1 / 12

Phil 148

Phil 148. Analyzing Writing. An Example:. “University should protect its own interests first” Vikaas Shanker , UDK 9-13-2011

chesna
Download Presentation

Phil 148

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phil 148 Analyzing Writing

  2. An Example: “University should protect its own interests first” VikaasShanker, UDK 9-13-2011 In this article the author discusses whether a new athletic conference membership for the University of Kansas must or ought to be the same as that of Kansas State University. But what is Shanker’s argument?

  3. The opening paragraphs: “While the Big 12 Conference teeters on the brink of extinction, the University of Kansas must stick to its best interest. Although the University (of Kansas) and Kansas State share deep connections from operating under the Board of Regents and sharing rivalry in communities and households, a split might be necessary if major changes further threaten the stability of the conference.” • (Appears to part of the argument, but is it? Is it the conclusion?) • Note the structure of a discounting phrase. The author asserts two facts (one, a deep connection between two institutions) and that one is more important (a split possibly being necessary) . • Note the guarding term that renders the discounting phrase of questionable usefulness.

  4. Some quotes (paragraph 3) Ed McKechnie, Kansas Board of Regents chairman, told the Associated Press last week that the Regents would prefer the institutions to stay together in a conference. He also hoped the Big 12 would consider an academic alignment rather than remain a football-based conference. However, Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little already told The UDK that the University is not required to stick with K-State. • Note that each paraphrased quote neither confirms nor denies the point that the author may or may not be arguing for (that some particular circumstance necessitates a conference split from Kansas State)

  5. Paragraph 4 Gray-Little has handled the alignment situation well. By supporting the continuation of the Big 12, she expressed the University’s commitment to college athletics, rivalry traditions and member institutions. But she has still left options open in case the Big 12 disintegrates. • This is in some ways a tangent, as the performance of the Chancellor is irrelevant to the interests of the university (if this is indeed the author’s main point). • Note the use of the evaluative term, but with only a vague attempt at providing some standards or criteria to evaluate the use of the term ‘well’.

  6. Jurisdiction Confusion As the chief officer of the University, it’s Gray-Little’s jurisdiction to decide whether to stay in or leave the conference. Legislators and members of the Board of Regents, who have the state’s best interests in mind, should not interfere or force the University to stay with K-State in a conference. • First off, previous paragraphs allude to what happens in the case that the conference disbands, not in the case that Kansas would simply decide to leave it. • Second, is this really the chancellor’s sole call? If it is, how could the board of regents interfere or force anything? • This paragraph introduces yet another point. It remains to be seen which of these points is the main one, and which are then tangents.

  7. Paragraph #4, Tangent #5 “The University is accredited by the Association of American Universities – a prestigious (eval. Term w/o criteria) academic recognition it shares with Missouri, but not K-State. This actually makes Missouri a better (eval term w/o criteria) academic-athletic rival to take along if Kansas needs to move to another conference. A split with K-State should at least be on the tableif the Big 12 falls apart.” - Note how the use of guarding terms and conditionals prevents the author from making a claim, much less complementing a claim that was nearly made earlier.

  8. Paragraph #5 cont. • In addition to being only tangentially related to only one of the previous possible main points (the one about the dissolution of the conference possibly necessitating a split from KSU) this is factually incomplete and non-sequitur. • KU is accredited my a vast multitude of organizations, some it shares with KSU (like HLC), some it shares with other universities. • #1: What is an academic rivalry, and how is athletic confererence men=mbership relevant to it? • #2: What do accreditation institutions have to do with athletic rivalries or conference affiliations?

  9. Paragraph #6, more puzzles In any major NCAA conference, football revenue dominates athletic department income, even at a basketball school like Kansas. If rumors hold and football powerhouses Oklahoma and Texas leave the Big 12, Kansas Athletics Inc. could take a sizable hit on the $11.9 million it currently receives from the conference and the NCAA. But with Big 12 television contracts totaling $150 million per year, the conference will still be lucrative for the University even if those institutions leave. • Another set of claims that neither supports nor denies anything that has come previously <sigh> • Confusing: how could the income received from the conference both take a sizable hit and be called comparatively lucrative? Surely, the television contracts assume a certain membership? • The first sentence and the final sentence of this three sentence paragraph are at odds with one another.

  10. Final Paragraph, does the argument appear? The best scenario for the University would be to maintain both K-State and Missouri rivalries in the same conference. But a split with either institution should always be considered. The University has a unique identity as a Big 12 member. If we move to another conference, we are free to do it with friends (or rivals) or alone. • This last paragraph doesn’t clear things up much, but does reiterate an earlier claim (kinda). • Again, the use of evaluative terms sans criteria and guarding terms blocks the author from making a substantive claim.

  11. So what is the argument? • “KU should protect own interests first” • If this were the conclusion, we should require some statement of what IS in KU’s interest vis a vis conference allignment. We don’t get this. • “A split might be necessary” • If this were the conclusion, we should expect some detailing of various scenarios that may or may not happen in which a split would be necessary

  12. Implied conclusion perhaps? How about: • If the conference disbands, then KU should act in its best interest with respect to conference allignment. • KU’s best interests are either to stay in the conference, to leave the conference, to be with KSU and Missouri, to be with KSU but not Missouri, to be with Missouri but not KU, to be with neither school, or some other unspecified option. C. KU should either stay in the conference, leave the conference, be with KSU and Missouri, to with KSU but not Missouri, to with Missouri but not KSU, be with neither school, or do some other unspecified option.

More Related