Question

In this unit, you explored the theme of the power of youth and examined the guiding question: How can disruption result in change?
In this unit you engaged in the research process and explored solutions to a problem that impacts your community. How did the process of research impact the way you find and process information?

You read a variety of sources on food deserts and people who influenced and led change to combat food deserts. How did their work and disruption change your perspective on activism and community improvement?

Now that you have researched, presented, and published how you plan to improve your own community, how do you want to impact those around you? How could your disruption lead to leaving a legacy?

Answer 1

Answer:

1. The authors employed all three rhetorical appeals to make their agruments, as well as other structural devices, like parallelism. I believe the most effective was Frederick Douglass's use of logos in, What to the Slave is the Fourth of July. He effectively demonstrated the contradiction in the audience's own legislation through logos to prove his point. 2. The effects Frederick Douglass's speech have resonated throughout our society as well as potentially other societies across the globe. Because of activists like him, the legislation was passed which freed enslaved Americans. These effects are seen everywhere today as black Americans are making strides and accomplishing things that their ancestors could only dream of because of the vision of people like Douglass.His words are still just as true today as before, and I would say that the speech presented by him is incredibly influential even in our current society.3. Because of this unit, I have attained a better understanding of rhetoric and am likely more capable of utilizing it in my writing than before. This unit has also shaped the way I look at arguments presented by others, I will be more cautious of fallacies, and less vulnerable to generic rhetorical appeals. I will also be able to evaluate the validity of others' arguments based on the effectiveness of their rhetoric and the population, or lack thereof, of logical fallacies in their work.

Explanation: