1. She argues how, and only how genetically altered foods are bad. This is unfair to the other side as she makes no mention to how these genetically altered crops can be seen as a good alternative to high priced all natural foods and instead just argues that all naturally grown crops are the only ones that can be trusted.
2. She uses scare tactics, using strong negative words such as destruction, death and disease and also makes the claim that genetically altered crops are “monsters”. In the fair summary she mentions how some people see many possible benefits from genetically engineering food.
3. She uses words such as huckster, ignorant and uniformed to try and discredit her claims. She changes her description of her from huckster to advocate which lessens the negative impact towards her and also mentions how she warns against possible negative affects as opposed to the believed positive ones.
4.  Yes because when not mentioning opposing sides it makes the argument seem way to one-sided and can result in a negative effect and poor views on the author.

Section 1: author introduces the idea of the article which is carrying of babies for couples by foreign women.

section 2: author is stating how the author of the article is trying to present her views and approach her argument.

Book Activities:

1. It gives a very strong emotional impact to the audience, creating a great sense of sadness, sympathy and disappointment for the the kid in the picture and whatever has happened in the picture.; A kid standing in the wreckage of what could possibly be his home, looking rather sad, and holding what seems to be the only thing he has that survived the disaster.
2. My response isn’t such a shocked response as it may be for commonly encountered photos possibly because the up close view of the picture doesn’t show destruction on such a widespread scale as photos often show and it also has the absence of casualties. Its different because it is showing the affect the disaster is having on children rather than just the people of the community as a whole. In some situations this can create more sympathy.
3. I would not choose this photo because it doesn’t show the extent of the destruction that it needs to show so not as many people might think they need to support.

•  why is legalization better than continuing fight against it, What can non cocaine users gain from the legalization from it,
• It could lead to a drop in violence occurring from big drug deals of cocaine, it can make the states lots of money by putting a tax on it which could in turn possibly lower everyone else’s taxes, won’t be wasting a lot of money on keeping people caught with or using cocaine in jail.

Ethos and Pathos analysis for essay articles:

Pro dream act article:

Ethos – uses multiple reasons and examples to support argument with reliable sources, doesn’t leave out any important underlying detail, the author is being slightly unfair in that he doesn’t show any argument towards the other side of the issue. The author uses many examples on how this act will be good for American communities and how its better for people if enacted. The author adapts a very professional character throughout the article explaining in very supportive and sophisticated ways in why its a good idea to go along with this bill thus helping further the support gained for his argument.

Pathos – The author wants the audience to feel sympathy for the people being affected from the outcome of the act, and he achieves this by giving examples of people that may have to be deported and also giving good examples of what good things can come of allowing all the people to continue staying in the U.S, these feeling help the writers aim because it gives good reason to support the argument rather than oppose it.

Anti Dream Act article:

Ethos – presents many reasons as to why the dream act is not good and also use data and statistics to further his side of the argument, no very important details are left out, the author is fair with his argument in the fact that he does see other sides to his argument in his article. The author builds his credibility on stating how enacting the dream act  may harm and all together have no benefit to the citizens and communities of the country. The authors takes a very professional along with somewhat aggressive character in this article in that he uses good examples as well as statistics to explain why his side of the argument is the way to go but is also a bit aggressive in his attempt to get people to see that its not right or worth it to pass this act.

Pathos – The author wants the audience to feel betrayed and upset at what the dream act is trying to say it will do but in the end will cause other problems. He achieves this by using examples, and some statistical examples, to explain how the dream act presents itself as something that will in turn be good for american communities but in the end will come at a cost. This helps the writers aim because showing this may bring the audience to believe that they are being lied to and that this side of the issue is the side that should be supported.

There are many ways to ensure you are writing good annotations. One way to do this is by focusing on the important aspects of the text. Don’t waste time trying annotate parts of the text that have little meaning or don’t support the main Idea of the text very well. Make notes of words you find confusing or don’t understand as this will help you think to go look them up later. Lastly summarize what you’ve read at the end of each section, this will help you to retain what you have read as well as making it easier to go back in the reading.