Sharena Kaur

Mr. Soeth

English 3 AP

February 16, 2011

REHUGO Analysis-Current Event: Cell Phones

A.Article 1- Cell Phones Should be Banned in Schools

Article 2- Cell Phones Should not be Banned in Schools


B.Articles Attached

Article 1: Williams Armstrong

Article 2: Randi Weingarten


C.The Author’s Argument

1.(Article 1) In this article, Armstrong argues cell phones are not only a distraction in class or meetings, but provokes violence and drug activity in the school. By allowing students to bring cell phones to school, permits them to cheat on tests by browsing the internet and send each other answers via text message. Banning cell phones can also help students be in a safer environment. Without the usage of cell phones, gang violence cannot be spread as quickly and sufficiently making school a secure place to be in.

2.(Article 2) In this article, Weingarten talks about the benefits of keeping a cell phone in hand at school. She says that by banning cell phones from school, takes privileges away from the few students who used their phones appropriately. As neighborhood crime and transportation is becoming an issue, cell phones should be kept just to make traveling safer. Also, Weingarten argues that cell phones shouldn’t be banned; just the usage of it during school sessions should be banned.


D.Evidence

1.(Article 1) Throughout the article, Armstrong largely uses logos to support his argument. He brings up situations in school where a cell phone would be put to good use. For example, he mentions on tests how students can text each other answers and also browse the internet for cell phones. He brings in many situations where the student may be tempted to look at his or her cell phone and talk to a friend. By mentioning its disruption, he stresses that the teachers already have a tough enough job educating the future of America; and cell phone usage is another way to prevent them from learning. When Armstrong mentions that the students are representing the future of our economy, he brings in pathos. This evidence can be identified as pathos because parents tend to worry about their children and usually put them as their first priority. Therefore when Armstrong mentions the effectiveness on the education of students, parents tend to pay closer attention to the argument.

2.(Article 2) in this article, Weingarten structures logos into his argument by bringing up everyday situations that a student might go through and need their cell phones. For example, she talks about how public transportation is more of necessity nowadays therefore parents may want to contact their children on to make sure they come home on time. Weingarten logically mentions why the students that use their phones appropriately should be punished along with those who misuse their phones. Also she appeals in her argument by the usage of ethos when she mentions that UFT (United Federation of Teachers) sides her in saying that the usage of cell phones should be banned from school but not the cell phone itself. By using a source such as the teachers themselves, Weingarten proves that teachers feel the need that students should have cell phones with them in case of an emergency.


E.Rhetorical Strategies

1.(Article 1) In the article, Armstrong uses the appeal via credibility to address his audience about banning cell phones from schools. By using opinions of the Education Committee in the article, Armstrong describes how they are against the usage of cell phones in school. In the mentioning of the Committee, he brings up how cell phones can be proven to be a dangerous aspect to the learning environment. The effect of citing a Committee enhances his argument because it is the education system that is being great fully affected in this case. Another way Armstrong approached his audience was by using the cause and effect strategy. For example, in the article, he says if cell phones are banned from school, then there will be less gang fighting and students will focus more on their academic studies. By telling his audience the results of banning cell phones in schools, Armstrong makes his argument more appealing because it gives the audience an idea of the outcome.

2.(Article 2) In this article, Weingarten embeds diction within her argument. She does so by mixing the words in the prompt. She states that cell phones should be allowed in school but their usage should be banned during school hours. By doing so, she makes an agreement with the opposing side. This enhances her argument because the audience can see that Weingarten is working with both sides of the argument. Another rhetorical strategy Weingarten uses throughout her article is exemplifications. By adding exemplifications in her article, Weingarten improves her argument it gives her audience a clear understanding of the benefits in allowing students to bring cell phones to school. To address the cheating issue, Weingarten asked some rhetorical questions such as, “Students will find ways to cheat on tests, whether it is by paper, pen or pencils, but we cannot take everything away from them; therefore what is the point of taking away their phone?” This has an affect on the audience because it leaves the audience thinking: what’s the point? It makes the argument more logical and is easy for the audience to understand.


F.Although cell phones should be banned from schools because it is a distraction, students should be allowed to bring it in to school because of before and after school activities. Nowadays public transportation is relied on mostly by parents who have to work in the hours their students come home therefore; they have a right to know if their child is safe. By taking away a student’s cell phone isn’t going to stop them from cheating. If a student wants to cheat, they will find a way to do it no matter what; therefore there’s no point in taking away a student’s phone. Also, by banning cell phones from school, brings injustice to those students and parents who used their phones to their proper advantage.


G.Citation:


1."Cell Phones Should Not Be Banned in Schools." School Policies. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.

2."Cell Phones Should Not Be Banned in Schools." School Policies. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.