RSS Feed

‘RCL’ Category

  1. Rhetorical Analysis of Sizzler Commercial

    April 23, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    sizzler

    The 1991 commercial promoting the restaurant, Sizzler, is packed with rhetoric. Although the commercial is quite humorous, the strategies used by the marketing team who created the video are very in depth.

    To begin, the audio of the commercial serves the rhetorical purpose of emphasizing Sizzler’s dedication to the American tradition of freedom. The voiceover says that a “quiet revolution” is occurring in America, where more parents are working and raising families, where life is moving faster than it ever has before and where Americans are redefining quality in their personal lives and in their business lives. The idea of the “quite revolution” coming from a voice similar to that of a male politician, is complimented later when a chorus of singers claims that Sizzler is ‘holding to tradition,” while “changing with the times.” The male who is doing the voice over is meant to present ethos. Viewers trust his patriotic voice and believe that they should follow his words, much like they would a persuasive politician. The audio is very American, emphasizing motifs of freedom and liberty. The chorus singing also creates a group dynamic, in which audiences feel the need to join in. Just having one person singing may not produce the same effect. Sizzler’s is a nationwide choice, and to not join other American’s in choosing Sizzler’s is to deny American ideals.

    The visuals also serve various rhetorical purposes. A man throwing a Frisbee to his dog emphasizes an American theme of loyalty. A little girl hitting a ball with a baseball bat emphasizes the American dream, the American tradition of baseball, and a breaking of gender roles. She represents tradition as well as the changing times. The construction worker emphasizes the building of freedom and the construction of freedom in America and in the Sizzler restaurant. The patriotic sailor saying goodbye to his girl elicits sympathy as well as rallies morale for the heroes of America. Sizzler uses the image of a sailor to show that they support the war efforts of this great nation; the war efforts meant to maintain the freedom of this nation. The grandparents watching over their grandchild who is riding a bike produce several rhetorical elements. First, they show the importance of the elderly. They also further represent the idea that with changing times, more parents are working, but the family dynamic is maintained when the grandparents watch the grandchildren. Finally, the cowboy and the cowgirl represent traditions of Western romance.

    “Sizzler is the choice of Americans” because it provides a grill, as well as a buffet. The “friendly” smiling staff invites all Americans. No one is discriminated against because all ages, races and genders are portrayed in the video. In the end, the commercial emphasizes Sizzler’s dedication to tradition as well as ingenuity. They use the bandwagon effect to draw customers in. The idea is presented that not going to Sizzler’s is denying the freedoms that countless American’s have fought and died for. Sizzler’s is the patriotic thing for all Americans to do.


  2. Paying College Athletes Debate

    April 23, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    college athletes

    The deliberation surrounding whether or not athletes should be paid was very relevant, especially because of the extensive revenue brought into Penn State as a result of the football team and many other sports for that matter. It appeared that just one student was mediating the group of 30 or so, and he did an excellent job.

    There were three approaches that the mediator facilitated:

    Approach 1 – Athletes should not be paid because they are students.

    Approach 2 – Athletes should be paid because they are valued as students.

    Approach 3 – Athletes should be paid because they are valued as employees.

    In the first approach, the main point of discussion was that athletes are technically already “paid” in scholarship money, and to pay them beyond that will decrease the value of education. One participant brought up an intriguing question that if the NCAA is compared to semi-professional leagues, is this really what we want in higher education? Universities will begin to focus only on athletics rather than academics, problems will arise when it comes to paying different teams different amounts of money, and it is possible that the gender gap will further increase if athletes are paid. Also, where is all of the money to pay these athletes going to come from? Will colleges increase tuition to compensate their athletes? Currently, no money from tuition at Penn State goes to athletes. The earnings from the sporting events goes to the coaches and to the building of new stadiums, but what will happen in the future if we begin to pay athletes? In the end, this approach concluded that it would be very hard to distribute the money evenly to each sports team and to each player and to each gender. As a result, there will be unnecessary tension and discrimination.

    In the second approach, where it was assumed that athletes should be paid because they are valued as students, the group decided that a trust should be set up for athletes to receive when they graduate. This would motivate them to perform academically, as well as athletically, and the purpose of higher education would be maintained. For the most part however, most people feel that athletes are already given enough perks to begin with, and that if athletes are paid more, than top academic students should be paid as well. 1 percent of the athletes on college campuses actually go pro. Also, athletes are given free Nike apparel and weekend stipends, and they have access to tutors. They are already financially supported above and beyond most college students, and the academic playing field should be maintained first.

    Finally, in the third approach, there was a great deal of discussion about the University of Alabama. At this university, revenue from football topped the combined revenue of 30 NFL teams. There is immense favoritism for schools to combat if athletes are paid as professionals. Although they can receive stipends on top of their scholarships, of up to $5,000, this is not nearly as much as what the athletes are bringing to the school. Alabama brought in 158 million dollars last season, and the players did not see any of it. They are the ones doing the work to bring in the money, and they should be compensated, but the lines are very blurred.

    It is very easy to see why athletes should be paid because of the immense revenues that they bring into the school, but the tension that will result will be too grand. Students and professors will feel it, and paying athletes could result in quite a toll on the purpose of higher education. In the end, the group concluded that athletes should not be paid because scholarship money and their stipends are more than enough.


  3. Legalization of Marijuana Debate

    April 15, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    marijuana

                The legalization of medical marijuana versus the legalization of recreational marijuana debate was hosted by Penn State’s economic students and professors. On each debate squad, there were three students and a professor. Each side was allowed to present an opening speech about their topic. From there, the debate was organized so that one side would speak for 3 minutes and the other side was given the opportunity to rebuttal for 2 minutes.

    The debate team representing the legalization of only medical marijuana presented several major themes to carry their argument. They believed that the decision needs to be taken out of the hands of the politicians and placed into the hands of the doctors. There are so many unknowns with marijuana use. For instance, “how will marijuana affect motor skills and productivity and what will be the costs to society?” The medical marijuana team believes that the best option is to allow doctors to regulate and prescribe, reducing the chance of facing negative unknowns, while working to save lives. This team did a great job of using clear and organized rhetorical strategies. One team member provided a story, about a little girl named Mackenzie, suffering from cerebral palsy. This little girl faced 20 seizures per day, and the medication she used was not only extremely expensive ($35/day) but it also only reduced her seizures by half. Medical marijuana has not only taken away her seizures, but it is also much less expensive at $15 per day. The debater completed is rhetorical speech, filled with pathos, but arguing that now Mackenzie’s father has more money to spend on her specialized education needs.

    The debate team representing the legalization of recreational marijuana argued for politicians to give the people what they want. They claimed that by allowing marijuana use to remain illegal, freedoms are being taken away, prisons are being wrongfully clogged and the war on drugs is only gaining strength, in the process increasing taxes and propagating racism. The debate team also argued that legalization would allow for enhanced tax revenues, possibly allowing more money for education. This group was not as rhetorically sound as the medical marijuana side. The members talked too quickly, and they did not use a lot of statistical evidence for support. They came in knowing that a majority of the audience would be in favor of their side to begin with, considering 51 percent of Pennsylvania residents, ages 18-25, have tried recreational marijuana. As a result, instead of providing sound reasoning, they just counted on the audience for support. Their best argument was in regards to hemp. They claimed that when President Nixon made it illegal to grow hemp, because of the marijuana that can result, America lost the ability to export 25,000 different products. Now, America must import their hemp products from Canada, which has caused a great financial deficit. However, even though this was an interesting point, it still did not provide any reason for recreational usage. “Giving the people what they want,” is not a valid theme to build a debate off of.

    In the end, I found the medical marijuana debate team to be the most effective. They spoke clearly, they caught my attention, and they had valid support and rebuttals. I found it frustrating that the other side used their superficial advantage to carry them through the entire debate. When we voted at the end, it appeared that the recreational use side was going to win. That is no big surprise, but it is still important to note that the medicinal side was more well-researched and equipped for the debate.

     

     


  4. This I Believe – Faith Remains Forever

    January 29, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    grams

    In loving memory of Marie Domenica Nocera Ialongo.


  5. Final Blog Ideas

    January 21, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    “I’m all for setting the bar high, but you are setting the bar so high that you are going to defeat a group of people and they’re going to drop out of school,” said parent Lisa Arnone. “As a middle school teacher I already hear them talking. They say ‘they’ll never pass those tests and they’re done.’ And that will be a shame that they will be defeated by these tests.”

    Arnone’s sentiment is shocking and powerful and begs us all to ask the questions: Should standardized testing be allowed? How much testing is too much?

    For my civic issues blog, I plan to discuss Public Education. More specifically, I plan to unearth the controversy regarding standardized testing. What type of testing is in place? What are the rules and regulations regarding standardized testing? Why did the states decide to take control and create such tests, and what do the states hope to accomplish? Are the tests truly meaningful, or are they invalid due to skewed statistical analysis? How are students and teachers punished with the implementation of standardized testing? What are the major benefits to this type of testing? Finally, if it is possible, I would like to try to tie in another controversy so long as I can find a connection with standardized testing. I would like to research vocational schooling and the stigma behind it. So many high schools push students to go to college when their skill sets lie elsewhere? Why is this the case? Vocational schooling can be both financially beneficial and academically beneficial for the right student. It is time for the stigma to be brought to the surface and confronted.

    “In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different.”

    ~ Coco Chanel

    Coco-Chanel-P

    For my passion blog, I plan to create a fashion blog. It will follow the normal criterion for a fashion blog, commenting on clothing, accessories, make up and shoes. However, the celebrity of the week that I choose will be both unique in her style and in her impact on the world. She will not just be an original fashion icon, but a woman who moves past the superficial to embrace her humanity and make a difference in this world. Fashion will always be fashion. Same trends. Different era. My celebrity of the week will be “irreplaceable,” both in the eyes of fashion and in the eyes of civilization.
     


Skip to toolbar