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?
I do not think that this article has an appropriate title. The title makes it seem that President Trump might be forcing people who are unable to work, work for their food stamps. It also might bring up the thought that if those un-abled people aren't able to work for their food stamps, they will get taken away.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after reading the article it seems that Trump is attempting to employ more people into the work force so that they become self-sufficient and are able to come off of food stamps and provide for themselves and their families. Trump's decision has to do more with create jobs than taking away food stamps like the title suggests. The title skews the reader to make them believe that Trump is doing something malicious when actually, his efforts seem to be for good.
I think that this constitutes as a hasty generalization logical fallacy. This is because Trump has a lot of bad rep that surround him as President of the US. So by reading this article title, it would not be surprising for the audience to assume that Trump is doing something detrimental to the US society when he is actual trying to create jobs.
I think that the title of this article is slightly misleading, since it implies that President Trump is "requiring people to work for food stamps." On the contrary, Trump is attempting to get capable people into the work force in order to lower the unemployment rate and get people off of food stamps. The title is designed to be attention-grabbing and controversial, but the author accomplishes this by scewing a reader's understanding of Trump's motives. The author appeals to pathos in this way, because the title gets peoples' emotions flowing since many people have a connection to food stamps in some form or another. I do not think that this title constitutes for a logical fallacy, instead I think that the author is employing an appeal to logos and is strategically being controversial.
ReplyDeleteI see the title as slightly misleading, which is common of most media sources today. The most important part of an article in today's society seems to be the title, which is where things get misleading. People are more likely to read a title and react to the title rather than the actual content of the article. This causes people to believe "facts" that are only true if you ignore most of the context. I see this as an appeal to logos and pathos. People use logic to connect a title to the contents of an article, even thought this may not line up. It also appeals to peoples emotional response as it leads one to react according to their personal beliefs. CNN knows that most of their audience leans left, so an article criticizing the right will please their audience. I don't see the article itself as a fallacy, but people who take the title to support their beliefs are falling into a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the title of this article is somewhat confusing. Upon first glance, I took it to mean that President Trump is requiring people to work for their food stamps, even if they are unable. It appears that he really is showing no mercy with people using food stamps. However, President Trump is solely requiring able-bodied people who have no dependent children at home and who really have no need to be sitting at home. After reading the article, it appears that he is looking to get more people off of food stamps to provide for themselves and their families. The title doesn't really show that and it almost appears to try and paint Trump as the bad guy. This would be an appeal to pathos because the title attempts to get people angry towards Trump's new policies and to get the reader to agree with what the author is saying. While the author appears to be writing from a neutral point of view, the title suggests otherwise. This would be an example of logical fallacy because the media is always trying to put President Trump in a bad light and it would not be surprising to me that the author was trying to appeal to that idea and continue to convince people that he is once again doing something bad.
ReplyDeleteThis article's title is pretty confusing when you first read it. The author made it sound like people who are unable to work may be forced to work for food stamps. This is incorrect as the article later explains that people who are able to work will be required to work in order to receive food stamps. The article title was written to catch reader's attentions and emotions. The skew of the article title is an appeal to pathos as the author wants to incite anger into his/her readers who already feel hatred toward Trump. The majority of the article is from a neutral position but this title is not necessarily neutral. This article title is an example of a logical fallacy because the media is always trying to paint Trump in a bad light and this follows that pattern.
ReplyDeleteThis title is, in my opinion, misleading and displaying President Trump as a cruel person. I interpret the title as "Trump is making everyone work for food stamps, even if they can't." As you progress in the article, it explains how Trump is actually seeking to make "able-bodied" individuals work for their government benefits and assistance. This title appeals to a person's pathos by evoking a feeling of anger, distaste towards President Trump. This title was written this way to catch someone off guard and to spark their interest into reading the article. This title can be seen as a logical fallacy. Although the article is rather neutral and fact-based, the title starts off with a bias. Ever since he announced his campaign, Trump has had crosshairs on his back by the media. This is a noticeable pattern in the amount and type of media coverage he receives, and this article title is one of many examples of the bad media he gets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the title of the article is not appropriate in relation to the content because it implies that Trump is going to make people that are unable to work to work for food stamps. However, if you read the article you realize that he is trying to make more people work and open up more jobs so that they no longer have to rely on food stamps. The article title is meant to draw in the readers attention by causing anger so that they read the article. The author is trying to appeal to pathos by creating anger in the audience and make them dislike Trump's motives. I believe this is a logical fallacy because the media is always trying to make Trump seem like a bad guy and get the readers to think Trump is making another bad decision. This is an Ad Hominem because the author is "against the man" and trying to attack trump with the title
ReplyDeleteI think that the title is misleading. And even the first sentence “The Trump administration wants more food stamp recipients to work for their benefits.” aligns with the title, but as you continue to read, you realize that trumps intention is not to force unable people to work harder, and if they don’t, they can’t receive food. It is so more intended to help able bodies to work, and help people earn the benefits so that they can ideally work their way up in the work force. I think that the title is an attention getter, which is probably their intention to get the audiences attention to keep reading. I think this is a hasty generalization fallacy because the title sounds like a hasty generalization but then what’s you read the article and her the facts and backing behind it, you realize that there is much more to the topic than what the title eludes.
ReplyDeleteTrump Administration Seeks to More People to Work for Food Stamps is not an appropriate title to the content shared because I was confused half-way through reading the article. There wasn’t a strong intro that connected to the title, which left me curious as to how they will tie their title/purpose into their opening. The title has been designed to skew some readers understanding of the decision by Trump described in the article because it has changed my concept overall. At first, I believed the article was about people who have issues or are incapable of working may have to figure out a way to work or contribute to our society in order to get food stamps. After reading the article through, I came to the conclusion I realized it was about how Trump administration is making people who are able-bodied work for their benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis appeal would be pathos because the title leads you to think Trump is making things more difficult for the people who are unable to work, but in reality, that’s not the case. This would constitute logical fallacy because overall this title is not logical with the text, making their argument unclear.
From just the headline, it sounds as if the intended meaning is that Trump and his staff have decided to force people to work if they want to receive federal aid. That's not exactly the message, the actual article doesn't even talk about Trump, but they continue to explain that only able-bodied people would have to work and that certain restrictions will be placed on waving the work requirement that is already in place. It seems as if the author purposely used that wording and included Trump's name so people would think that Trump is being unfair. The idea that Trump would make people who are not able to work actually work for their aid is angering, therefore this article appeals to pathos. The logical fallacy I can see is the ad hominem fallacy. Plenty of people already dislike Trump, therefore by portraying him in a bad light, they feed into that dislike.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the title is appropriate for this argument. The title is purposely worded to make Trump sound like a bad person. If a person were to casually read the title without reading the entire article they would be deceived and misinformed. The title is made out to sound like Trump made this decision by himself when in reality Trump alone is never even mentioned in this article and in reality it is his administration who make these types of decisions. Additionally the title is not specific enough. The title makes it seem like every single person who wants a food stamp is going to be out of luck unless they find a job. This is a hasty generalization fallacy. In reality what is being said is that able bodied people who do not have children and live in an area where work is available need to work in order to receive a food stamp. This is not at all the idea you would get from just reading the title.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not find this title appropriate in respect to its content. It is somewhat misleading in the sense that it doesn't entirely follow its title. This is somewhat misleading because it could just be an attention grabber that doesn't go in depth into the title and when it does it is near the end. This article appeals to logos because it is attempting to appeal to logic and reason if you read through its numbers/stats. It also could be argued that this is an appeal to pathos. This is because it would make you feel as if Trump was trying to force people to work making it more difficult for them in a tough situation. In conclusion I believe that this article is misleading and it does a good job of appealing to different types of readers. The lesson to be learned is never go off information of the headlines, always dig down deeper and find out what the true meaning and points of the article are through analyzing its text.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article is very misleading and seems very off topic. I was waiting to find where it applied to the text and never found it. The author is trying to make this seem like Trump is forcing any person to work for benefits. At first glance, I assumed Trump was going to make a decision that was detrimental to many people. However, the text gave me a different view. I believe this is in the best interest of the majority of Americans. The reason the title was chosen, was to appeal to pathos. They intend to make the reader angry at Trump without reading a single word from the actual text. The title suggests that there is a bias against the president but the article is very neutral through its entirety. This is a logical fallacy because the title does not have any evidence proving its point. It lines up with a hasty generalization because the author rushes to frame the Trump administration without any legitimate reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article is very misleading and seems to be trying to make Trump sound worse as a president. The article describes how Trump's goal is to try to get more able-bodied adults who do not have dependent children into the workforce. The goal is to get more people to be more self-sufficient rather than depending on the government food stamps. However, the title is twisted to make it seem like Trump is making all food-stamp dependent people work to be able to get food stamps. This is not the case as Trump is just trying to get people who are able to work to work in order to get more people to be self-sufficient. The title is a bias against Trump while the article is not against him or for him in any real way. This is a logical fallacy because the title does not have much evidence proving its existence. It was a hasty generalization because the author does not like the Trump administration and wanted to frame them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the title was intended to demonize Trump. It's not a perfect title, but it is mostly accurate to the article's content. Of course, it does not specify the exact group of people targeted by the change in policy, able-bodied adults who don't have dependent children. A title of "Trump administration seeks to require more non-disabled, working-aged adults who don't have dependent children to work for food stamps", while precisely accurate to the content, might be a bit verbose. It's clear the title was not deliberately crafted to make readers think Trump wants all people to work for food stamps, because it specifies "more people". I think the "more" is meant as a logos appeal to build curiosity and draw the reader into the article to see more of the details. My personal first impression of the title was "okay, 'more people to work for food stamps', what's the exact demographic here?" and my question was answered within the first sentence of the article body.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any logical fallacies in the title choice. Perhaps a better title could have been written, but this article is hardly "EVIL, BIASED MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUT FOR OUR PRESIDENT" material. Titles can never encompass the whole of the body content, else they would not be titles.