National Weather Service Issues Warnings about the "immediate threat" of death for those who hazard to drive in the Snow! (i.e. why I will be attending class via G-chat!)

just got a gazillion alerts about the "extreme danger" going to appear on the highways up here tomorrow (tomorrow = Wednesday, March 7). snow-ice-slush-wind drama, I guess. sometimes they make a lot of fuss for no reason, but most times they don't make enough fuss, so I am going to listen, I guess. (and, yeah: it is now Wednesday and I'm looking out my window and thinking they made a bunch of drama for NOTHING. maybe it's just because it's, like, the *only* snow storm we've had all year. :)

Summary: I will not *physically* come to class tomorrow, but that's OK because I want you to do some stuff without my help anyway. (and if you do need help, enter the power of the internets and real-time long-distance chatting capability!)

here's what I want you to do in class:

1) work in groups of 3-4 (if you really, really, really hate group work, I guess you can elect a "class captain" to lead a class-wide discussion, but I think you'll do better work in groups, so unless there's, like, extreme objection, do the group work thing.)

2) first, practice some logic chains. think of four "controversial" subjects that have at least two viewpoints. (we did abortion, so not that one, but I'm sure y'all can think of others. school vouchers, civil unions, sanctions on Iran, existence of Israel, low-carb diets, mustaches and the Honor code, basically anything people get mad about.) take each viewpoint, and trace the logic back through the logic chain until you get to an axiom. find the common axiom in each controversy, and compare the differences between the logic chains on each side of each controversy. If you need a reminder of what a logic chain looks like, there's a Blackboard handout in the "Persuasion/Angry Letters Aids" folder called something like "problematic bias and axiomatic ethical logic chains." It has an example of pro/anti abortion logic chains you can look at.

2) Next, get a computer (use the podium one if you want) and go to the NSAL example papers on Blackboard (under "sample papers" which is in "course materials"). Read the two "good" NSALs, and then read the two "not-so-good" NSALs. (You might not have time to read them all out loud, so read a page or two of each, then skim, or read silently maybe?) Using the NSAL "checklist" (under the "persuasion NSAL aids"), talk about how the presence of research strengthens the papers, and discuss the other things that make the papers "good" or "not-so-good."

3) turn the following in to me: first, your four sets of logic chains, noting the shared axiom. Second, your observations about the differences between the two sets of NSALs. Why were the good ones better than the not-so-good ones? How did research help/hurt? Were there non-research-based differences? (Turn this in either through email, or just give me a hard copy on Friday. You only need to turn in one summary per group, but make sure all your names are on it.)

Questions? Email me. Or, if anyone has gmail and is interested, I can be available for g-chat during class, answering questions as they come in. Yay internets! I could probably do Facebook, too, but I think we'd have to be friends or something. If y'all care, send me an email at the start of class, and we'll figure it out.

here's to a not-so-snowy Friday. see you then,

k