cons wirelessly in each hand.) This diversity of controller configurations, compared to the limited configurations of competing consoles’ controllers, is yet another innovation in portability and customization that the Switch has to add to its reputation. Therefore, it is clear that the Switch possesses great potential in its technological capabilities, which may allow it to surpass competitors.

In short, the technological innovations of the Nintendo Switch alone show that it is superior in functionality and utility to its competitors. It provides significantly more portability than its home console competitors, and it is far more powerful than its iOS rivals. Therefore, the Nintendo Switch stands a great chance at becoming a leading console in the gaming industry.