I'm feeling sick today and am trying to argue myself into exercising tomorrow morning. The argument to myself starts off with WATCO not exercising tomorrow morning? I am trying to convince myself that: By not exercising tomorrow morning I will develop a habit of not exercising in the morning because by not exercising tomorrow morning I will subconsciously breakdown my willpower to get out of bed in the morning to exercise. I think this is fair to conclude: anything that subconsciously breaks down my willpower to get out of bed in the morning to exercise also develops a habit of not exercising in the morning.

I continue to argue this point with myself as I cite all of the times I have let habits break in the past; it always starts with one time. I think my argument to myself has plenty of ethos--I know all the times I have successfully broken habits. I also have some pathos in here; I don't want to disappoint myself by breaking under the desire to sleep in. This pathos involves guilt: I will feel guilty if I sleep in and start to break down this great habit. The logos in this argument is that it makes sense that in order to break a habit you must start somewhere small--one day at a time . . . tomorrow will only tell what will actually happen. Hopefully my enthymeme and argument will be strong enough to get me out of bed when I don't want to get up.

Nighthawks was painted post-Pearl Harbor bombing. The city is sleek, giving a distant, cold feel. The idea that no one is on the Manhattan street at night is counter-intuitive. The deliberate omission of people, animals, and trash from the street displays a very desolate city. Little interaction, if any, is happening among the people at this diner. The isolation of individuals is indicative of the feeling of this time period. There is no visible exit from this diner inducing a feeling of confinement in the viewer. Although bright colors are used in this painting, it is a bleak setting.

After this historical introduction, it is easier to conclude the 'WATCO'. WATCO the Pearl Harbor bombing on the American people during the war? The audience is fairly broad; American adults. To tighten the audience group, we could specify city dwelling adults; this painting would probably resonate with people that are most familiar with its context. My Enthymeme: The bombing of Pearl Harbor severely impaired the morale of American citizens because the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a devastating attack on the American Military. Implicit assumption: Anything that is a devastating attack on the American Military also severely impairs the morale of the American citizens. Ethos: The painter, Hopper, grew up in Manhattan and knows the cities layout; through this he was able to distort it appropriately in order to get his point across to his audience. Pathos: The emotional disconnect in this painting among the diner patrons is easily discernible by the viewer. Logos: When you look at the diner from this vantage point, there is no exit for neither the patrons nor the bar tender. This logical conclusion yields the desired mentality for the painter.

The argument is sufficient. Enough supporting evidence of the argument is found in the painting. The process which leads up to the final point is typical; the audience can logically follow the flow of the argument. This is a well done argument. The only draw back revolves around the fact that the effect of this painting would be lost to some extent on an individual who has no idea about the historical context of this painting.

Nighthawks (1942 (120 Kb); Oil on canvas, 30 x 60 in; The Art Institute of Chicago)

Hmmm . . . what to write about. I'm a little fried right now, so I think I have a great excuse to do a free write. Tuesdays are one of my busiest days: I have a night class that is four hours long; yeah. It's not intense, just draining. As I was walking home, I checked my phone and noticed I had missed two calls. I knew the first person that had called, but I had no idea who this second person was. Of course, I called back this mystery number to figure out who the individual was. It rings several times and then--all I could do was laugh a solid outloud laugh--the message machine came on in all its glory. I can't do the recording any justice, but I will say it caught me off gaurd to the point where I was laughing hard enough that I knew, from all the looks I was getting, that the people around me were soooo jealous of the funny message I was listening too . . .

I love laughing. It is the most theraputic remedy out there. Reader's Digest has it right; laughter is the best medicine. That's all.

Before we walked into the health food bakery in Kent, Ohio, my companion told me I had to guess how old Maurice Drake was. The bells jangled as we walked through the front door of the bakery. The owner stepped out from the back of the bakery and introduced himself in a slightly raspy voice. Besides having an incredible presence about him, Maurice was a tall, built man, about six foot four inches. Under my estimation, regardless of the feeling I had that he hadn't had much sleep the night before, he looked like he was in top physical health. I couldn't find a wrinkle on his face; his skin looked firm and healthy. Twenty-nine was my first guess. Wrong, guess again. He couldn't be over thirty-five. Salzie laughed at my guess--wrong--Maurice Drake was in his fifties! I was in shock. What was his trick? Throughout this paper we will explore Maurice's health tactics and how they affect the body.

This introduction is aimed at an audience interested in health and beauty. The audience can be both male and female, even though it discusses a male example at the beginning. I would guess the audience would be a young adult to middle aged individual who is attracted to topics on physical health.

WATCO of consistent exercise and living a vegetarian lifestyle on the body?

My enthymeme for this introduction is: Living a vegetarian lifestyle complete with daily exercise strengthens the body's constitution against the expansion of incapacitating years because living a vegetarian lifestyle complete with daily exercise maintains muscles, increases the body's metabolic rate, and strengthens the body's immune system.

The implicit assumtion in this enthymeme is: Anything that maintains muscles, increases the body's metabolic rate, and strengthens the body's immune system, also strengthens the body's constitution against the expansion of incapacitating years. I feel like this implicit assumption is easy for the reader to agree with.

I went to the Cingular store and met David, the representative. My brother and I were his audience. We came to look at options for a family plan in hopes of saving money. My sister, Chantal, also potentially wants to be included on this plan if it will save her money.

So his Watco question was "What are the consequences of switching from single plans to family plans on saving money for Chantal, Vincent, and Ginette?" His enthymeme was, "Switching to a family plan will reduce Chantal, Vincent, and Ginette's individual monthly bills because switching to a family plan will decrease the cost of their overall bill."

The implicit assumption is, "Whatever will decrease the cost of the overall bill will also reduce Chantal, Vincent, and Ginette's individual monthly bills." This assumption is solid because it is indisputable; the audience would completely agree with the assumption.

For David to build clout in our eyes, he told us how long he had worked for the company and proved his claim by being able to answer our random and extremely specific questions. David walked us through everything logically to show us what a great choice it would be to upgrade to a family plan. He did not at anytime try to draw on our emotions; he knew his audience well.

David's argument offered sufficient evidence to support his claim. After calculating out the highest possible monthly bill and dividing the bill in thirds, he showed us that we would be paying less on our monthly bill than we are paying now if we were to buy a family plan. David's argument was typical; he showed us step-by-step how this decision makes sense according to our objectives. We can't tell if David's argument is accurate yet because it needs to be tested to know if it would prove to be true, but the facts seem to indicate that he is accurate. David's argument was relevant; he didn't try to sell us on anything that had no relevance to the situation. He saw our needs and concerns and addressed those directly without trying to make us do something we didn't want to do. David gets an A from me for being an excellent persuader.

I think we all have little topics we are intrigued by. For me it's stratification. Stratification has occupied my mind for four or five years. My earliest recollection of developing a deeper opinion on the topic dates back to when I was nineteen. I lived with an individual who thought differently than I did about how to assess the value of other people. In this mentality, an individual's value seemed to be based on a coordinating outfit, an expensive purse, money, cars, and physical beauty. Although I disagreed with the perspective that value could be assigned to someone on these factors, for the first time in my life I understood how someone else could come to the conclusion that value was based on something external to character. The more time I spent with my roommate, the more I saw into this paradigm. I had never seen into another vantage point with so much depth before. I began to understand this thought process, and yet I couldn't agree with it, and I still don't.

I'm not saying that what I think is law, but since this is my blog, here's my soap box on stratification (actually it's only a small portion of it). Let's love people on merits of character. Appreciate the paint, but leave the bulk of importance on the integrity of a structure. Here's my dating plug--guys, when you're on dates don't show off what you are going to do for work, whom you are related to, or how much money you have. Those factors shouldn't have any bearing on whether a girl would like you any more or any less than she naturally does. And why should it? If I were a guy, I wouldn't want a girl that would be impressed or unimpressed by insignificant factors. Hmmm . . . I could go on forever; that's all for tonight.

We have a swing on my porch. I never realized how happy it would make me until I finally tried it out. I love it! There is something to be said about meditating on a swing on your front porch. In the morning, after I drag myself out of bed at 5:45 AM, I come back from the gym, make a shake, and sit on the swing. I just sit there and observe the cars driving by and peacefulness of Ninth East before the craziness of the day starts.

This past Saturday, I was sitting on the porch, doing some homework, when Sarah comes up and sits next to me. We started talking about the things we love, pretty much the little things of life. I whipped out my typical love: the smell of the first fresh-cut grass of spring season. I can't say that the fresh cut grass smell is number one, I'm much too analytical to ever find an official spot for the smell, but it's pretty close to number one. How thrilling is it to smell the cut grass and realize warm weather and sun are on the horizon?

The other experience I love, but unfortunately haven't had the chance to experience for a while, is complicated to describe but well worth the description. When I used to be able to run, I would always try to find new running routes just for a new experience. When I get outside in the morning, it's pretty cold, and the sun is still behind the mountains. As the Sun starts to rise, and before it comes over the mountain, the sunbeams stream through the valley behind the temple. It's breath taking. The experience of being out in the morning while it is still serene is tied in with the beauty of the sight. It's another moment of meditation when the world is still, and you can think unfettered from distractions. I love the little things.

My audience is individuals who rely on nutrient supplements for optimal health. My 'What Are The Consequences Of . . .' (WATCO) question is: What are the consequences of relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health on an individual's actual optimal health? In this question the A term is 'relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health,' and the B term is 'an individual's actual optimal health'.

From this WATCO question, I craft the enthymeme: Relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health does not produce it because nutrient supplements in natural foods are absorbed better than nutrients in supplements. The C term that is added here is 'nutrients in natural foods are absorbed better than nutrients in supplements'. Within this enthymeme I imply that whatever nutrients are absorbed better also produce optimal health. Within this assumption there is also the assumption that foods chosen in an individual's diet will have the adequate nutrients available for absorption.

I think my implicit assumption is a solid assumption. If you don't absorb a nutrient, it can do nothing for your body; whereas, if your body absorbs a nutrient, the nutrient can do something for your body. Pretty simple and pretty acceptable for an audience. While this implicit assumption would not be a problem in a persuasive manuscript, the reader would have the right to ask if there were certain nutrients that could be over-absorbed in natural foods. My counter-argument would state that overdoesing on a natural food is likely only in the most extreme cases; whereas, it is much easier to overdoes on supplements, which do not have to have any sort of check on safety. The chances for nutrient toxicity in foods found on our table is almost non-existent while on the other hand toxicity from nutrient supplements is much more common.

They say sex and success sell, so why not put an attractive, successful race car driver on a watch advertisement where viewers will associate the model's hotness and success with their potential hotness and success. If they buy this particular watch--the carrera steel and 18k gold automatic chronograph TAGHeuer watch--they can be just as hot and successful as Jeff Gordon is. The ad is trying to convince men to buy this particular watch by appealing to the male ego. Through building an emotional connection between ownership of the watch and male attractiveness and success, the advertiser is trying to lure his or her audience into buying the product. This approach is effective, and just in case appealing to emotion is not completely effective, the ad imposes the authority of the TAGheuer company by citing that the company is a Swiss company which began in the 1800s.

This ad's audience is an educated, and definitely male, audience. I am assuming the intended audience is at least somewhat educated because this advertisement is found in The New York Times, a paper that many educated males read. I also assume the audience is wealthy because this watch is expensive and would appeal to people who have money, and if they are not wealthy yet, they are aspiring to be wealthy which could breed the desire to own this watch--to look like they were wealthy, hot, and successful.

The audience of this ad is led to think something like, "If I buy this watch, I can be attractive and successful just like Jeff Gordon." The approach in this advertisement is completely illogical; however, it draws on the viewer's emotions. And where the emotional pull doesn't work, the authoritative statement on the ad will hopefully take over--of course the TAGHeuer watch is amazing; it is Swiss made and has a historical background of at least a hundred years; it must be a quality watch, right? With all of that information to back up the company's credibility, it is only logical that this watch is amazing--especially since it is made out of carrera steel and 18k gold. It's has to be a quality product . . .

So, after who-knows-how-long, I'm using my blog. I think the first time I set it up, I never even used it--it was for formality purposes; all my friends had one, and I felt like I was supposed to be contemporary. It's kind of nice that I had set up my account though, because I was just informed I needed a blog for my persuasive writing class. I'm pretty stoked; we're going to be posting our assignments Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. I've heard that, just like physical exercise, if you want to become a prolific writer, you need to practice consistently. Since we will be writing three times a week, I only see progression in the future. Sweet.