The argument of fact that Baraka was explaining is how black Americans have their own language and their own characteristic food because a young Negro novelist mentions that there is a flaw with black Americans. For example, the young novelist proclaimed that blacks neither have their own characteristic food nor their own language and how many people do not know what soul food is. Also, some slang terms have developed the names for soul food which creates the foods own uniqueness.
1. Baraka simply is stating some types of food they ate but he wants to prove his point about what people thought how some of the food was made and prepared. Also, Baraka argument of fact establishes that many people do not know anything about soul food or its history or how it is served and eaten. Yes, the author did accomplish his purpose because he explains where people can buy soul food and many different types of foods that were introduced by black Americans. Baraka feels that more people need to know more about soul food and making stereotypes and wrong predictions about the food.
Furthermore, if the soul food were lost without their slang terms there would be a loss chapter of history of the African American food and part of their past culture would be missing. People keep the names of the food to remember where it all had came from their despite that the food is delightful and different. The soul food has a history from where it was created and came from. 2. The author Baraka uses slang in the composition to make the reader visualize how tasty the soul food was and he used some slang words give the reader’s attention.
Also, the author uses the slang term to keep in mind where the food came from and the values of the term “soul food” came from. 3. The methods the author illustrates about how African Americans have their own cuisine is that there are many foods they had came up with. For example, Fried chicken, grits, mustard greens, pig feet, chitterlings, okra, corn meal, neck bones, black eyed peas, etc. The author reference to “uptown” is that he went to an upper part of the town to see where soul food is made and the way some soul food is to be eaten and made.
First, the food is different from other cultures food. Also, many people don’t know how some of the way soul food is to be eaten to really know about soul food. Many restaurants uptown do not serve soul food. Baraka concludes that people who are at Nedicks are considered outcast because in every restaurant in Harlem, Nedicks is the only restaurant that does not serve soul food. Baracka’s argument claims that some African Americans do not know their own food culture, etc. Soul food was made from the slaves.
It was food they came up with since the whites only left them with certain scraps and pieces of unwanted food whites would eat and many whites gave the slaves typical type of food such as cornmeal. Gore Vidal “Drugs” Vidal proclaims that it is possible for people stop most of the drug addiction and make all drugs on sell for people but make the drugs at a certain cost. Also, Vidal explains how United States was created so that any man has the right to do anything with their own free will as long as it doesn’t bother anyone else.
But therefore, it makes the United States laws hypocritical because it is a crime to do drugs. 1. The sound reason logic is where he talks about how in the United States has learned nothing from the past. For instance, when the United States prohibited alcohol and by forbidding alcohol it caused thousands of deaths. Vidal claims that if we the United States makes drug use legal at a certain cost there probably wouldn’t be many crimes and many drug dealer businesses such as the Mafia and Bureau of Narcotics. Vidal explains how it’s the United States Governments fault because the crime spree would be decreased.
Vidal also believes that fighting against drugs is nearly as a big business as trying to stop them because people always want what they can’t have. By legalizing drugs will enable people easier access to them but also, taking away the thrill of getting them. For example, giving people their wants only makes the person lose less value of their excitement which has to do a big role in reverse psychology. To confuse people of their wants and needs. 2. Vidal addresses my concerns because drug dealing and the mafia business will decrease rapidly and there would not be as much crimes in the American society.
Yes, Vidal does consider both sides of the issue because he there is a combination of sin and money between the mafia and the American people. Both of the combinations of sin and money are two most valuable things because are irresistible and it has been repeated for many centuries. In addition, Vidal claims that forbidding people to do something they hold in interest of will only cause the person to pursue their interest more. 3. The effect in Vidal last paragraph is that he tries to persuade the reader for a change because in time things will only get worse if things don’t change.
The reasonable solution to America’s drug problem is unrealistic because people will pursue things they cannot have or things they hold their interest of and of course no matter what there will always be some people who will be always become a drug addict and for the people who are sane will have the choice if they want to do drugs or not. It’s up to the person if they want to destroy their life because it shouldn’t be up to another person to decide your own life or your own fate. In addition, prohibition of drugs will be a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol in the past. . Vidal establishes himself as an authority on drug use because he personally tried them himself. He personally finds none of the drugs appealing and he also proved the Fu Manchu theory wrong because one single sniff of opium will enslave a person’s mind and it didn’t enslave him. He also thinks certain drugs are really bad for the exception of some people and should be provided with a good thought out reason why they should not do drugs. Vidal argument would be less persuasive if he left out his background because he wouldn’t have any personal experience to support his main idea.
His personal experience gives the reader to know what it’s like to be on drugs and how it feels through his point of perspective. Phyllis McGinley “Woman Are Better Drivers” McGinley explains how woman are better driver than men. She compares and contrasts both of the subjects and different points. McGinley uses her own life experience to persuade the reader about her perspective. 1. The author illustrates that men are more stubborn and less cautious when driving especially when they are being told what to do. Men try to be the center of attention in driving or trying to make a good impression to people.
On the other hand women are more cautious and are well aware of things and the take advice from others instead of taking it offensive. Also, McGinley’s major reasons why women are better drivers than men are because women always drive doing many different errands than men. By doing so many errands women get more practice driving around than men. She also explains that the cost of car insurance is higher for man under 25 than women. Another example is that men get distracted easily while driving more than women.
2. McGinley addresses her values because she not only gives examples of how it occurs in her own life but also she explains how men and women drive differently. Yes I find her argument persuasive because she compares them with her husband to make her own point of perspective to the readers. Also, McGinley compares how males see there automobiles. 3. The tone McGinley uses is calm and she also is very informative. The arguing assists her thesis because the arguing proves her points about the differences between men and women and how we both are wired up differently. . The dialogue gave suspense and anticipation in the opening paragraph because when the author McGinley talked about how men are good at many things for example they are brave, talented, etc. And then she talks about what women are good at two things is having babies and driving. But it seems as if she is also being sarcastic about the ways of men and what they are good at. 5. When the author concludes her essay with the comment on what it would be like to drive through “the Pearly Gates” with her husband.
McGinley explains that her husband is more strict and firm about the directions while she is happy to view sites. The author illustrates that the attitudes for men are more demanding and seem easily frustrated and irritated while they are more vulnerable while driving. While women are more cautious, calm, and are more patient when it comes to driving. The mind set for men is that men ignore issues instead of taking advice or either men tend to not care what someone else is telling them. Woman mind set are that they are open minded and use advice for their own knowledge.