Gaming blog

                Dr. Jane McGonigal is making a good argument. In most arguments you need a problem on current events such as hers which is, there are too many conflicts in the world. Also there is millions or billions of hours put in on online games by gamers in the world each week. So that is what is happening today. She uses ethos and logos in this process with statistics and studies from credible sources. Next she then brings in the proposal or the solution to the conflicts in the world. There for video games and video gamers will save the human race from their conflicts and from total annihilation. If you ask me this plays with your mind, if you think about it is pathos since I don’t want to die or my younger siblings to do so. After this she gives to us what I call solvency. This step tells us what is going to happen when gamers are in the real world ready to save the tribe. Know she states that she has made some games as experiments to see how online gamers do in what could happen in some years from now. The first subject was if there was no oil or gas and the planet how would the people react. She then states that people have gotten habits from this game and others to live their normal lives much more careful. Another interesting thing she does is give a story. She has a story to kind of give us another perspective of the situation. The dice theory was very eye or ear catching and this is using ethos and pathos because of the study behind it and the fact that Libyans solved their hunger problem and then became the Roman Empire, I felt proud of that. If you ask me she has all the essentials to make a good argument. If I agree with her is a different story. To make things short the military outweighs gamers. Military are more experienced in the field and in real live missions and gamers only in the television. In games you get killed and you get revived and back in the game but in real live your dead and guess what the chances are you will stay dead. So no I do not agree.                       

préci for chapter 1 in choices

In chapter 1 Joe Marshall Hardin author of “Choices 2.0” he tells us that if we plan our writing we can be have successful paper. He say that if you write ideas down then such as prewrites then drafting and revising you should have a good paper. He also talks about the rhetorical triangle and that in order to have a better argument, us the writers should know who the readers are and then manipulate the information of what you are talking about. I can clearly see that he is trying to convince people how may not have or understand the ways of writing and arguing because he is using a lecture tone.  

Choices intro Préci

                In the introduction Joe Marshal Hardin the author of “Choices 2.0 Situations for College writing” claims that college students say that they do not have a talent for writing. They usually say they are more of a math or science but writing no when writing really is a skill to learn. He also states that in order to write a good paper you must work hard. He needs to make his point clear since this is a college book and he is trying to get us to not block ourselves from writing.

Jose's first post

Hellow This is my first time using this place so this could be short and simple but it will get better in the future. Have a good day.