In this article, Kristof believes that the source of America's problems lies in the way that mothers in poverty raise their children. His strong opinion is supported well with researched studies and is related to the election to connect with a broader base.
Kristof uses scientific studies to back up his beliefs. One such study was with mother rats and how much they licked their young at McGill University where "Meaney’s team dissected adult rats and found that licking led to differences in brain anatomy, so that rats that had been licked more were better able to control stress responses." By relating this study to humans, Kristof shows how helping adolescents feel loved will help our economy. To boost his argument even more, Kristof also uses a social experiment among humans. At the University of Minnesota, a study judged weather a group of about 200 children recieved supportive parenting and then tracked their academic progress in later life. According to Kristof, "It found that whether a child received supportive parenting in the first few years of life was at least as good a predictor as I.Q. of whether he or she would graduate from high school." This experiment supports his opinion that by breaking the poor parenting cycle of people in poverty, the economy will improve.
Since many people associate improving the economy with the upcoming presidential election, Kristof mentions both candidates names to relate with more Americans. He shows how both of their plans will fail if they ignore his opinions. First, he mentions how conservatives think that poverty relates to not just "welfare or tax policy but also must consider culture and character." which he says is valid, but these studies show that the main cause of poverty is an imbalance of "brain chemistry." This balance can be fixed later in life too unlike, how the candidates feel. he directly calls them out: "President Obama and Mitt Romney, listen up: Kewauna’s story underscores that strengthening our nation means investing not only in warships but also in America’s children." Kewuna improved her test scores dramatically in high school with help from a group called OneGoal that helps children with school in a supportive way. Kristof may not agree with the presidents while some readers do, but relating his beliefs to his helps the readers relate too.
Hey Julia! Please put in the URL for this article, so we don't need to look for it on Google.
ReplyDeleteThis article seems so interesting. I would definitely like to follow Kristof's blog now.
However, I'm not sure that you followed the requirements for the Close Readings very well. You provided a great summary of the article, but I do not see any analysis of an of the five areas of rhetoric (diction, imagery, details, language, and syntax). Instead, you analyze the points made in the article. Which is nice, but not what is needed.
And be sure to re-read what you write. So please change "... a study judged WHETHER a group of about 200 children RECEIVED supportive parenting...".
Julia, I think you have a really well written piece here. I agree with Daphine, however. You supply a great summary of the article and how it is an effective writing to convince the reader one way. But, you never really say how and three of the five DIDLS make it an effective writing. Still, you wrote a great piece and used a great amount of evidence to support your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI found this blog intriguing, as I'd never really heard that opinion before and it was an interesting thing to think about. However, you never mention how any of the DIDLS techniques were used in enforcing his essay. You mention how he uses examples and research and studies, but not diction and imagery and details. You had a good introduction and conclusion, and a good thesis, but they weren't really related to the prompt. I also agree with Daphine: try re-reading things so you don't make mistakes like "weather" instead of "whether".
ReplyDeleteJulia, this close reading is on a very interesting topic. I'm surprised the New York Times would print a piece like this though, it seems to be comparing poor people to rats in the way that they say low-income mothers' parenting could use some help, and that to strengthen America maybe we need to "learn from rats".
ReplyDeleteAlthough your analysis is very interesting and contains good thinking, you need to talk about DIDLS and the author's use of rhetoric. Still, it is enjoyable to read.
Last month's peer reviewers suggested that, though you provided some good evidence, you needed to expand your analysis a bit more. Essentially, they were asking for more well-developed warrants. I don't see that happening in this post--as your peer reviewers are noting here, you're really just summarizing this article. Reread the assignment for Close Readings if you're not sure what your peer reviewers are talking about in their comments. Next month, I'd like to see this set up as an essay, with a thesis, separate paragraphs devoted to separate claims, evidence drawn from the DIDLS categories, and well-developed warrants.
ReplyDelete