TOW #19: Drunk Driving Ad

                This image, depicting a shocking fact in an unconventional way, recently went viral on twitter. Users retweeted this message with the very obvious intent of swaying others to never drive drunk. The picture incorporates elements of ethos and pathos to speak to its audience, as most ads such as these do. However, this picture makes an unusually compelling argument by looking at the facts from an unconventional perspective. Instead of showing a crashed car, injured victims, or other depressing and graphic photos that usually characterize anti-drunk driving campaigns, this ad takes a different approach. It focuses on the true tragedies of drunk driving; the long term effects of the accidents. Telling a person that “every 48 seconds, another person becomes handicapped because of a drunk driver”, most likely would not have a lasting effect on them. It would certainly shock and sadden them, but it would be almost impossible for anyone to truly be able to understand this fact if it is stated as such a dry statistic. By incorporating the fact into a handicapped parking space, something we all see every day and do not usually give much thought to, the fact becomes less of a dry statistic and more of a profound truth. Old and young drivers alike can understand this kind of statement, allowing all drivers to understand the message on a deep level. This image presents something that will truly stick in a driver’s head and make them stop and think. Later, if they are about to make a bad decision, they have a much better chance of choosing to be safe if they remember this simple ad. 

TOW #18: "Arguments in Favour of Genetically-Modified Crops"

                Since the discovery of genes less than a century ago, scientists have been able to achieve incredible things in the field of genetics. Studying gene sequences in any organism is possible in modern science, and scientists are now capable of manipulating genes to change organisms. This ability to modify organisms opens many possibilities for scientific advancements, but many are hesitant to meddle with something as complicated and delicate as genetics. Ben Miflin, Chairman of the Scottish Crop Research Institute and a member of the British Crop Production Council, argues in his article titled “Arguments in Favour of Genetically-Modified Crops” that genetically modified products are advantageous to society. He addresses the skeptical public that is unsure of how modified food products will affect their health by presenting facts and statistics to support his position. Since he is making a highly academic argument, Miflin obviously includes a great deal of logos in his reasoning. However, he also uses unexpected techniques such as humor to sway his audience. Miflin uses sarcasm to address a counter argument when he says, “Critics claim that GMOs may increase use of chemical pesticides and increase the profits of agribusiness. Pigs might fly”. In including such a phrase as a reaction to opposition to his argument, Miflin emphasizes the foolishness of claims against GMOs and makes it clear that these rumors are false. I strongly agree with Miflin’s claim and his thoughts on the subject. GMOs, when created responsibly and studied extensively before being consumed by a populations, should not be feared by society. Utilizing our scientific knowledge to create them could reduce or even eliminate the use of harmful pesticides, and could even help lessen world hunger because more food could be produced. The public and organizations who argue against  genetic modification are often not educated in the field of genetics, and do not understand how farmers have been modifying crops for thousands of years naturally by encouraging cross breeding and practicing selective fertilization. Miflin addresses these areas and more in his article, and makes many interesting points for the acceptance of GMOs into society. 

TOW #17: "America's Complicated Minimum Wage Argument"

                In an article featured in US News and World Report, Danielle Kurtzleben attempts to address the controversial question of raising American minimum wage standards. With her experience as a business and economics reporter for multiple magazines, Kurtzleben presents all sides of the minimum wage arguments to an upper class audience that most likely knows little about the topic and does not understand how it is relevant to them. Many Americans are fed up with the top “one percent” making outrageous salaries while the lower working class cannot make a living off of their earnings even if they take on two or three jobs at once, but others note that raising their wages could have disastrous economic consequences. Kurtzleben realizes that this issue has not clear solution, and cannot be separated into black and white or right and wrong. She remains neutral throughout the piece, choosing to make her argument not about which stance the audience should take, but about why they should care and think carefully about the debate. By using humor, she is able to convince readers far removed from the issue to actually care about it. At the beginning of each of her points, Kurtzleben poses a possible audience statement and then reacts to it. One paragraph begins “I mean, I make $60,000 a year. It doesn't affect me anyway whether the minimum wage is $9 or $19”, to which she bluntly replies “Please try not to be so fantastically shortsighted”. While this has a chance of offending her audience, it does force them to think more deeply of something they previously thought had no importance to them. She concludes her essay by imitating something an ignorant, privileged person would say: “What a drag”, to which Kurtzleben says “tell that to your McDonald's cashier”. Even though she does not include a stance on the issue itself, I wholeheartedly agree with Kurtzleben’s argument that everyone should be aware of this argument and its repercussions in society. Both socially and economically, minimum wage laws impact our country in huge ways that, as informed members of society, all Americans should be aware of.