tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3898217793567551337.post8886756744737121678..comments2024-03-26T04:19:10.390-05:00Comments on COMM 274: Rhetoric at TLU: Steven Vroomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11087513850908608237noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3898217793567551337.post-54827492609050454562015-03-02T00:12:38.451-06:002015-03-02T00:12:38.451-06:00You don't have to prove the author wrong. You ...You don't have to prove the author wrong. You just need to figure out what the author achieved by making these arguments. Also why he chose these particular arguments to make. Mariah :Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715994800179923394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3898217793567551337.post-42826147424771565152015-02-25T22:13:21.163-06:002015-02-25T22:13:21.163-06:00This is a sticky situation because this is actuall...This is a sticky situation because this is actually argued decently. I'd pull apart the small flaws and make them a big deal. Emily Solishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07872420749384240187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3898217793567551337.post-83125578985125408652015-02-24T19:48:32.568-06:002015-02-24T19:48:32.568-06:00It's my opinion, based on your analyses posted...It's my opinion, based on your analyses posted on blogger, that the author makes a pretty firm argument for Jacob Levy being the Ripper. If you're going to argue against this, I think the best way to do it would be to drive home the fact that Levy was never actually convicted. That is, it would be beneficial for you to explain in your thesis or an extension of it that the authorities of the time weren't able to use the information you have here to convict Levy. This would make a good base for you to argue things like presumption and hasty generalization/unrepresentative sample off of.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17161587946925594622noreply@blogger.com