Week 14 Blog
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/22/news/economy/food-stamps-work-requirements/index.html
Do you find the title of this article appropriate to its content? How was the title been designed to skew a reader's understanding of the decision by Trump described in the article? What kind of appeal is this? Do you think it constitutes a logical fallacy? If so, how? Which fallacy?
The title of this article is not appropriate for the content. The title has been designed with a negative connotation to have people think that Trump is doing something bad and unnecessary when in fact that is not the truth at all. This appeals to pathos since people have strong emotions about politics and also logos because there is potential for a logical argument to be made. The argument made however does constitute a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy apparent in this article is similar to the straw man since the author of the article is twisting words that Trump and his supporters said in such a way that they appear to have a different meaning than what Trump and his supporters had in mind. Trump and his supporters simply want all able-bodied adults to work for the food stamps to help them become more self-sufficient to eventually not have to receive food stamps. The author of the article presents this idea in a anti-Trump way by presenting it with the title it has and saying that Trump is just making more low-to-no income people work. If the article were unbiased it could be seen much more clearly what Trump's intentions are for this idea and it would be understood that he is doing this for the people's own good and not just forcing them to work.
ReplyDeleteThe article, titled “Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps” discusses how Trump and the Agriculture Department are attempting to integrate individuals without children, who rely on safety net programs, into the workforce. The title of the article and the content of it do not match, therefore making the title inappropriate. The title leads readers to believe that Trump has become desensitized to safety net programs, such as food stamps, and is requiring that individuals work while receiving the benefits. For those that do not know much about food stamps, the title leads them to believe that a negative action is being completed by the Trump administration, when in fact the action is not negative at all. The title appeals to pathos since a safety net program is discussed. These programs, such as food stamps, cause for emotions to develop, since most individuals have an opinion about how the operation is ran based on their political stance. The title also contributes to a logical fallacy due to the way it is worded. The wording of the article causes for readers to already come to a conclusion about the topic at hand, which results in a hasty generalization. If readers knew more about what the Trump administration actually did in reference to the food stamp program, then they could form their own opinions, instead of allowing a biased title to influence them.
ReplyDeleteAs with all political topics, the information presented came from a biased viewpoint. In the world of politics, everyone wants their opinion to be heard, and bias is inevitable. This particle article, titled “The Trump administration wants more food stamp recipients to work for their benefits” carries a negative connotation. The writer took the positive idea of self-sufficiency and twisted it with the use of pathos. His emotional appeal was conveyed through his phrasing of making people “work for their benefits”. That phrasing lends itself towards the idea that the freedom of citizens is being undermined. It incites anger in the reader and a feeling to defend their rights. To me, he used the logical fallacy: hasty generalization. He made it seem as though there were only 2 solutions, with Trump’s idea being the wrong one.
ReplyDeleteThe title "Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps" is not appropriate to its context because it makes it seem like the Trump Administration is forcing people to work or else they don't get their food stamps. That is simply not the truth, they are trying to get able bodied adults who do not have children to become more self sufficient and by giving them the food stamps if they work it creates a sort of reward system that will lead to them eventually working enough to where they won't be reliant on food stamps. The author of this article used pathos in the creation of the title because it makes you seem like the Trump administration is not going to help people unless they work, which makes you feel upset. However, the author's thinking constitutes a logical fallacy. In this case, the author shows hasty generalization because they come to a conclusions that Trump is making people work for food stamps without considering the underlying goals and reasons.
ReplyDeleteThis article, found on CNN, is titled “Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps.” When I first opened the article, I was immediately met with a tone of negativity and disproval due to the title. My first instincts were that the Trump administration was not in full support of food stamp programs and was curious if the end of food stamp programs would be discussed in the article. However, the article was much different than expected. Within the article, it is explained that the Trump administration is looking for ways to help more people become self-sufficient, so that they can better provide for themselves as well as others. The title attempts to skew readers towards disagreement with this decision, before they even read it. However, once having read the article, I was not in disagreement, as I see the initiative looking to help more Americans become self-sufficient, which would create a positive effect. The appeal of pathos is the main source of this skew that the title attempts to create. The author hoped that by arousing negative emotions in the reader, they would have a negative view on the issue while reading, causing them to side against Trump. I believe this to be a logical fallacy, specifically hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is when conclusions are drawn based on biased evidence, as well as insufficient evidence. Because the author presents bias, specifically in the title, I see this to be the fallacy of hasty generalization.
ReplyDeleteThe article, from CNN is "Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps." This title is not appropriate at all because it makes it seem like Donald Trump is completely against food stamps when in reality this is not true at all. The author of the article appeals to pathos by playing to peoples emotions with the misleading title. When a normal person is scrolling through articles and they see a headline about how Donald Trump is against food stamps, it causes many people to think about the people who would be devastated by limiting food stamps. The article's title allows readers to have an understanding of what an article is about. By creating a skewed title such as this one, it allows for the hasty generalization logical fallacy. The author's personal bias about Donald Trump is what caused this fallacy. If the article would have been written with a more accurate title the audience could have made more logical opinions on the subject instead of seeing the title and making hasty generalizations.
ReplyDeleteThis article's title is not appropriate because it gives the article a negative tone. When one reads the article, they will find that Trump's administration is not doing anything negative, they are merely trying to get more people into the workforce using incentives. The title appeals to pathos, because it invokes anger towards the Trump administration for wrongful treatment of people trying to work. This also causes a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. People may be so overcome by their emotion after reading the title, that they may not understand the actual intent of Trump's administration.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article is not appropriate because it biases the information and believes people to assume that what President Trump is doing is bad. Many news articles try to make their titles lean a certain way to make people interested and to bring out the pathos of the article to make people feel something and want to read their article. The content of the article is talking about people having to work for food stamps and the word "require" in the article give the whole idea a negative connotation. I would personally say there is a logical fallacy in the article and it relates most closely with the straw man fallacy because the news is trying to twist the words of President Trump and what he and his administration are trying to do. The title of the article gives the population a distorted view of what President Trump and his administration are trying to do. Although people may already have an idea of what they believe on this issue the pathos in the title creates emotion that can cause people to feel more strongly about the idea than they did before.
ReplyDeleteThe article's title "Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps" is not appropriate to the content. The title has a very negative connotation; it portrays the proposition as one that is detrimental to the food stamps program. The title appeals to pathos, whereas the argument in the article appeals to logos. The content is portrayed very logically, and describes ways in which the Trump administration seeks to increase the self-sufficiency of the able-bodied recipients of food stamps. The additions to the program are an attempt to improve the lives of the beneficiaries. In contrast, the title makes it seem as though the Trump administration is working against those that require food stamps. For uninformed readers, it would be easy to read the title and develop strong opinions against the Trump administration's ideas. Even those who continue to read the entirety of the article may base their opinion around the strong emotions that are connected to the title instead of the logical argument. This is an example of a hasty generalization; it is easy for readers to make quick, biased opinions due to strong political opinions and the skewed appeal to pathos. This is a logical fallacy that, unfortunately, many readers will not recognize and that will affect their understanding of the content.
ReplyDeleteThe article's title is misleading and not appropriate for the information within it. The heading reads "Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps" which at first glance makes the reader believe that the Trump administration is against food stamps, when in actuality it is a program intended to help those already in the food stamp program. This is done using pathos because it connects with people's emotions. When I first read it, my first thought is "why would someone be against food stamps?" and it made me a little angry. But when I actually read the article, it was a completely different story. The logical fallacy that comes to mind when reading this article would be hasty generalization. This is because when you first read the title, you automatically assume something bad of the Trump administration without even reading the article. The title is misleading, causing people to automatically assume something bad. This is an example of the logical fallacy hasty generalization.
ReplyDeleteThe tittle “Trump Administration Seeks to Require More People to Work For Food Stamps” is not appropriate in the context. The title tries to grab one’s attention by believing that Trump and his administration are against food stamps. However, when reading the article it explains what they are trying to do, which is supposed to help those who are on in be more self sufficient. This appeals to pathos since many would feel strongly about food stamps being taken away from citizens. The word choice in this title is meant to make the reader mad and upset about this happening. Therefore, the title constitutes as the logical fallacy hasty generalization since people will automatically believe that Presidents Trump and his administration's action on this matter will ultimately hurt people on food stamps. The author is ultimately trying to push an anti-Trump view on the audience instead of reporting this news in an unbiased way which allows the reader to make their own beliefs on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThis article which is titled "Trump administration seeks to require more people to work for food stamps" leads the viewer of this article to believe that the Trump administration does not approve of the food stamp program. This initial belief creates an environment of negativity and disapproval. When the article is actually read, though, it describes how Trump seeks to get able-bodied people up and in the work force to qualify for assistance. This headline appeals to pathos because government is always a heated topic. The headline is misleading and therefore appeals to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Whenever the viewer reads the title, they are lead to believe one thing while in reality it's different.
ReplyDeleteThe title of this article is not appropriate for this content. It makes it seem like the Trump administration is against the food stamps program and is taking this step to shut the program down. However, the article explains how many states are trying to waive the work requirements for food stamps, so Americans do not have to work but can receive food stamps at the same time. The title was designed to catch the audience's attention by appealing to pathos. The title might make someone feel angry, stressed, or very concerned. The title could be considered a hasty generalization, in that a reader might quickly draw a conclusion after reading the title, rather than actually reading the article.
ReplyDelete"The Trump administration wants more food stamp recipients to work for their benefits" is a misleading title that falls into the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. It falls into that logical fallacy because upon reading the title the reader can draw a quick conclusion from the article, but this is not a correct conclusion. It misleads the reader to believing that the Trump's administration is putting further restrictions on a program that is designed to help people who are already having a hard time, but in fact it is simply trying to get more people into the work force. The title appeals to pathos as the food stamps controversy is an emotional topic for some. The topic can make people feel angry, sad, upset, or a variety of emotions. Through reading the title some people would be upset at the fact of more restrictions on a program that is supposed to help people, but as you read the article you can find this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteThe title given to this article is clearly trying to make it seem like Trump is being a horrible president and will make people starve if they don’t work. The title was intended to associate Trump with a bad image and it becomes even more evident due to the video that is directly underneath named “feeding America’s most vulnerable children.” CNN is a liberal news outlet and is more on the left side of the political spectrum, so this title is not very surprising. This title appeals to pathos since people are very compassionate and would never want a child to starve. However, this new plan would not cause any children to starve. The only way that a child would starve is if an able-bodied parent decided not to work for food stamps. But, I think it’s safe to say that most, if not all parents would never make that choice. A child is everything to their parents. Hasty generalization is noticeable in this article, which is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when a generalization about a topic is based on biased information. CNN did not create an appropriate title for this article and it can give readers the wrong idea. The author does not provide all the information and discuss the underlying factors about the decision from the trump administration. This decision is actually very good for our economy and will help to lower the unemployment rate.
ReplyDelete