Thursday's Workshop

Question #1: The most recent disagreement I had was with my sister, who is a freshman here at IU.  Last weekend we were making the long haul back to Chicago, and carpooling with two of my sister's friends from our hometown.  The argument started when I decided at the last minute to come home, upping the amount of laundry and baggage that would occupy the valuable trunk space.  You might think that since we were only going home for a weekend, we wouldn't need that much stuff.  That is where you would be sorely mistaken.  Four girls can occupy a full trunk and back seat space without batting an eye.  This is where the argument began...
After seeing the 3 weeks of laundry I was planning on taking home, my sister yelled saying it would never fit and told me I had to make room for her friends' stuff.  I yelled back and said it was my car and I can take whatever I wanted.  We were arguing on the third level.  We "each g[a]ve decisive weight to a different evidence" according to Kaufer.  She valued that since it was she and her friends were the originally planning the trip they should have first dibs on trunk space.  I valued however, that since it was my car, and I would be driving the five hours home, I had the right to take as much stuff as I wanted.  Neither of our evidences were incorrect- she and her friends had originally planned the trip, but it was my car.  This couldn't have been resolved over redefining a frame or reference, we had to decide which evidence was more important.
Sadly we did not resolve the issue with words, we just slammed the trunk closed until it all fit.

Question #2:
The Brave New World is novel in which a bureaucracy turns out cookie cutter citizens.  The analogy of Brave New World in Savio's speech is tying the imagery of the novel to his perception that the university is acting like a the bureaucracy, with the mission of "suppress[ing] the most creative impluses that [the students] have...turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off."  The conflict level that this supports is level 4.  This analogy supports level 4 because he sees the university as doing something very different that the university does.  Savio and the University each see their goals as the most important which is why they cannot come to an agreement.

Question #3:
By arguing on the stasis of cause and showing the audience that historically poor African-American communities have not received proper post-disaster assistance, he is proving a pattern in the U.S. government.  If he hadn't shown past disasters, one might have thought that this was simply FEMA or the Red Cross' error, a one-time accident.  But showing the continuous cycle only reinforces his claim, and disproves skeptics.  If Savio was to employ this strategy it would make his speech more plausible.  Currently the speech is dramatic- he references futuristic worlds and a writer concerned the complexities of menacing bureaucracies.  If he were to reference more familiar scenes that were more directly relate-able to his claims, then the audience would have more reason to rust him, instead of thinking that he is being exaggerated and over-the-top.  A sense of a historical would help the audience build trust and give him a stronger platform on which to present his claim.