Please follow this link and watch the video, then answer the questions in paragraph form (watch the video at least twice and write down points as you watch):
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html
1. What is the speaker's purpose?
2. What rhetorical (pathos, ethos, logos) methods does he employ in communicating his purpose?
3. Does he succeed in convincing you, as one of his audience members? Please respond to this question in the following manner.
- Yes, he succeeds because...
- No, he does not succeed because...
- Yes, he succeeds, but....
- No, he does not succeed, but...
For the parts that come after the ellipses, please use evidence from the video. The reason for the formatting of your response to his presentation is that you need to know why you disagree or agree with him, and you also need to explain where he succeeds or fails, even if you agree/disagree with most of his points.
This exercise is to prepare you for the rhetorical analysis paper we will be working toward for the next week and a half.
Reply: choose a post you disagree with--either partially or completely), and then give evidence from the video of why you disagree. Please continue to be respectful. If you do not yet know how the blogs are graded, please look on D2L: Content/Get Started Here/Blogging/Blog grading.
As always, if you have questions, please let me know.
The speaker, Hans Rosling, talks about the energy consumption of the world, and how much it has grown and will grow. He uses logos to show the growing consumption of fossil fuels and energies and how it will nearly double over the next 40 years. Not only does he us logos, but also he uses pathos to show how much energy use has made life for him and his mother better, with the example of the washing machine. Using these, he exhorts the audience to seek more green and energy efficient uses of our finite fuel and to help make life better for others in the world.
ReplyDeleteTo me Hans definitely hits the spot. I have always cared about the world and Earth's future. He succeeds by convincing the audience of the worry for the future, but lacks giving a direction. He has a cause, but no action to follow or take part in.
I disagree with Hans hitting the spot. Im glad you see he lacks direction. I myself care for our planets future, but i feel that his idea will not aid in our ecological issues. Because we are simply distributing energy does not mean that those on the low end of the poverty line will have the machines or means to use electricity. There for its not a distribution, its just lessening the use by the wealthy.
DeleteThe purpose of Hans Roslin's presentation is to educate the audience about energy consumption. He compares and contrasts the seven billion people of the world into three groups of consumers. The two billion poorest who use fire to heat their water; the four billion people who have electricity but not much else; and the billion who have all the amenities common in western nations. Roslin goes on to project how these 2010 statistics will alter by 2050.
ReplyDeleteHe uses the washing machine's impact on an average poor woman's life as a means of pathos. Every time he mentions the washing machine it draws a point of laughter. He found a machine that can save time to increase productivity and illustrate the gaps between the classes. That a washing machine is the difference between rich and poor people is an offbeat joke.
Just on the basis of setting, presentation, audience and production value, his ethos seems reasonable. The accompanying bio gives his credentials as a well know scientist and orator.
His logos must taken from his expert delivery and his ethos. As he does not identify himself or where his data is derived, the listener is expected to trust his position of authority on the subject matter.
As an audience member does Hans Roslin convince me of his argument? - Yes he succeeds because his established credibility along with logos of his argument coincide together.
-No he does not succeed because of his callousness towards developing countries. I believe he knows better and thinks he has found a clever way to convey his argument that economic growth over population growth is more hazardous to the earth; but to insinuate that poor women in developing countries would rather have a washing machines than medicine, education for their children, a stable government, or sound infrastructure, was lame.
-Yes he succeeds because even though the washing machine argument was misogynistic, it was funny.
I think that is a good explanation on things. I didn't think he was being callous though.
DeleteI think he was just trying to be persuasive.
The speaker had a couple purposes, if I read between the lines right. The first is that more people should have access to washing machines and electricity. If the poorest people in the world was able to use something as simple as a washing machine, they would have hours of time freed to do other things, such as learn new skills or teach their children. Doing this, they could educate themselves in other areas and work on becoming better off financially. The other point is the richest people in the world are also the most energy inefficient and do not have the right to tell anyone how to use energy.
ReplyDeleteHe uses two different methods to get his point across: Pathos and Logos. Pathos was used when he told the story of his family's first washing machine and trying to convince everyone that we should feel sorry for all people without washing machines. Logos would be all of the data that he presented throughout his presentation. The data on how many billions of people in the world have washers, electricity, how much energy people use, and what the projected energy consumption is.
No, he didn't succeed in getting his point across but he did have good data. He just presented data, he didn't give examples on how energy use should be changed, what would be all of the good if poorer people were able to have all the technologies of the richer in the world. I understand it would be nice if they didn't have to wash their clothes by hand but it would be better if they had electricity period. Start with the basics before you start going all out. Got to walk before you can run. Also, how much energy would be used getting electricity to 2 billion people? You need power plants, knowledgeable people, and equipment. When I was in Iraq, we started to get power stations going again and I can tell you that it is not as simple as flipping a switch. And that country already had a power grid in place and plants. He has good ideas and wishes but he is not looking at the whole picture and that is where he fails.
I agree with everything you wrote up until where you say he does not succeed. I personally think he did, although he did not give a path or way to change the inefficiency of energy consumption, he showed us, the audience, that there was a problem. Hans showed what the problem was, who it was effecting most, and what would happen over time. What I think he is trying to show is that the small things are what matter and that if we start with the small, we can build ourselves up to something better.
DeleteThe speaker presents a case that the industrialized nations consume the most
ReplyDeleteenergy and developing nations are wanting the same technological benefits, thus
causing more global warming and a drain on the world's resources. He mentioned
that one of his students claimed not everyone can have what industrialized nations
have and he asserts that they have no right to dictate otherwise. He uses a washing
machine as an example, but it could just as well be an automobile or a cell phone.
He appears to be knowledgeable in his argument and presents plausible facts. He
portrays a dry sense of humor that helps his case.
He presents a convincing argument, but I'm already aware of most of these issues.
I do not agree with what you are saying. I think that you need to have more evidence to back up your points, you are very vague when you said he appears to be knowlegeable. How is he knowlegeable? What are the facts that he presents? In the last sentence you say he presents a convincing argument, but how is his argument convincing to you? Give some examples that you find convincing. I think if you put more examples to show how Hans is knowlegeable and convincing when he speaks then I would probably be able to agree with what you are saying.I hope this helps
DeleteHans Rosling talks about how much energy we use in the world from rich people to others who live under the poverty line. To convey his message across he uses a lot of pathos by talking about his family's experience when getting a washer machine for the first time and then talks about women who have to walk to a river and carry the water back just to wash their clothes. Rosling also uses logos during his speech. He uses his own graphs to show the energy use between rich people, middle class people, and people who live under the poverty line.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Hans Rosling succeeding in persuading me because I am not an emotional person so for him to use emotions while he speaks just turns me away from what he is saying and tune him out. I also wonder if his charts that he used in his presentation were actual data or if it was his version of how much energy people use.
I am not sure if I agree with you. I think he was using the energy charts to show that richer people have more convenience in their life because they own more machines which mean they use more energy.
DeleteHans Rosling discusses why people need to find a better way to use energy. He brings to light all the benefits people would have in that event, such as more time for education and also, many more people in the world would have access to technology. He uses ethos when he tells the story about his mother using a washing machine for the first time. When he talks about the poor in other countries, he sounds sympathetic and seems to be using pathos. He does succeed because he gives a very convincing argument in which he provides information to support his claims. The way he uses pathos helps him succeed as well.
ReplyDeleteHans Rosling presents the idea of reducing the amount of energy used by those on the higher end of the poverty line. Forcing the higher echelon to create more green energy, to then allow those on the lower end of the poverty line to use more energy and move up, ridding those still using fire ,verses electricity.
ReplyDeleteTo support his idea he uses pathos by showing his families hardship of washing clothes by hand and explaining the joy and opportunities presented by having a washing machine. He uses ethos when presenting a comparison of the poverty line and analysis of energy used.
I feel like he did not succeed in his point because I felt his presentation was geared to closely to women, which was offensive. I also felt like his very typical point of steal from the rich and give to the needy is a bit cliche and ineffective in this particular case.
I agree that the presentation was geared towards women much too much, and furthers a patriarchal, gender-traditional agenda, which, in America, and Europe where he's from, is quickly fading into a wider, more open interpretation of gender roles. I agree that the point of taking things from the rich to give to the poor is over used and cliche, but on the same hand, how else are the poor supposed to get anywhere if no one is willing to change anything? They will stay in the same, manual clothes-washing place that they are now. Overall though, I agree with you.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of Mr. Rosling, and i was impressed how you drew from the fact of comparing his tactics to that of Robin Hood. His use of Pathos tied into Ethos aided in him delivering a convincing story line to his audience. Besides every one knows that when you use numbers and graphs viewers and watchers think that one knows what they are talking about.
DeleteHans Rosling’s purpose in the video, “The magic washing machine” is provide a sense of reality that with time, technology may be convenient but also consumes natural resources which, can become costly. What individuals in Countries like America, we take for granted the convenience of electricity and the ability to purchase luxury items such as homes with indoor plumbing and additional accessories such as, washing machines. These luxuries allow more time to focus on family, friends, work and school. However, as we have experienced in Colorado and the ramifications of a drought. Convenience has a price tag, water shortage. To run these luxury items requires electricity. Which, companies destroy the planet by digging up the Earth for coal for energy, holds a heftier price tag to future generations. Compared to third world countries that do not have access to these luxuries, individuals may not consume as much energy however, they damage their well-being by adding pollutants to their drinking water, putting themselves at risk. Rosling succeeds about how certain luxuries have given time to do other things that have been lost because of the lack of time but, advancements in technology has also changed. Washing machines are using less water and energy. Companies are striving to make their products eco-friendly. The extra time that would have been spent with family, is replaced with both parents working, television, extracurricular activities. Times have changed because of the advancements with technology.
ReplyDeleteRosling, a professor of global health, provides statistical information on trends through his knowledge and expertise. Rosling uses humor and a new method to share his personal experiences as a child, which also included statistical information to state his purpose. Through his innovated way, Rosling uses all three types of arguments in his philosophies. Rosling uses Pathos to builds an emotional connection to audience by using photographs, he uses Ethos because of his ties in the medical community as well as being a professor, and uses Logos through graphs and statistical information that was gathered.
Hans Rosling's purpose in the video "the magic washing machine" is to provide a sense of reality as to how much energy we use in the world now, how much we could be consuming by 2050, and how to offset that by using green energy. In his presentation, Rosling shows how many people in the world don't have washing machines, current energy comsumption, how much we would be consuming if everyone had washing machines, and most importantly, what energy distribution between green, and regular should look like by the time 2050 rolls around. Concerning the use of rhetorical methods in his presentation, he uses all three quite a bit. Hans uses Pathos when illustrating the story of the day when his family first used a washing machine, and how it affected his childhood by giving his mom more time to take him to the library. Ethos is used more subtly, and is expressed through the fact that he is a global health professor, and he has experience with getting a washing machine after not having one. Rosling dominates with logos through the use of the charts on his slides. Professor Rosling is successful in convincing me. He communicates his points, and uses humor and personal account to provide credibility. One place he fails though, is that while his points are all valid, effective points, his organization, and overzealous presentation takes away from the purpose by distracting the viewer as they try to keep up.
ReplyDeleteIt looks as if your review covers Hans Rosling's video thoroughly. Your take on the purpose is encompassing and well stated. Personally, I though he was being facetious about the washing machine library bit. It probably did happen that way for him as a kid. But like every broke woman that finally gets a washing machine is gonna say "ok kids i can read to you now". I've wasted that time a hundred other ways. Your opening line about ethos, "Ethos is used more subtly", is especially smart. That you describe his presentation as overzealous was interesting as well.
DeleteI'm envious at how well your paragraph flows. However, you might want to ask Professor Taylor if it should be split in to three. My blog is a bit of a mess, but adamkyle's is the format i'm mentioning. Purpose, pathos ethos logos, and whether he's convincing - can they be incorporated in one paragraph? Beats me. If they can you win.
Oh, and p.s great job avoiding grammatical errors. I read my blog out loud, and my reply to your blog out loud, like five times, and still there's grammatical errors. There's grammatical errors in almost every other blog also. That's really cool to avoid them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of Hans Rosling's presentation seemed to be about how the progress of industrialization in nations contributes to the lifestyle enhancement of people in lower poverty.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate his message, he uses a lot of pathos by describing his mother’s experience of never having a washing machine and the then inviting grandma over to watch the first load wash and also describing the lengths women of lower living have to go to wash their clothing.
He also uses Logos by using charts to help visualize his philosophy, being the wealthy will design higher efficient machines that will not only benefit the wealthy, but by helping the poor increase their level of living, leading to his thought process that with all the extra time my mother had, she was able to teach me to read and learn a second language and now I am a professor. All thanks to the washing machine.
No, he does not succeed because this only one example of how industrialization is beneficial. I think that there could be many arguments about how industrialization has done as much harm as it has good. For example, the corporations behind the oil refineries around the Gulf of Mexico and how they operate. It has been studied that they are causing lots of harm to the health of the people that live within proximity. If the fine of not following regulations is cheaper than following regulations, then by all means pour that waste into that river.
The purpose of the speaker was to promote energy conservation to help lower income people. He used his grandmother’s experience with hand washing and introduction to the washing machine to show he had personal experience. This is an ethos method. He used the photos of women hand washing clothes in low income countries to identify with the audience’s pathos. He used a graphic illustration of data collected on energy consumption to identify with the audience’s logos. I felt that he did succeed in convincing me that I should reduce the amount of energy I consume because of this personal experience and visual explanation of energy conservation through green energy usage.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that his purpose was just that we need a better way to consume energy. Everybody talks about this as his main point but the point of the washing machine was not on how much energy it used, it was trying to show how good of a life people could have with it. At least that was what I got from it. He only talks about less fossil fuels and renewable energy when talking about what we will hopefully be at in 2050 with more people above the flight line. He said that hopefully we would use less fossil fuels and have more renewable energy. I don't think he succeeded with his point because a lot of his talk was about people washing by hands and he did not talk a lot on why we need to become more efficient. Just said that hopefully we would be. I don't know, to me, it was hard to get any points from his talk beside how happy his family was to get a washing machine and how others in the world would like a washing machine.
ReplyDeleteI believe the speaker’s purpose is to educate his audience on how machines like washing machines have helped to free up mother's time to spend with their children, and how machines have made our lives much more convenient. I believe he used pesos to communicate with his audience. He showed a lot of pictures to express how he and others should feel about people who don't own washing machines. Yes he does convince me of his claim but he should have implied more of what women are missing out on when having to spend time doing laundry by hand. Maybe some pictures of children playing by themselves. Or maybe on the good side of doing laundry by hand he could have showed a picture of a female bodybuilder, He seemed to throw a lot of comedy into his lesson.
ReplyDeleteHans Rosling starts his video out talking about the roles of people and how we should find a better way of conserving energy. In lieu of everything, he sheds the light on the wonderful ways we would benefit from conserving our usage. For instance, technology could be used by everyone instead limited access, and more people could reap from have education started in places where electricity doesn’t exist. He uses Pathos as he talks about poor people in different countries, in the same breathe, sounding like he’s hurt because of their under development. Mr. Rosling turns around and uses Ethos as he talks about the use of a washer machine by his mother for the first time. He succeeds in his efforts of convincing the audience for the simple reason of providing information that was sound and good. His usage of ethos and pathos really drives his intentions home.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that Rosling was very persuasive from the displays and the graphs, and could sway the audience with his concepts of energy consumption. What distracted me was the way he put most of the blame of energy consumption on the wealthier individuals. I was not impressed with his concepts of comparing the wealthy to the poor, because even though the poor (as in 3rd world)may not consume as much energy, they still destroy the planet through polluting water supplies where as most of the usage such as water is recycled in America. And with anything, technology has and will continue to change to become eco-friendly.
DeleteI agree. The only few points that i received was when he discussed about the future of renewable energy. I believe his majority of his speech were focused on his family with their experience being amazed by this machine. I could not follow his point of view and strong argument due to this.
ReplyDeleteListening to the presentation twice, i perceive that the speaker is trying to prove a point to his audience about the importance and the significance of the washing machine. He goes on saying that many people, particularly women were getting tired of washing with clothes with their hands.
ReplyDeletePathos were discussed when he started to tell the story of his grandmother and her feelings towards having this wonderful machine. This machine that he considered "magical" made it easier for his family's daily life.
Yes, he succeeded in pulling and grasping the audience's attention towards his message. However, the persuasion was weak for me to agree strongly on his views. Even though he mentioned about renewable energy for the future it was not strongly convincing.
I know this is a little late but I noticed that a few of you were talking about how rough of a time the guy in last week’s blog had it during interrogations. If anyone would like a pretty accurate example of just what the CIA would do to get information after 9-11, watch the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.” The beginning of the movie is almost strictly interrogations and what techniques that were used. I will warn you, they are pretty extreme and are not for people with a weak stomach. They are very graphic and show beatings, water boarding, the rock music blaring, and a few other styles. As for feeling sorry about the people who have had this happen to them, including the person in the blog video, there is a saying that comes to mind when thinking of just what some people knew and did: “The ends justify the means.” If you would like some real world experience about what I mean, let me know and I’ll tell you a couple of stories of what happened to me and my company while we were in Iraq during the initial invasion in 2003-04. Just something I have been thinking about and thought some of you might find it interesting to get a better visual on what the guy might have went through.
ReplyDelete