Weekly Writing Assignment #5

Value Hierarchies

Applying Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's model to the article from Weekly Writing Assignment #4, I am trying to deconstruct the author's message to the audience and the audience who is likely to be persuaded and those that are not.

As part of the audience that has read this article [which is a debate on lowering the drinking age or keeping it at 21], I would have to more likely side with lowering the drinking age to 18.

The publication, the American Observer, is American University's graduate journalism magazine--and the author, Dorry Samuels, is presumably a graduate student who attends AU and who can give witness accounts of how college students behave when it comes to alcohol abuse.

Samuels relies on facts from both sides of the argument--though he is a bit biased when it comes to defending colleges that want to lower the drinking age; due to his own personal experience. His introduction, however, seems a bit sensationalized and he seems to do it only for the pure sake of grabbing someone's attention. Rather than approaching the debate at a critical and neutral angle, he opts to dramatize it for his audience; knowing that they will probably identify themselves with those students that he used as an example of the problem of binge drinking.

The author continues to sensationalize the issue by continuing to use facts that seem to be present only for the shock-jaw effect--which, I would have to say, works well for his argument; especially if his audience is aimed at college students. Speaking as a college student myself, I would have to agree with all his facts; though his wording style and choices should have been more appropriate.

It seems as if Samuels values making the current drinking age look bad, and the 'idea' of lowering it, look like a grand epiphany. He continues to surround it with statistics that make the proposition simply look like a good idea. He also balances it out with other opposing statistics, but not enough.

The hierarchy of Samuels' values can be analyzed into simple categories: safety, education, and new ideas. The author makes his first point by telling how dangerous alcohol as become among young people. He suggests by using education to teach them how to handle it better is a good option. And finally, the idea of lowering the drinking age, albeit radical, can do a lot of good in the long run--though it seems to be a futile battle at the point.