1. Julia Smith
Scott Gage
Jill Taylor
Believable
SuperSize Me
A documentary where Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonalds for thirty days and he had doctors measure all the affects on his body: his blood pressure, weight, body mass index, and his organs. Specifically, the doctor told him that his liver was being pickled and that if he didn’t stop he would die. It was believable because of the empirical evidence provided by his doctors. We could visibly see how the food affected his body and the doctors’ responses.
Didn’t Believe
Poll that women who are single over the age 30 are more likely to die by a terrorist then get married
In Newsweek, cited a Harvard and Yale study that stated, “a single woman had only 20% chance of getting married and by 35 the chance drop to 5%”
New evidence demonstrates that this isn’t true….political agenda changed from 1986 to 2006
Where did this information even come from? A survey….of who and what?
Difference between the two: Methodology was much more clear and easy to see with the Supersize Me documentary. The viewer is able to see who is speaking, why he is speaking, where he is getting his information from, and that his sources are legitimate and credible. The second piece does not provide a rhetorical context for the information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Methodology does in fact need to be clear to the reader/viewer as is seen in Supersize me...a combination of case study and empirical (qualitative and quantitative) research.
Braddock is a close example of this type of research: he clearly explained his rationality and his methodology, and only neglected to define his terms.
Down and Wardle: (which we did not read for our research class) did not fit our criteria
Post a Comment