[ Editorial ]
Excavating Rock Canyon
Pure genius

The prospect of Rock Canyon being transformed from scenic recreation spot to excavation
eyesore has Provo residents up in arms. Utah resident Richard Davis is awaiting
the approval of a permit which would give him the go ahead to spend 10 hours a day,
Monday to Friday for the next three to five years, hammering and back-hoeing the
mountain away. Davis’ public relations guru, John Park, did an excellent job assuring
the 100-plus angry citizens who gathered last Saturday morning to protest the project that the
quarry will be safe. A six to eight foot “safety berm” will be in place. For those worried about
falling rocks crushing houses, children and beloved family pets, rest assured, the “berm” will
save you all.
The main concern of Provo residents, however, wasn’t safety, but beauty. Residents are
worried that without the picturesque view of jagged rocks juxtaposed against the piercing
azure sky and the Provo Temple’s radiant angel Moroni, Provo postcard sales will slump. No
one wants a postcard of orange construction cones, dump trucks and pebbles. One resident
asked point-blank, “Why would the city even consider a proposal that would destroy the
most beautiful area of this town?” Park’s reply was both thoughtful and satisfying: “It’s the
consequence of a free country, I guess.”
One of the wonders of living in a free country is the fact that people are “free” to act in
their own self-interest. BYU geologist Lehi Hintze, who, according the The Daily Harold, has
studied Rock Canyon for decades, told the crowd that the cliff Davis seeks to remove is “not
a rare rock, nor particularly valuable. … It’s the kind of rock that is used as riprap — piles of
rock used for erosion control. Ask yourself, why would he want to propose a quarry? I think
he basically wants to be bought off.”
What the citizens gathered in protest on Saturday and the many at home who agree with
them have neglected to acknowledge is that the “riprap” rock in question could be put to
good use for the people of Provo. Davis’ motives aside, this could be a fabulous idea. Why
didn’t anyone think of it before?
We could use the rocks to expand the Y on the mountain, adding perhaps a “B” and a “U”
or maybe even the whole mission statement. We could build a fortress to segregate campus
into a boy half and a girl half, or to simply block Helaman Halls from the rest of us. We could
create a literal “Zion Curtain,” solving all confusion about where that pesky 2-mile radius
line really is. We could use the excavated rocks for an endless number of BYUSA activities, a
giant game of “King of the Rock Pile,” perhaps? We could supply every BYU fan with something
to hurl at our athletic opponents, or bestow each student with a personal prayer rock.
BYU could give out complimentary boulders to married students, engraved with their names
and wedding dates. We could enhance campus grounds with wishing wells, both enchanting
and profitable, and bulldoze the old president’s house and replace it with a “President’s
Castle.”
And these are just the possibilities for BYU. The benefits for other Provo residents are limitless
— a boosted economy, a prolonged sunrise, a view of Colorado. You name it. Excavating
Rock Canyon would add all kinds of enhancements to quality of life in Provo, and it would
rid us of some key vices. Rock climbers, almost as troublesome as “sinboarders,” would be
inhibited by the quarry. The annoyance of wildlife — the movement, the noises — obliterated.
If Mr. Park’s boss gets his wish, it would also be much more difficult for adolescents,
and even full-blown adults, to “park” at the mouth of the canyon and use their mouths in
inappropriate ways.
So, Mr. Park — and Mr. Davis — while most of Provo hates your idea, we love it. We’re
thrilled with the possibilities involved in giving nature a good kick, just for the heck of it.
What fun this could be! We’ll even help you hold off the protesters, just as long as we get
first dibs on the riprap. Our first project? Building a giant meteor in the middle of Brigham
Square for April Fool’s Day. So get to work.

Audience: Mr. Park and Mr. Davis, two residents of Provo who want to excavate Rock Canyon in order to sell the rock and make money.

WATCO excavating Rock Canyon on Provo?
Claim: excavating Rock Canyon will detract from Provo's beauty.
Reason: because excavating Rock Canyon will destroy the wilderness.

Goal: convince Mr. Park and Mr. Davis to not excavate Rock Canyon.

How:
Pathos: The author uses a lot of sarcasm to make the audience feel stupid for wanting to turn the canyon into a quarry. When taking into account the counterargument that the rock will be useful, the writer mocks them with the ridiculous things BYU could use the rip-rap for, like blocking off Helaman Halls. He also mocks them by saying it will be a good thing to get rid of the rock climbers that go there, and the pesky wildlife that lives there. He also uses lines like, "how fun this could be!" and it'll be great to give nature "a good kick, just for the heck of it." He also sarcastically says how the 'berm' is going to keep everyone safe from the falling rock-his sarcasm increases the fear of the damage it could possibly cause.
Logos: Although he uses sarcasm, he makes a logical argument that this type of rock is not special and could be excavated from an area not as close to residents and from somewhere that is not a landmark of our city. Rock Canyon is beautiful, and logically, by taking out the rock it will disturb this refuge.
Typical: All the arguments are typical and applicable. Non of them are unusual to the situation in anyway. All though his sarcasm is exaggerated, it is supposed to be that way, and its obviousness keeps it from being atypical.

Effectiveness: While the article would apeal to the university students that will be reading it most, the audience of Mr. Park and Mr. Davis will not appreciate all the sarcasm and it would ultimitaly make them more defensive and not convince them that they shouldn't continue with the excavation.

Clumsy

http://music.aol.com/video/clumsy/fergie/1999775

Audience: Female teenagers and young adults, who are fans of Fergie and watch music videos. Mostly girls who are clumsy themselves or don't know how to act in front of boys.

Arguement: WATCO of being 'in love' on girls', and Fergie's, clumsiness?

Claim: Being 'in love' makes girls, even Fergie, very clumsy.
Reason: Paying attention to the boy you (or Fergie) are in love with distracts you from what is going on around you.

Goal: Make Fergie seem just like every other girl, who makes mistakes when 'in love,' in order to gain more fans, or strengthen the ones she has.

How:
Sufficient: The music video shows five different incidents where she makes a big, clumsy mistake because the guy she's crushing on is there, and she becomes distracted. This is a good amount of evidence that he really has this affect on her.

Ethos: Fergie is a very popular singer so the audience already values her opinion and she is in the music video herself. In every different situation the music video shows her in, she starts out looking like the Diva her audience knows her as, beautiful and in charge: on stage, on the runway, driving the car, controlling the space port, etc. Even though she is oh so amazing, she crumbles whenever the boy comes around. If this happens to her when she is around her crush, then it makes it seem like a normal girl has no chance of being stable when around their boy.

Pathos: Seeing Fergie in a position where she is embarrassed, has messed things up, and in trouble, makes her feel more personal and they will be able to relate to her. This way they can compare what is happening to her in the music video to their own life, this will also increase Fergie's popularity with her audience. Also, since the music video is filmed so that it appears like a storybook, it makes it feel like what is happening to her is inevitable, you will turn the page, and she will fall of the stage no matter what. Her clumsiness is definite.

Effective: I think the music video is pretty effective. It makes it seem like most girls will be like Fergie and become clumsy when around their crush. This will increase the goal of increasing Fergie's fans because it is something that most girls can relate to.

Argument: WATCO having a spring break on BYU student's emotional health.
Claim: Having a spring break will improve students emotional health.
Reason: Having a spring break will allow students to spend time relaxing outside which helps them fight winter blues.

Audience: BYU administration: Mormon middle/older aged (mostly) men who don't want to add a spring break.

Goal: get BYU to have a spring break.

How:
Pathos: the reader learns about those who suffer from SAD and feels sorry for what they have to deal with. It makes them feel guilty for not giving students a break to get out and enjoy the spring sun.
Relevant: the argument isn't super relevant. It mostly talks about students who suffer from SAD, and most students don't suffer from this. Also, the administration isn't going to feel responsible for students' emotional health, that is a doctor's, the parent's, or the student's job.
Accurate: The information talked about is accurate, and the reader wouldn't feel like anything is completely incorrect. However, it fails to talk about the different ways students will spend spring break-they aren't all going to use it to enjoy the outdoors like it talks about. It needs to address those who will do homework or play video games or sleep all day, etc.

Effective: While it may bring to the attention of the Admin the issue of SAD and how a spring break can help emotional health, it's not going to convince them to make a spring break.

IC3

http://www.nw3c.org/pressroom/docs/current/2009_01_05_unauthorized_charges.pdf

Audience: Americans who have a checking account and an email account, especially those who tend to open any email they receive even if they don't know who it's from.

Argument: WATCO opening an email from someone you don't know on the likely hood that you will be a victim of fraudulent checking account charges.
Claim: Opening an email from a stranger increases the likely hood that you will be a victim of fraudulent charges.
Reason: Because by opening an email from a stranger you increase the likelihood that it will contain malware that will allow unauthorized users access to private bank accounts and other information.

Goal: Get people to stop opening emails from people they don't know so that they won't be victims of internet crime.

How:
Logos: They appeal to ones logic that if you don't open emails from sources you don't know then you won't open an email that has malware on it. It's a very simple solution. It is also a problem that people easily understand: People are stealing money in a way that is hard to notice, and I don't want this to happen to me.
Ethos: They build a relationship of legitimacy with the reader by having the official looking logo at the top of the paper, and they give several different contacts and links so you can see if this is a legitimate agency. Also, they recommend first reporting any incidents to the police, and then to this agency. Americans naturally trust law enforcement agencies and regard them as legitimate organizations that are there to stop crime. Also, they say what the email has contained, including an 800 number, so it seems less likely that they are making it up.
Sufficiency: The article says that there have been 400 reported incidents of this happening, so it is obviously a widespread problem. They also give examples of people who have been refunded the money, but how there are many who don't even notice the charges. The audience knows that this is a problem that they should worry about and seek to avoid.

Effective: I think those who read this will be more cautious about what email they are opening up and will keep an eye out for signs of being a victim of such a crime.

Guernica

Audience: Military and political leaders who have the power to stop the Civil war going on in Spain in 1937 but don't feel the need to stop it.

Argument: WATCO war on the the lives of innocent civilians

Claim: War wreaks havoc on innocent civilian lives.
Reason: Because opposing forces attack civilians and murder them mercilessly.

Goal: Bring the Spanish Civil War to an end.

How:
Pathos: Picasso definitely appeals to the viewer's sense of horror at the scene. The figures are choppy and there is hard to tell where there are limbs and and what is animal and what is human. The figure laying on the ground is not attached to his arm, and the figure on the right is being devoured by flames-both horrific images. The painting is done totally in black, grays, and white. These drab colors are lifeless and enhance the overwhelming feeling of death. The woman on the left is grieving for her dead child that she holds in her arms. The audience can't help but feel a great deal of sadness for this woman. Every facial expression, human or animal, portrays some sort of extreme emotion (sadness, pain, shock, fear, etc) and he replaces tongues with daggers to signify screams coming from their lips. The effect of the painting is a shock to the emotions.
Ethos: Pable Picasso is and was a very well known artist. So, the audience could trust that if he painted something, then it was of importance and worth. Also, this painting was of a specific event, the bombing of Guernica, he didn't just make it up, it actually happened.
Relevant: The painting is very relevant since he started painting it within fifteen days of the actual bombing. Spain was still in the middle of their Civil War, and he wanted it stopped. Many people probably knew someone who had died or had been effected by this particular bombing, and were still suffering from the war.

Effective: I'm not sure if this painting helped stop the war, but it seems like it would be pretty effective to me. It also went on a world tour soon after he finished, so it became very popular fast. I'm positive that it made an impact.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2100888345/

Audience: Tweens to middle aged movie watchers who like action movies, and who saw the first Transformers movie. This trailer was specifically for those watching the Superbowl, so it narrows it down to those who are also football fans-so more men than women.

Argument:
WATCO watching this movie on how much fun you have.
Claim: watching this movie will increase the amount of fun you have (during this time).
Reaseon: because if you don't watch this movie you will miss out on lots of action packed sequences full of good-looking people and robots, and you would never find out if the evil transfomers take control of the Earth!

Goal: Get people to go see the movie.

How:
Pathos: This movie trailer is fast-paced and gets your adrenaline going-you feel the suspense and tension, especially when it flashes the word REVENGE two or three times. The music puts your nerves on edge, and it cuts from action scene to action scene. The only dialogue is: "you don't stop, you don't hid, you run" it makes you feel like you are part of the action -and makes you want to see more. If you saw and liked the first Transformer movie then you are already attached to the characters and want to know if they make it out ok. The audience feels concerned about what is going to happen to them.
Logos: They make sure to show clips of the most popular (and best looking) actors: Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, and Josh Duhamel. If they are in it then it must be a pretty good movie, or at least you'll enjoy watching them. Also, it makes sure you recognize that this is a sequel, so if you liked the first one, then you should like this one. The graphics they show you are also high quality, which makes you believe that if they did well on that, then they should do well in other areas of the movie.
Sufficient: Although the clip is only about 30 seconds long, it shows a several different scenes-all as thrilling as the one before. Who knows how many more scenes like these the movie will have?! It has sufficient evidence that it should be cool.

Effective: I think this trailer is definitely effective. I know I'm excited for it to come out. It piqued my interest, but doesn't tell enough to spoil the movie. It's fast paced and visually stimulating.

Spring breaks a good thing we could have

"And Your Point Is..." 1 of 2

Chris Dunham

Issue date: 3/27/08 Section: Opinion

Oh how the big picture gets overlooked.

Students seem to think "ooh, a week off…me likey" and don't understand what that week off costs them. The break is truly unfair to professors and students.

This is why I propose that SSU does away with Spring Break. Give me a chance to state my case before rioting.

Though SSU would be unusual for not having Spring Break, it wouldn't be alone. Brigham Young University (BYU), is an institution that does not have a break like this. They, like SSU, are on the semester system, and don't want to disadvantage their students by taking a break.

Not having a break allows students to wrap up their year earlier than other institutions. BYU's last day of final exams this year will be April 23, and they will have their commencement ceremonies before May 1.

For anyone counting, that puts their final exams ending 17 days before ours do at SSU.

The benefit of adding a couple weeks to a multiple month summer vacation? Firstly, our students would be out and able to look for jobs in their hometowns earlier. Most high schools wrap up their year in mid-May. Our students, when they go home, find themselves competing with a number of high school students from the community for summer and seasonal jobs.

By getting out of class those extra weeks, our students would be able to get a head start on their respective home towns' youths in the job search.

Adding to the break would make summer vacation nearly four months. Think what a person can do with that time. They could work to make money, do an internship, independent research, or even be lazy in that third of a year of free time.

The change would also give students that go year-round an actual chance to breathe in the summer. By adding a week of break either before or after summer semester, students that attend college year round can feel like they've had some sort of separation from their college workload before coming back to class.

During the semester, with the timing of the break, professors have been forced to use Spring Break as a guide for mapping out a schedule.

The break forces each professor's hand when forming a syllabus and making a test schedule. Most classes took an exam the week before Spring Break. Many did so on their last session before break.

I've heard of and seen professors that have stretched out material over more class sessions than they'd like to so students would be able to take an exam in the last week before break. There have also been professors who try to squeeze extra material into the time before break so they can get an exam over with.

The goal of a university is to educate, not to adjust material to suit a break.

With the student side of the break, I'll stay away from the whole underage drinking and wild parties issue of Spring Break and stick to academics.

The break, for students, completely throws them off course for the semester. For those that didn't take a mid-term right before the break, they probably lost a great deal of the knowledge they have been expected to retain throughout the semester.

I concede the fact that Spring Break is a good time for students for relax and unwind from the pressures of the semester.

But what good does this temporary escape really do? This week, coming back, I feel no different from the way I did before the break. A week is not long enough for students to be removed from their stress, but is long enough for students to forget what they learned before break (leading to more stresses).

Let's stop wasting our week and help students get on to summer earlier.


Audience: Students who enjoy their spring break and want to keep having it.
(I think he actually has two audiences, one is for the professors who like spring break, and he makes a separate argument to them, I am going to focus on his argument for the students).

Argument:
WATCO spring break on students' stress.
Claim: spring break causes more stress on students.
Reason: because by not getting out of school earlier than the high schools students have to compete to get jobs in the summer.

Goal: Convince SSU to get rid of spring break.

How:
Ethos: I think that the writer struggled to build a relationship with his audience. I kind of talks down to them, especially when he puts words in their mouth: "ooh, a week off…me likey."
It's not a very intelligent phrase and it makes it seem like his audience must not be very intelligent. Then he asks them to hear him out before they start rioting, so he realizes that they aren't going to like his position, but he he is placing himself on the opposite side from his audience. He automatically pits himself against them. He is a student, which makes him more credible since he does go to school with them, but he could have used that more to his advantage if he wanted to.
Sufficient: He uses BYU as a source of a school that doesn't have a spring break, but compared to all the other schools that do it doesn't seem like enough, especially since BYU is very different from most other Universities. I think he could have used more sources to help convince his audience, but he doesn't do that bad of a job.
Logos: It makes logical sense to want to get out of school early if you are going to be needing a job in the summer and if you want a longer summer break. As long as they can take take their emotional attachment to spring break out of the picture, than he makes a pretty good argument that is relevant to one of the things they worry about.

Effective: I don't think this is going to convince many students to give up their spring break. If a student has had a hard time in the past getting a summer job, than it would be more effective on them, but otherwise students assume that they eventually will get a job (although that might change along with our econmic crisis...)