Silko’s Case Essay Sample

Does Silko admit positions about the topic that are different from her ain? What is Silko’s attitude towards those who hold different positions? Measure how good Silko includes and responds to an opposing point of position.

* Silko does briefly admit positions different from her ain and her attitude is negative toward them. She refers to immigration policies as racialist. She thinks US Government waste a batch of money seeking to shut the boundary line and it’s non working people still traversing the boundary line. She says that” the great migration within the Americas can non be stopped ; human existences are natural forces of the Earth. merely as rivers and air currents are natural forces.

Analyze and measure Silko’s credibleness and authority—her ETHOS entreaty. ( Review the notes for ETHOS in The Appeals booklet on Blackboard. ) Find specific illustrations in the text to back up your analysis and rating.

* The fact that Silko was raised on a reserve and has personal experience with boundary line patrol cheque points gives her essay credibleness. Silko and her comrade Gus were going south from Albuquerque. when they were stopped by the Border Patrol. The agents ordered them to step out of their auto. Silko said the she will ne’er bury that dark beside the main road. that she could feel a feeling of force and threat. She compares her experience to a study she read on the Argentine constabularies officers who became addicted to question. anguish. and the slaying that followed. She thought how easy it would be for the Border Patrol to hit us and go forth our organic structures and auto beside the main road. like so many organic structures found in these parts and ascribed to drug smugglers.

What are the strongest and most persuasive parts of Silko’s statement? Where is her argument weak and what suggestions do you hold for doing her statement more persuasive?

Silko’s most persuasive points are made when she describes how the boundary line patrol Canis familiaris seemed to detest her animal trainers and refused to function them. Besides when she compares the building of a steel wall along subdivisions of the boundary line with the “Iron Curtain” and once more when she describes the people on the cargo train demoing that people still move across the boundary line. Silko’s statement is weak that she doesn’t mentioned the affect that illegal immigrants put on taxpayers. Possibly if she can demo more US citizens are on public assistance or utilizing authorities aid so illegal immigrants that would do her statement more persuasive.

What are your reactions and inquiries sing the NARRATIVE manner of statement? ( Review the notes in the Kinds of Arguments booklet on Blackboard. ) As a manner of statement. make you happen it persuasive? What does or doesn’t do it work?

This illustration of narrative statement is persuasive. What makes it works is credibility of the author’s personal experience. but for that same ground it’s seems biased.

What were your inquiries and reactions as you read Silko’s try?

Silko negotiations about her personal experience with Border Patrol. but what about the drugs and arms and felons who are seeking to traverse the boundary line? She ne’er negotiations about that. My reaction as I read Silko’s essay it may be inconvenient and mortifying for some people but it’s for the protection of the state. because if regular people can traverse the boundary line. so what about felons and terrorists?

Comp IName:
Prof. Juel
Silko

Link to Silko’s essay ( the nexus is besides in the course of study that you can open on Blackboard ) : hypertext transfer protocol: //www. tucsonweekly. com/tw/09-26-96/cover. htm

Write or type your replies to the undermentioned inquiries and turn in your work for a class. Be clear in your statements and ratings. Use a mix of quotation marks and paraphrasis from the text to back up your analysis and ratings.

8 Read Silko’s essay. “The Border Patrol State. ” Identify her chief and secondary claims. name the primary grounds that she provides. and sum up some of the cardinal pieces of grounds that she provides.

* Silkos’s chief claim is that the United States authorities is still oppressing Native American people and denying them the right to go freely. One of her secondary claims is that the U. S. boundary line countries are like a “police state” where boundary line constabulary and in-migration functionaries routinely stop and detain people based on their visual aspect. Another secondary claim is that the boundary line with Mexico does non work and ne’er has. She says that people are a “natural force” and will go on to travel across the boundary line despite the 1000000s of dollars spent to halt them.

9 Evaluate Silko’s LOGOS entreaty. Are her grounds valid? Are her premises sensible and just? How convincing is the grounds she nowadayss? Is it dependable? Sufficient? Is it biased?

* Her grounds are valid. She grew up believing the freedom to travel was her right. but she experience otherwise. I don’t think all of her premises sensible and just. because she assumes that all Border Patrolman are unreasonably rude and angry because of her personal experience. Her grounds is pretty converting. dependable and sufficient. but I believe it is somewhat biased because of her ain personal experience. *

10 Describe Silko’s intended audience and the intent for her statement. What clues lead you to this decision? How persuasive do you believe Silko’s statement is to her intended audience?

* I believe Silko’s intended audience is the people of the United States and her intent is to back up more relaxed boundary line enforcement and in-migration policies. Her statement that during Spanish and Mexican regulation of the Southwest “no efforts were made to interfere with the flow of people and goods from South to North and North to South” is an indicant of this intent.