I was brainstorming for my paper and all of my ideas seem more on the subjective side--For example, I noticed a lot about the way Biden and Palin talked. If I said: Palin spoke with a shakey voice suggesting that she was nervous-- isn't that an assumption? It also seemed to me that Biden "talked like a politician" using rhetorical devices common in public addresses. Both also had "cheesy" smiles--smiles that appear to be fake or questionable making me feel suspicious about their intentions or motives. Aren't these all assumptions or subjective interpretations? I'm just a little leary about keeping my observations objective. Please help me sort my thoughts!
Good questions!You be the judge: which sentence is superior?
1. When she spoke of X, her voice was shakey. .... or ....
2. When she spoke of X, her voice was shakey because she was nervous.
and do you prefer. . .
1. When she spoke of Y, her energy was full. She gave three examples. .... or ....
2. When she spoke of Y, her energy was full because she knew what she was talking about.Do you really need the interpretation? You cann see the motive - and there is no reason to supply it.
Do you like:
1. He spoke like a politician. .... or ....
2. Of 10 questions, he answered three. Four times he attacked his opponent instead, and three times he answered a different question.
BY THE WAY - IT IS DUE WEDNESDAY THE 15TH - no exceptions
No comments:
Post a Comment