Fact/Truth
|
Since there have been at least 5 sightings of the Frogmen, the author uses further facts/truth to back up the article, which is later contradicted by one of the officers who claimed to have previously saw multiple Frogmen.
|
Presumptions
|
“These amphibious anomalies have shocked and terrified both businessmen, farmers and police officers and remain one of the most intriguing cryptozoological mysteries in the United States.”
-The Frogmen are claimed to have been seen by 5 different people, but many more people believe in him without even seeing him
|
Presence (Space)
|
“The Loveland frog is known to live in Clermont County, Ohio. The creature lives in a temperate forest and is able to survive the cold winters of the region without having to hibernate.
-This is made to appeal to readers in or near Ohio and make the Frogmen seem close to them
|
Contradiction
|
“In the years which have followed these events, Officer Mathews has reneged somewhat on his tale. He now claims that the animal in question was nothing more than a large reptile which escaped from its owner. He further insists that the only reason he shot at the creature was to help confirm a fellow officer’s story – a story which was, of course, being met with predictable skepticism by their superiors.”
-One of the 5 sightings, the officer takes back that he saw a “Frogman” creating further contradictions and skepticism.
|
Prestige
|
“on March 3, 1972 – nearly 17 years after the first report – a police officer (who understandably chose to remain anonymous) was travelling along Riverside Road heading towards Loveland when he saw something that would forever change his life.”
-The police officer chose to remain anonymous in fear of not being taken seriously in his profession.
|
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Perelman Analysis: Skylea Tatsch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Skylea!
ReplyDeleteI think your Cryptid is a little harder to argue about because the page goes back and forth between showing evidence and then explaining how some of it doesn't add up. However, you could use this to your advantage and argue that their argument is going for a less direct approach in convincing their argument. So instead of saying here's all of our evidence- believe us, they say here's some evidence showing both sides of real/not real- now you can make up your mind. It's a risk because it's not guaranteeing that the audience will come to the conclusion that the cryptid is real, but I think they're hoping that the large amount of evidence they do show to be "real" will work in their favor.