Take-Home Task:
Let’s Talk Rhetoric
Argument is a careful presentation of evidence to persuade a reader of the truth of a premise or a set of premises. At its most ethical, it would depend entirely on fact and sincere reasoning, but rhetoric also shapes argument and can be even more persuasive than evidence and reason. Most arguments blend reasoning and rhetoric to change readers’ minds.
A HIGHLY RHETORICAL ARGUMENT
By midnight SUN JAN 21, view the video called “Shocking Rat Experiment.” It’s a four-minute argument that makes many abstract claims with huge consequences, and which provides as evidence a summary of a single brutal animal experiment. The high-energy narration is delivered against “Game of Thrones” background music that is alternately soothing and portentous.
Among its rhetorical techniques:
- A vivid example
- A dubious analogy
- Implication, nuance, and suggestion
- Rhetorical questions
- Emotional appeals
- An urgent speaker
- Background music
The Task
By Midnight SUN JAN 21, use the Reply function on this page
to record your Rhetorical Analysis.
Return to class on MON JAN 22 ready to discuss.
Watch the video and monitor your reactions. Analyze the argument in a Reply to this assignment page. (You’ll have to have your WordPress username in order to participate.) As examples of questions you should consider while analyzing the argument, consider the following.
- While you’re watching, pay attention to times that you:
- Found yourself nodding in agreement
- Found yourself reacting strongly (in agreement OR disagreement)
- Found yourself nodding in agreement
- Did you become more or less convinced as the video continued?
- Could you summarize the argument in 25 words or fewer?
- What exactly does the author say the experiment proves?
- How persuasive is the argument?
- How did the author of the video persuade you?
- How did the author fail to persuade you?
- Should you be concerned that you responded to an argument that contains so little evidence?
- What huge risk did the author of the video take?
- Who is the Ideal Viewer for this argument?
- In other words, who is is most likely to persuade?
- Is there more than one Ideal Reader group?
- How exactly would the Ideal Reader respond if convinced by the argument?
- These are just recommendations. Your Analysis can range beyond my suggestions here. The best analyses undoubtedly WILL extend beyond my suggestions.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
While watching the video “Shocking rat experiment” I noticed myself reacting differently as the video went on. The more the video went, the more I noticed myself being more convinced.
The argument being made is that anything is possible if you believe it is. You are capable of anything if you think you can. If you give up or don’t think you are capable, then you won’t be able to do that task.
The author says that the experiment proves that you are capable of doing anything. The argument is very persuasive as the music and the speaker get you motivated and I found myself to be very motivated after watching it.
The ideal viewer for this argument is people who don’t believe in themselves. This will most likely persuade them as they don’t have any motivation but this video would give that motivation to them.
This video can really help a person. If someone is down on themselves or are in a bad spot, this video could change their minds. This video could make people inspired and want them to keep pushing. It could help to make people get up and change their bad habits and fix their mindsets.
LikeLike
This is a great start, EaglesFan, but I doubt it will be the last word. There’s so much to say about this little video.
For example, most likely the author would agree that the argument is “anything is possible if you believe it is,” but . . . do we learn that from the rats? The rats came to believe that circumstances might save them if they held out long enough. What is that, exactly? A belief in our own capabilities? Or a blind faith in intervention?
Does that prove that “that you are capable of doing anything”? Or something else? It’s funny, isn’t it, how hard this argument is to pin down once we look at it carefully?
Good rhetoric sweeps us along in its apparent logic.
I completely agree that one Ideal Audience for this piece are discouraged individuals who doubt their own ability. But it might be just as useful, even more so, to anyone who wants to “sell” the viewer a motivational course.
You don’t need to stand on your first impressions. Revision is the heart of this course, and I encourage you to Reply to my Reply with any other observations you wish to make before I grade the exercise.
LikeLike
I think that the domesticated rats tried their best to live as long as they could but the wild rats thought they had no chance so they gave up. it was only after they were saved that they tried to swim as long as they could. This shows maybe some people are independent and can believe in themselves and that’s enough. While others like the wild rats need a push or a little help before they believe in themselves. I think this experiment proves multiple things. It proves anyone is capable of anything but it also proves that some people want it more or work harder then others.It represents how some people try harder and work harder because they want more. They believe in themselves so that they can achieve what they want. It also proves that some people with a little bit of help or motivation can be just like those that already believe in themselves and work harder. This video can prove so many things about humans and how they act and how different mindsets can really affect someone. With the right mindset, humans can be like the rats and survive and try their absolute best to live and give everything they got.
LikeLike
The more we chat about the rats and their determination to live, the farther we get from the assignment, which is to analyze the rhetoric of the video. You find the message compelling, which is certainly understandable, EaglesFan, but why? How did the author manage to convince you of a truth about humans by offering you a skillfully summarized report about a rat experiment?
You might understandably think you’ve already spent more time on this little assignment than it’s worth, but the course is all about revision and second (and third, etc.) chances to improve your work. I’ll keep responding and re-grading as long as you want to play.
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
After Watching The “Shocking Rat Experiment” I felt I was really engaged with this video. What I saw in this video was The connection with Humans and rats. And while you think it is a big difference. Rats have lives just like Humans do. A lesson I took away from seeing this video was how strong our beliefs’ and our minds truly are. We control our Journey and our Path to become what we want to become. The hard part about the Journey and the Path is how much do we challenge ourselves along the way to be the best to reach the promise land. The Sky is the limit to what we can all achieve and greatness will be served. Anyone out there can be that Straight A Student or become really good at Playing a Sport. The Medicine to success is your willingness to drive yourself till you can’t go anymore. You can get motivated to want to do something great and impactful but Motivation is temporary. Discipline is what truly gets you to where you want to be and it’s all about being able to break out of this shell of motivation and make something a dream, turn into a reality. And what is so Powerful about the mind is you make all the decisions to what you want to do with your life. When you have all these goals and aspirations but not the long-term willingness to succeed for a greater future is when your mind will tell you stop. You start to get into your groove and all of a sudden your pushing yourself back because “it’s too challenging.” What you need to do is expand your capabilities and make whatever you think is impossible. Possible. They say Climbing Mount Everest is merely impossible yet it has been done before. So when you go for something but draw back because it’s “impossible.” Switch your mindset and go do it.
LikeLike
That’s impressive Rhetoric, Honge. You have obvious ability to write convincingly yourself. But you haven’t begun to complete the assignment, which was to analyze the Rhetoric of the example. Did the author of the video compel you to this sudden understanding you’ve expressed about the power of will? Or did you already feel inclined to credit Drive and Discipline for success? You can tell me anything you want about weakness and passivity, about power and drive, but it doesn’t answer the question(s). How did the author of this video earn your passionate alliance in four minutes?
Grade 75/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
This video failed to persuade me since the arguments or rather the theories that the author uses based on the rat experiment there is no concrete connection between what really happened with the rats and the whole “believe in yourself” speech. First of all, there are three psychological concepts that I had in mind throughout the video. Two of them are based on the rat experiment (theoretically). These concepts are “nature vs nurture” and the “survival of the fittest”. In this experiment, there was a domesticated rat and a wild rat. According to nature vs nurture, nature is how far our physical abilities can take us and nurture is how external factors shape us as people. This may explain how the domesticated (nurture) rat was able to swim for much longer than the wild (nature) rat. The second concept is based on the second part of the experiment where the wild rat is taken out of the water, dried, and then submerged again. This time the rat knew how to swim for longer, not because it was aware that it was going to be taken out, but because it had adapted to its environment as “survival of the fittest” indicates. The third and final concept is what the video is really talking about, which is the power of self-efficacy that reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s own motivation, behavior, and social environment. There is nothing wrong with that, it’s just that using an experiment adapting it, and making it persuasive takes away its credibility.
As I mentioned before, this video failed to persuade me at the time when he mentioned the experiment since there was no clear evidence that one topic was related to the other, and when he said that they reached the conclusion that “death is more psychological than physical”. The author took a BIG risk by saying this since this argument without context could be distorted. The author’s main purpose was to persuade the audience to believe in themselves and have hope, but to say that death is more based on psychology and not believing in themselves than in physical conditions that can kill you is extreme.
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, ILoveBees. You’ve managed to tell me both THAT the video failed to persuade you and WHY it failed.
A crucial question about persuasive writing is whether Rhetoric is more likely to persuade readers inclined to AGREE with the thesis or more inclined to DISAGREE with the thesis.
Obviously, readers inclined to agree don’t need much persuading, but their enthusiasm for an idea can be supercharged by rhetoric, which appeals to their emotional state.
Readers inclined to disagree with a thesis, or those who are neutral, are two types: those who require evidence and those who require a justification to form an opinion.
Your type, as I see it, is: Inclined to Disagree, Needs Evidence.
We could have a further discussion about why you’re reluctant to accept messages like the Rat Video example: maybe you just mistrust motivational speeches in general.
For you, the analogy (faithful rats survive : faithful humans thrive) doesn’t work. You try to detail why, but I get confused there.
1. Nature vs Nurture. What did the domesticated rats learn, or what behavior did they adopt, that made them better survivors than un-nurtured rats?
2. Survival of the Fittest. How did being rescued from drowning “adapt” a rat “to its environment”? Did it learn how to achieve rescue?
3. Self-efficacy. Your objection here is unclear: “Using an experiment adapting it, and making it persuasive takes away its credibility.” Is your objection that the experiment isn’t a good illustration of the concept?
Clearly you weren’t persuaded that “death is more psychological than physical.” Were you neutral on that position before you watched the video? Antagonistic to it? Why are you NOT the Ideal Reader or Ideal Viewer here?
So far, you’re first to address the question of Big Risk. You say “The argument without context could be distorted.” I take that to mean that you found the relationship between the example and the thesis sketchy at best. Is that accurate?
Who would be more likely than you to be persuaded by this video to enthusiastically embrace Self-Efficacy as a personal quest? In other words, who’s the Ideal Viewer?
Grade 90/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
I think this video was a basic self-help advice clip with sappy motivational music in order to make you feel inspired and view more of this person’s content. The actual implication of the psychological nature of rats and/or mammals in general is something that us as non-scientists/biologists probably cannot properly determine from this specific elementary explanation of a single study. It seems as though he essentially expresses the same idea that hope and motivation enables you to persevere in different semantical ways. Sure, I suppose this is a valid idea, but that’s all it is. Several basic questions still need to be addressed, such as: Has this study been repeated? peer reviewed? can this behavior be applied to other mammals and/or humans? Even if the story of the experiment was meant to act as a metaphor or an analogy for hope and motivation, then that just downgrades its validity even more, because then it just becomes just that, a comparison meant to explain the idea of hope and perseverance (which isn’t exactly needed because it’s a simple idea). To sum it up, I don’t think this creator meant for this to be a serious claim, rather a way to get views. And if it was meant to be serious, then it’s very empty of content and evidence.
LikeLike
I resonate with most of what you say here, Temporal, and I’m very happy to see the first highly critical analysis of a piece that has until your review been received quite positively. From what you say about the apparent motive for posting the video, how would you describe the Ideal Reader from the author’s perspective? It clearly was not meant for you, but for whom? If the impulse to publish was commercial, and even if you think it was less than sincere or altruistic, do you admire the techniques, the approach, the “rhetoric”?
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
While watching the video “Shocking Rat Experiment”, I found myself having mixed emotions. I agreed with the part about “believing in yourself/capability…etc”, I don’t agree that there is a connection between this experiment and people believing in themselves. A risk was that the author made a connection but didn’t give evidence to support
This video is very persuasive because of the speaker and music. It’s a convincing video but you have to think about it more to realize that maybe this author isn’t 100% correct.
The author is trying to say the experiment proves that you can do anything if you believe in yourself. If you believe you are capable, you are capable. If you don’t believe you’re capable, you’re not capable
The ideal viewer would be people who doubt themselves. This video could definitely help them believe that they can do it and that they’re capable of doing it. By watching the video, it can help them and point them in the direction of growth.
So, in conclusion… I don’t agree with the video and the author failed to show evidence of the connection.
LikeLike
Thank you for being first to address the “risk(s)” the author took, DogLover. You make a reasonable objection by pointing out the slim relevance of the rat study to human self-efficacy.
I’d like to think that your ambivalence about whether or not the video is persuasive comes down to “it’s well crafted and sweeps viewers along in its rush to a conclusion, but on reflection the argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.” Actually, you did say almost exactly that. I probably didn’t need to paraphrase you at all.
I wonder if you would credit the theory that the Ideal Viewer might be someone willing to spend money on further motivational messages. Does that sound possible?
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
In the video, “Shocking Rat Experiment”, the author’s main goal is to get his point across. Which is if you believe you are capable you are capable, and if you don’t believe you are capable then you are not capable. Which is a pretty simple concept to grasp.
I did find myself strongly agreeing with the author as the video went on. In the beginning, I was a bit skeptical because I was confused as to what rats had to do with the point of the video, but as we got to the end I understood the connection that was being made between the two.
The author persuaded me because of his tone and because of the music in the background. I didn’t see anyone else talk about the music so I feel a bit weird for saying it, but for me, that was a major factor. It was so upbeat and encouraging. I felt empowered to do better and to believe that I was capable in myself.
I honestly am a little bit concerned with how I agreed to an argument that contains such little evidence, but I do think I did only because of how I feel about the topic the author is trying to convey to the listener. Before watching this video I already had the thought process of “If you don’t believe in yourself you aren’t capable.”
The people who are most likely to be persuaded by this argument would have to be people who don’t believe in themselves and need that push to do better. There is nothing wrong with that though and this video can be that push for people who need it.
LikeLike
I agree the music is a major component of the video experience and that it functions exactly like a movie soundtrack to evoke an emotional reaction. You seem ambivalent about who the video might persuade, and you’re right to be. Persuasion can mean at least two things. For viewers who already believe in the power of faith or self-actualization, the video can provide a powerful confirmation of their beliefs and might “persuade” them to nurture that worldview, share it with others, join a group dedicated to promoting it. Right? For more skeptical viewers who believe talent, native ability, positive youthful experiences, whatever, are better indicators of capability than positive self-image, the video might be a wakeup call, a turning point. They might stop letting their limitations hold them back from total effort. You seem more comfortable with the first group than the second, but could a good video be persuasive to both groups? Which one is this video more likely to persuade, and how?
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
While watching the video for the first time I found myself feeling compelled to listen to the argument the narrator was presenting. He had a rushed tone of speaking paired with intense background music that kept me on the edge of my seat. He spoke like a man who knew what he was talking about and truly believed it. He claimed that if we held on to the belief of our capabilities, we could achieve anything. It was a comparison in likeness of behavior between rats and humans; nature vs nurture. However, revising my first impression, there was no evidence behind the differences between a domestic and wild rat. Why did the domestic rats hold out longer and what exactly was the goal of the experiment? How did the rats “adapt” to their environment if outside forces took them out of the water? While this could be considered a powerful message for some people who hold weak morale or drive, it simply doesn’t convince me. I interpreted the message as holding blind faith to the idea that if you believe in something enough then you could achieve it. That someone would “scoop me out of the water” if I held out long enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I share your doubts about the lesson as presented, SleepyCat. It hints that wild rats gave up because they had no history of having been helped by others. They had no hope of rescue and accepted their fate. What’s the point of struggling for an hour only to die anyway? Whereas . . . again without saying so directly, the domesticated rats must have learned to expect assistance and therefore held out for rescue. After all, someone’s been providing them meals their entire lives, right? Isn’t that the hint the author drops without being specific? But that’s not really the takeaway message, is it? The “enlightened rats” don’t necessarily believe in their own capabilities. They’re just more likely to expect support and intervention. How is that “achieving whatever I set my mind to”?
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
The video titled “Shocking Rat Experiment” was honestly a mini roller coaster for my morals and logistics. From the beginning to the end, I was un-enthusiastic to hear about how the experiments were conducted and the unfortunate results of some of the animals tested on. I don’t necessarily think it was hope that drove the domesticated rats to continue on for longer then the wild ones. It may just be adaptation to the situation, forcing the rats into a “Do or Die” thinking. Because of this, it was a bit hard for me to make a strong connection with the example the author chose to use. However, as the video went on, the author started to sound persuasive with the point he was trying to make. Hopelessness is the result of failure.
When it comes to the persuasiveness of the video, I believe the excessive usage of effects, emotion, bolder text, emphasis of expression, and word choice helped convince the viewer on a psychological and motivational level. I undoubtedly think that a message with good intention was presented but the use of the rat experiment was a bit inessential.
The ideal viewer for this kind of video is one who need’s a “pick me up”. Normally people who seek motivation do this to boost their self confidence, open new perspectives on their aspirations, while also providing a sense of community with the connection of experiences with the speaker and others. As beneficial as the outcomes could’ve been from this video, the use of the extreme experiment and stating “Deaths are more psychological then physical” took away the meaning and purpose behind the advice itself. The ideal reader that agrees would respond with positive feedback, maybe using the mindset as a pro rather than a con. You can always have a good mindset and intention of something but that doesn’t make the sources used any better.
In conclusion, I will have to agree to disagree with the author.
LikeLike
Bless you for pointing out that Readers/Viewers spend most of our time arguing with the text and fighting against the rhetoric, NatureChild.
We DON’T WANT TO CHANGE OUR MINDS!
New ideas are painful. Abandoning old beliefs is almost impossible. When doubt creeps into our worldview, the ground shifts beneath our feet, and we get dizzy. We reach out for familiar handrails.
The author took a big risk basing the entire message on an experiment that deliberately killed animals after subjecting them to torture, all to prove a dubious point. I think you never found your footing after that initial shock. It made you dubious and resistant.
For you, the rhetoric was the only persuasive element you credit, right? But even though you don’t find the Rat Example compelling, you don’t turn away from the “message with a good intention.” That intention, I imagine, was to provide moral support and hope for viewers who are feeling helpless. Does that summarize your reaction?
Grade 90/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
The story profoundly resonates with the human experience as it deftly weaves together the struggles faced by both domesticated and wild rats. The author highlights the significant influence of belief and mindset on resilience through evocative language. The emotional richness with which the rat experiment is portrayed lends credibility to the limited evidence, allaying initial concerns about its scarcity and justifying the risk associated with depending solely on animal research. The tale develops into an engrossing monument to the tenacity and resolve of people.
My reaction to the story’s message about the strength of belief was strong, and I found myself nodding along with it as I read it. As events progressed, I grew increasingly convinced, especially about the critical role that mindset plays in survival. In summary, the story emphasizes the impact of belief on resiliency and determination by using a rat experiment to vividly illustrate its power. It also provides a poignant lesson in human perseverance.
The study demonstrates the strong correlation between belief and endurance by showing that rats with a positive outlook, similar to domesticated ones, had noticeably longer survival times. Through an engaging story, emotional resonance, and a clear connection between the rat experiment and human behavior, the argument deftly relates the rat experiment to human resilience and determination. The poignant description of the rat experiment lends credibility and resonance, so despite doubts about the evidence, the author’s decision to take a chance on relying solely on one animal study paid off.
The story is a potent reminder of how people can overcome obstacles by adopting a positive outlook, which is ideal for those who are looking for motivation and inspiration. It speaks to people who are interested in psychology, personal development, or motivational stories. It makes people feel good about themselves and encourages them to take on obstacles head-on.
LikeLike
First of all, Snowman, this is brilliant.
Second, you too, most likely, are brilliant.
Third, I would not want to read this description.
Fourth, with a few tweaks, this reply can be both brilliant and readable.
This Reply is hard to read because it buries your opinions. It talks “around and about” what you want to claim without actually making claims. We eventually find out what you believe, if we get that far, but most readers won’t get that far. I, who read you out of love and commitment, am the exception.
What’s the difference between making claims and “talking about” claims? Compare these sets of sentences, one each from you and one from me.
My reaction to the story’s message about the strength of belief was strong, and I found myself nodding along with it as I read it.
—My reaction to the story’s message that faith can overcome despair and even imminent death was strong, and I found myself nodding along with it as I read it.
As events progressed, I grew increasingly convinced, especially about the critical role that mindset plays in survival.
—As the comparison progressed between hopeful rats and those who had no reason to believe I grew increasingly convinced that a hopeful mindset kept rats alive.
In summary, the story emphasizes the impact of belief on resiliency and determination by using a rat experiment to vividly illustrate its power.
—In summary, the story emphasizes the power of belief to make us more resilient by using a rat experiment to vividly illustrate the life-sustaining value of faith
It also provides a poignant lesson in human perseverance.
—By analogy, it also provides a poignant lesson in human perseverance.
You might dispute how I characterized the claims I think you meant to make, but I hope you’ll agree that the revised version expresses opinions rather than leaving readers to guess.
My reaction to the story’s message that faith can overcome despair and even imminent death was strong, and I found myself nodding along with it as I read it. As the comparison progressed between hopeful rats and those who had no reason to believe, I grew increasingly convinced that a hopeful mindset kept rats alive. In summary, the story emphasizes the power of belief to make us more resilient by using a rat experiment to vividly illustrate the life-sustaining value of faith. By analogy, it also provides a poignant lesson in human perseverance.
Your reactions, please?
Feel free to revise your entire response in a Reply below.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I value your perceptive analysis, which highlights the distinction between discussing and stating unequivocally. Your examples improve clarity by expressing opinions in a more straightforward manner. Your analysis emphasizes how important it is to be explicit when expressing opinions, and I concur that the changes make the text easier to read. Your changes help to a more direct expression of opinions while also successfully highlighting the message of the story. To put it briefly, your input is insightful, and I concur that it is important to voice opinions honestly in order to make them impactful and readable.
LikeLike
Nicely stated, Snowman. Your opinions come through loud and clear.
🙂
Grade 90/100
Grade improvement is always available following significant revisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While watching the “Shocking rat experiment”, I started to agree with the speaker more and more as it went on. I started reflecting on my own life and thinking deeply about certain things I do and how I could push myself more. watching the video made me start having motivation to start having hope again. The rat’s push was the idea that they were going to be saved so it started making me think what would be the push for me to keep going even when I want to give up. To memorize the argument in 25 words or less I would say motivation is not something we always have, but hope is. As long as there is hope we can continue.
Watch this video sparks interest at first with the random experiment he chooses to use rats causing the watcher to be captured. Once he starts speaking it is with a tone of voice that sounds like a coach ready to want more for you. He sounds like he is charismatic in a hard way it makes you start being persuaded to believe that he cares wanting you to start to have hope and change. The argument started becoming more and more persuasive as the video went on. The author also used suspenseful, loud, and heavy background music to want to make the watcher start feeling everything he is saying, hopeful and to keep going.
This video would mainly be for people who want to better themselves. People who may feel like they want to do better, be better, and have better will watch this and want to start a change at that moment. Depending on the response I think also shows the mindset you have. The way I responded feeling more motivated after and wanting to have more hope I think would be a good way to respond because I want better for myself. People with a closed mindset who do not want change may watch this and think it is worthless and feel nothing but annoyance because of the constant negativity they feel.
This reading is best for people who want to change and do better for themselves. a lot of the time people who want change lack the feeling of hope because the moment they fail they allow themselves to fall and not want to get back up and stay stuck. This video gives hope that you may fall once but as long as you keep trying with the hope that you will make it starts driving you to continue and see success.
LikeLike
What you’re doing here is making a comparison between two personality types, Gymrat. The clearer you can be about that basic strategy, the better. We could be blunt and call the types Winners and Losers, but what if the rats that paddled for an hour are Champions and those that gave up quickly are just Scrubs? How would that help readers follow your argument?
FIRST PARAGRAPH:
While watching the “Shocking rat experiment,” I realized that I agree with the author that the world is divided into Champions and Scrubs.” Reflecting on my own life awakened my motivation to be a Champion. The rats succeeded by believing that they were going to be saved so I felt motivated to keep going even when I want to give up. To summarize the argument, I would say , “Champions don’t always have motivation, but they always have hope. As long as there is hope, we can continue.”
LAST PARAGRAPH:
This reading is best for Champions, or for Scrubs who wish to become Champions. Often, people who want to live like Champions lose hope. The moment they fail, they allow themselves to fall and stay down This video gives hope that as long as you leave your Scrub mentality behind and act like a Champion you can achieve success.
Categories like Scrubs and Champions keep readers attached to your argument, Gymrat. They help you make clear comparisons economically, too. Plus, they’re fun.
Your reactions, please?
Feel free to revise your entire response—a second draft—in a Reply below.
LikeLike
While watching the “Shocking Rat Experiment,” I realized that I agree with the author that the world is divided into Champions and Scrubs.” Reflecting on my own life awakened my motivation to become a Champion. The rats succeeded by believing that they were going to be saved so I felt motivated to keep going even when I wanted to give up. To summarize the argument, I would say, “Champions don’t always have motivation, but they always have hope. As long as there is hope, we can continue.”
Watching this video sparks interest at first with the random experiment he chooses to use rats causing the watcher to be captured. Once he starts speaking it is with a tone of voice that sounds like a coach ready to want more for you. He sounds like he is charismatic in a hard way it makes you start being persuaded to believe that he cares wanting you to start to have hope and change. The argument started becoming more and more persuasive as the video went on. The author also used suspenseful, loud, and heavy background music to want to make the watcher start feeling everything he is saying, hopeful and to keep going.
This reading is best for Champions, or for Scrubs who wish to become Champions. People nowadays want to live like Champions but lose hope. The moment they fail, they allow themselves to fall and stay down This video gives hope that as long as you leave your Scrub mentality behind and act like a Champion you can achieve success.
LikeLike
Nice work, Gymrat. Thanks for playing along. 🙂
Grade 95/100
You’ve earned grade improvement by making revisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While viewing the “Rat Experiment “, I was not truly sure what to expect when watching it. As I kept listening it became much more engaging and interesting. This video takes you int a deep dive and insight of an experiment dealing with wild and domesticated rats as well as the human mind and the mentality to keep pursuing and keep going.
When I first viewed this video I was confused on why the domesticated rats were better swimmers than the wild rats and it became clear. The reason the wild rats sank so early was because they did not have any guidance or motivation keeping them from swimming. The domesticated rats were treated and taken care of and were fight Southey can be helped by the scientists unlike the wild rats.
Something that the scientists also discovered, was how the wild rats once they were about to sink they were instead saved and then treated and rested by the scientists. Once rested the wild rats then swam for 40-60 hours after they originally swam for 15 minutes.
This experience was to show the mentality of someone can change and you control your path in life. It was trying to show people can be stuck in situations and scenarios but if they believe they can overcome and achieve them, they will.
This video was shown that mentality is very important and can cause you to succeed. If your mentality were to die, you yourself would almost already be gone.
LikeLike
Your analysis doesn’t fulfill the assignment, BreakingBad. The instructions (complete with lots of sample questions to consider) were to analyze the Rhetoric of the video, not to describe what it communicated about rat behavior.
I can’t grade it at all until I know who you are, but for the time being, it would earn a 70/100. You, however, will start out with a 00/100 unless I can figure out who you are.
Grade improvements are always available with significant revisions. Once you figure out how to Log In and get your analysis on the record, you can Reply to this post again and earn a respectable grade.
LikeLike
Do you want to accept the first-draft grade, or do you want to revise?
LikeLike
While watching the video “Shocking Rat Experiment”, I was surprised to find myself so engaged in not only the video, but the way the author spoke. For starters, the video I feel gave off a persuasive tone in the music that was chosen. As the author spoke, and the music played in the background I found myself more drawn to the words the author spoke and felt it added more of a dramatic tone to what he was saying.
The author created a sense of upper class and lower class people in my opinion. He compares rats that are not helped on a day to day basis such as people in poverty to rats that are taken care of on a day to day basis such as upper class people.
On the topic of the experiment, I do not agree with how he got the point across. When you look at it from a statistical point of view he for one is not using a large enough sample to create a real point, nor an ethical point. He seems to be speaking motivationally towards people, yet his controlled group in which he used was rats.
My takeaway from the video is that yes your mind is more powerful than you think. By using the strength of your mind you can do things that you may have thought were impossible. However the demeanor in which he did it and the motivation behind using the experiment to convey his ideas I do not agree with.
LikeLike
That’s a strong first draft, HockeyFan. You can be satisfied with your initial grade, or you can revise it by telling me more about the risks that the author took in presenting his material and who the Ideal Reader(s) might be. You found yourself persuaded. What is it about you that made you persuadable? What would have been a better tactic to fully win you over? Etc.
Grade 85/100
Grade improvement always available with significant revisions.
LikeLike
While watching this video the speaker had me very focused on what he was trying to persuade. I found myself agreeing to a lot of what he was saying. His tone was very strong which made feel motivated while watching. The speaker had a great way of keeping me convinced throughout the video.
The speaker made a risk by using a sensitive topic like animal abuse. This was a great example to prove his point though. If you take your emotions out of it and just try to understand what the speaker is trying to prove. It could be very helpful for someone in need of motivation. He basically said that the rats that did not have any hope died quick. The rats that had hope that they were going to get rescued lasted a lot longer. He using this example to help make people know that they have hope. That you can be great everyday and have goals.
The author did an amazing job in persuading me because I want to succeed in life. This video is directed towards really anyone who watches it. It can be for people who are down on themselves and are on the edge of giving up. They could watch this video and it could possibly make them inspired. It can also be for viewers that are doing just ok in life and could make more of it. This video does a very good job of persuading the viewer.
LikeLike
I’m quite impressed with what you’ve done here, RavensFan. You covered a lot of ground.
I want to push back on one claim you made, that “This video is directed towards really anyone who watches it.” My problem with this assertion is that it will lead to the idea that an argument—more importantly, the specific method of delivering an argument—will have universal appeal. That’s just not true, as I will try to demonstrate in future lessons. Give it some thought if you want to consider revising for grade improvement. Would it be more persuasive to a deeply logical/analytical viewer or to one more likely to be persuaded by an emotional appeal? That sort of thing. Just an example. Would it appeal equally to someone who needs support or to someone who wants to provide support? Would it work as a sales pitch to someone who wanted a mentor/counselor/motivational guru, and was willing to pay for it?
Food for thought.
Grade 88/100
Grade improvement always available following significant revisions.
LikeLike
Given that I was viewing this video differently that it’s intended audience, I had less feelings toward the overall message which I would normally agree with. Instead I listened for the author’s techniques used for persuasion. What stood out most to me was his tone. Almost aggressive but very similar to what you would hear in a typical motivation video/audio.
The video’s intended audience seems to be those who have less faith in themselves, or those who tend to give up quickly. The goal, to make them feel as if there is a higher group that has more faith or hope, that may be stronger. I can see how the influential tone and motivational background music may play an extreme role of persuading the audience as the video continues. Personally, as the video continued, I found myself to be less persuaded as the author continued to repeat the same phrases almost like they were trying to jar it in your head. I got tired of hearing the same thing. (but also picked up on the repetition)
The overall argument is very believable given the evidence from the experiment and it’s almost common sense to not give up in a life or death situation. The author does a good job at using the above mentioned tactics to keep the audience inclined and persuaded.
One last thing I picked up on was more geared toward the experiment. The author doesn’t have a solid experiment. Just unethically drowning rats? Then assuming their reactions will be similar to humans? Not too sure how strong this evidence would be without the help of the other convincing tactics used in the video.
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of your skeptical eye, ExcellentStudent. (Ears, too, in this case.) 🙂
You’ve done a good job of casting doubt on the applicability of the “experiment” to human nature. You’ve driven a wedge between the facts and the conclusions the author draws from them. And so on. You’ve already earned a decent grade.
Two things:
1) Please give me a chance to help you adopt a clearer diction. Your sentences are messy and therefore not as convincing as they should be.
2) I wonder if it occurred to you that the author is casting himself as the “life raft” that could save a viewer from drowning . . . provided that hopeless rat signed up for a course of additional motivation.
Does the author’s/speaker’s motivation matter to the argument? You tell me. I know what my answer is.
Grade 90/100
Grade improvement always available following significant revision.
LikeLike
In summary, the power of beliefs shape how quickly we give up (or not). This video presents this rat experiment in an interesting manner. At first, I believed the video was going to be four minutes and 35 seconds of an admonishment toward the researchers who performed this study by using words like, “unforgiveable… disgusting… brutal study” when in reality the video turned into a motivational speech about not losing hope.
I really felt inspired myself and moved when the speaker explained the final result regarding the wild rats. When they were pulled out of the water, given a breather, only to be thrown back in to tread water, then persevered to last 40-60 hours as opposed to 15 minutes the first time. This manifested into a powerful soliloquy by the speaker making absolute statements such as “Giving up life is a choice by the thoughts you continue to feed your own mind… You decide how far you go in life by the thoughts you continue to feed your own mind.” Whether one believes these statements or not, the way the video was sequenced accompanied by the music in the background, these statements appeared to be truer rather than not due it coming after the resiliency of the wild rats in part two of the experiment was shared. The ensuing statements were “put on a tee” to drive home the motivational speaker’s viewpoint.
This was not going through my mind at the time, but I’m curious to what someone’s response would be to that video playing devil’s advocate. Not only is it extremely hard not to be moved by that video, but the takeaway about hope was proved through that experiment. The wild rats resiliency was showcased once they received hope that they’d be saved amidst of trying to stay afloat in the water.
I also noted the emphasis on empowering words in the back half of the video. Specifically, there was a statement that read “never… EVER lose hope!” Two things stand out about the rhetoric there in that being the enlarged “EVER” and the emphatic exclamation point at the end. There are countless uses of rhetoric that take the summary of the experiment and exacerbate it.
LikeLike
Brilliant, Holistic.
I love that you both recognize the power of the rhetoric AND admit that you are moved by it while deeply distrusting it. That nuanced reaction means you’re both paying attention and PAYING ATTENTION!
May I ask you to consider one more thing? The author/speaker doesn’t exactly credit the “convert” rats with FAITH IN THEMSELVES, does he? They don’t suddenly believe that their mad paddling will save them, right? Instead, he suggests that they keep swimming out of faith that if they persist, someone else will pull them from the water. Who benefits from that argument? The rat? The person who wants to emulate the rat? Or the person who wants to emulate the savior?
Grade 90/100
Grade improvement always available following significant revision.
LikeLike
I have mixed reactions to the “Shocking Rat Experiment”. While I do think that the message about motivating yourself, understanding self sufficiency, and being able to push forward, I don’t think that the experiment had any type of validity or relevance to human life.
The author’s primary aim is to emphasize a straightforward concept: believing in one’s own abilities.
I assumed what the video would be about as I had seen similar ones in the past. Though I understand the point the author was trying to make, the “experiment” had very little supporting information to back up the idea.
While watching, I caught myself falling for the words of the author while knowing that the argument was pretty weak. This shows how easily persuaded human being can be.
LikeLike
This was me! Accidentally posted anonymously.
LikeLike
Not sure why all the replies are anonymous, but it’s VanillaWoods64:)
LikeLike
You state a completely valid objection/hesitation about the lack of factual evidence for the claims the author makes, VanillaWoods. But you don’t do much else. I appreciate that you admit to being vulnerable to a strong rhetorical approach, but I’m unclear what it was about the messaging style that makes it so persuasive.
Grade 83/100
Grade improvement always available following significant revision.
(You’ll probably want to start a new Reply when you figure out to how Log In first. 🙂 )
One more thing: While I appreciate that you’ve identified yourself as VanillaWoods, you haven’t told me yet who VanillaWoods is. You must owe me an email or a text.
LikeLike
Before even watching the video I was predisposed to be skeptical about what it said. I was skeptical because the video was presented to us as making “many abstract claims” and using a “dubious analogy”. The video is also given to us as an example of how rhetoric is used to make an argument rather than reason.
The video describes a series of experiments on rats, one group domesticated the other wild. The experiments tested to see which group could swim the longest. The domesticated rats swam for much longer than the wild rats who gave up after a few minutes, however, the researchers found that once the wild rats had been taken out of the water and then put back in, they swam for just as long as the domesticated rats. The video claims that the wild rats were able to swim more on their second attempt because they now had hope that they would be rescued.
The speaker in the video uses the story as an example of the power of hope. He states that hope and belief in oneself can help one go past things that seem impossible. This is a position that I already agreed with before watching the video, Hope can be immensely powerful, although it has limits, you can’t jump across the Grand Canyon with the power of hope.
The video is quite clearly a motivational video made to encourage people who lack belief in themselves, and in that regard, I can respect the intention, however, the claims he makes about the power of hope are too broad and the evidence he uses is weak.
LikeLike
I am for some reason listed as anonymous, but this comment was made by Toetio.
LikeLike
Toetio, I greatly admire that you factored into your analysis the language I used to present it to you. That’s just good strategy—flattering to the assignment-writer’s sense of value, and responsive to his (my) expectations.
May I set up just one more expectation as an experiment to see how you respond? You say, “He states that hope and belief in oneself can help one go past things that seem impossible.” My problem with this claim is that it suggests the rats suddenly believed their own efforts would suffice. My reading of the experiment is that the rats probably never expected to thrive on their own merits. And being briefly “rescued” only to be put back into the water STILL didn’t give them faith in themselves. It merely suggested that IF THEY GOT HELP they might survive. The author/speaker never acknowledges the agency of OTHERS as part of the equation. Why?
Grade 92/100.
Grade improvement always available following significant revision.
LikeLike
While I was watching the “Shocking Rat Experiment ” video I was understanding and agreeing with the argument being made between humans and rats. The argument being made was that if you put your mind to anything and don’t let negative thoughts take over, then you can succeed with anything. The video was pushing how mindset is everything, and how anything can be achieved if you have faith within yourself.
The rats within in this video proved this point through the two trials that were done. The second time around after the wild rat had time to collect itself and have a break mentally, it ended up seceding the task and swimming in the body of water for an extended time period. This is showing how through the use of drive and perseverance, you can achieve things that are unimaginable. For humans, I can connect this argument with mentally challenging sports. It is said how sports are extremely psychological and how the mind gives up before the body. For example, runners most times have more in them than they think they do, and if they had more faith in themselves they could push themselves beyond their limits. This is proved with the rats in this experiment because of how the second time around the rat did psychologically better and pushed through.
As the video went on, I got more persuaded as to believing the author’s argument, due to watching the wild rat succeeding at the end. I truthfully believe that the argument is true, that resilience and perseverance can get you far. Also I was heavily persuaded by the usage of the music and words across the screen, since it made me more engaged. How this experiment failed to persuade me on the other hand is how this was just one experiment. I need more evidence proving the argument of the video with perhaps other animals to ensure this argument is true. A risk the author of this video made was by saying how “sudden death occurs when we lose hope.” I do not agree with this quote and I feel this was a risk that the author made by saying this statement, but I do see why they said it in regards to the rats.
This argument overall could be tailored to anyone watching this video, but could help out individuals who feel like they have lost hope and are failing at something. This video message is powerful and could help people with changing their mindset in regards to persevering through challenges. Overall, the connection between the rats and humans in this video are valid and show how overcoming obstacles is all mental.
LikeLike
Very thoughtful and thorough, Username. It makes a persuasive argument using a powerful analogy. It’s not so much an analysis of the Rhetoric, though, as it is a reflection on the work. Shows real promise.
Grade 85/100
LikeLike
I believe in the central core of the message which is to never give up. The assertion that if a person simply choses not to give up on something then that means they can do anything. It’s manipulative in that way, using words to talk around certain limitations people may face in order to push ones own belief. It’s a very important tool to utilize if someone wants to bend a person’s way of thinking ever so slightly. Because most people are already ready to believe that if they put their mind to do something it will get done or will happen.
Through out the video i felt that the message of the video made sense. If a person (or rat) could survive that long after being held for a few minutes then I can do anything i put my mind to. Though as I’m writing this I realized that their core message was being somewhat under cut with the scientist taking the rat out of the water to see if that will produce better results. If it really only took will power then it would stand to reason that some other wild rats would be able to rescue themselves as well. Though this doesn’t happen in the experiment, instead the rat has to be taken out of the water in order to do better. Or has had to have lived a somewhat sheltered life due to domestication. In that way their not doing it on their own, they have some sort of support system in place to assist them in their endeavors.
Though with the various types of rhetoric on the screen this detail can get lost in the fog, the text on the screen could encourage one to not fully think about the inconsistency being presented. This could cause the ideal watcher to get sucked into the motivational nature without fully realizing the actual content presented, like I had when I first watched the video.
The speech felt like one a football coach would give to their team if they weren’t doing that good in the first half of the game. The method of relentless support could prove to be very useful for ensuring a team’s survival.
LikeLike
Very clever, ThatPersonOverThere.
I like that you detailed the many ways in which the argument failed and then casually dismissed that conclusion because the script is just “so many details” that sound good but don’t make sense. But that doesn’t matter while the Motivator is “willing everybody” into agreement with his commanding voice.
Grade 88/100
LikeLike
When watching the video posted “Shocking Rat Experiment” I wasn’t really intrigued in the beginning of the video. I expected it to be one of the lame videos to watch but as time went on I saw that it was getting interesting by the second.
The argument that was shown in the video was about the rats willing to fight for their lives by willing to swim for a long while accepting to be saved in the end and these were the domesticated rats. The wild rats gave up in minutes because they were not strong and didn’t have the willpower to go on and not stop.
Generally I would agree with the author on this one but in my opinion I think the reason why the wild rats would not live and give up is because they weren’t in the position of being domesticated or even given the chance to be. So I believe that if they were domesticated they would have try to survive and would have lived but because they didn’t have that chance they gave up. So the author trying to relate that to real life doesn’t make much sense to me because it really depends on the circumstances that are around you and that you have as well.
In conclusion I was able to understand the author reasoning and point of this video and how he was trying to persuade the viewer but For me I believe it comes down to what you have and the circumstances that your in for example it the roles were reversed and it was humans instead of rats and the two people were drowning one knew how to swim, one didn’t but the one who didn’t never got the chance to learn how to and the other did. So now how would that be fair because we know the outcome no matter how hard they try they wouldn’t know the basics or fundamentals of swimming so that’s why I don’t really agree with this message.
LikeLike
This is fair work, Gamer, and I appreciate that you’ve posted it long after it was assigned, but it doesn’t truly respond to the assignment instructions. Your job was not to argue with the author or refute his claims, but to analyze the techniques, the rhetoric, the style of language and persuasiveness.
Your claims are not very clear. For example, you say:
It sounds as if you’re making some sort of argument, but a reader will get no idea from your observations what advantage you think domestication might be.
Later, when you make the analogy to humans, you cite the ability to swim as an advantage some humans have over others when they find themselves in deep water. So, how does knowing how to swim relate to pushing oneself to the limit for the sake of survival?
Drafts can always be revised. Regrades are always available following significant revisions.
Grade 75/100
LikeLike
In the rat video it talks about scientists in the 1950’s completing an experiment between a domesticated rat and a wild rat to see which one would try its hardest to survive in drowning waters. It was to be believed and was shown that the rat who was wild would try to keep swimming to survive 40-60 hours without giving up. While the rat who was domesticated would only try to survive 15 minutes the first round. Now the whole point in this is because to not obviously give us a cool fact about rats trying to survive for a certain amount of time, but to educate us based on our decisions as human and how our mind is warped into this state where you think to yourself what will it take to survive in this society and what will convince my mind to just rest, and give up on its self and my body. Though the key detail and the message from this video is not about rats but the idea that we can compare ourselves to two of the same species of rats but the only difference in the environment they evolved in overtime and how its environment is a reflection of what’s in their minds. The whole point is to advocate the reason in surviving for yourself and what you believe you can do and how you can help yourself. Giving up shouldn’t be an option ever in life. If you give up you know you have failed yourself and failed many others who look to you as reference. Always put yourself first in situations where there can only be one survivor because you don’t know what that other person has in store for themselves and they are just watching you rot and deteriorate. Always remember as to why you were giving a choice in your life and the reason why you were chosen. Not everyone ha a second chance but its up to you if you are willing to take that chance for yourself and fight for you and what you think is right.
LikeLike
Coffeelover03^^^^^^^
LikeLike
CoffeeLover, I’m going to try to give you more useful information about making sentences than you have received in all your life to date. If you pay close attention, and follow my advice, you will easily earn, for the entire course, an extra full Grade above what you could hope to achieve otherwise.
I hope you want this help. You definitely need it. No matter how clear and insightful your thinking is, the way you convey it now, you’ll never convince readers you have brilliance to share. I’m trusting in your brilliant thinking. Now, let’s try some brilliant writing.
—What is “it” in this phrase?
—”it” is the rat video.
—Say it once, not twice.
—Right now, you’re saying, “In the rat video, the rat video talks about scientists in the 1950s.”
—Silly, right?
—Some readers, me included, would stop reading your remarks immediately, in the middle of your first sentence.
—The fix is simple. Say it once.
—Next.
—We’re not ready to move on yet.
—The rat video doesn’t actually talk about anything.
Videos don’t talk.
—The speaker does talk about scientists.
—Moving on.
—”drowning waters” makes no sense unless the water is drowning, but it’s a lovely phrase that gives me hope that you harbor a poet in your soul.
—I could offer you alternatives that indicate the water was deep enough to drown in, or something similar, but, let’s find REAL problems. 🙂
—”its was shown” makes grammatical sense. Let’s keep that thought.
—but “it was to be believed” means someone was obligating someone else to believe something.
—The objection is a small one, but when small objections accumulate, as they do in your short response here, readers lose confidence. As amateur writers, all we have is the authority of our voices. Squander that and nobody will take our writing seriously. So:
—”the rat who was wild” was “the wild rat”
—We don’t know that there are “rounds” or what is meant by rounds.
—We (you) also don’t know whether the scientists hypothesized at all how long either rat would paddle to save its life.
—I believe you’ve also made a factual error, calling 60 minutes 60 hours.
—You’ve made another factual error by mixing up which rat struggled longer.
—Also, you’ve made two sentences out of what, grammatically, has to be one sentence if you’re going to use “while.”
Let’s move on.
—It’s hard to detail how much is wrong with “the whole point in this is because to not obviously give us a cool fact,” but it’s very easy to fix. Say less. Think about the SUBJECT of your idea and what it DOES. That will give you the subject of your sentence and the verb.
—The verb is hiding later in your sentence.
Moving on again.
—We get dizzy when you fidget between US and YOU and OUR and MY.
Let’s move on.
—Readers will get lost trying to follow your logic through the “Though,” and the “but,” and the second “but,” and the “how.” Keep it simple.
Let’s move on.
—You wandered back from US to YOU.
Let’s move on.
—That’s not bad.
—It could be much simpler.
Let’s move on.
—You really just completely lost me.
—The rats weren’t in competition.
—Anyway, we don’t lecture our readers by YOUing them as you have here.
—Let’s simplify and keep it to Third Person or First Person Plural (we, our).
THE WHOLE SHEBANG:
It’s hard to make writing look easy, CoffeeLover, but some rules will help.
1. Don’t start typing a sentence until you know how it will end.
2. If, halfway through a sentence, you can’t end it well, start again.
3. Refer to Rule 1.
4. This time, commit to the real SUBJECT of your idea and the VERB that describes what that subject does.
5. Make that simple claim and expand from there if needed.
This is a small grade that you no longer have the opportunity to improve since you’ve posted it so late, and since I’ve already done radical revisions for you. However, if you want to take another look at the video and start from scratch, you could take the perspective that the rats didn’t learn in any way to depend on themselves. They were domesticated to believe that, if they stayed afloat long enough, the people who cared about them would come to their rescue. That’s the real lesson of the video, isn’t it?
Grade 70/100
LikeLike