Pros And Cons Of Edmundson

Something that can be seen as either a major flaw in his argument or a strategic appeal is his lack of presenting opposing views. He didn’t recognize any counterarguments. He only spoke from his perspective, without exploring the views of his opposition. This could hurt him because his argument was not solidified by his responses to obvious oppositions, but this choice could help Edmundson in making an ethical appeal to the audience. Edmundson seems genuine by not trying to argue with possible oppositions; he comes off as having pure intentions of changing the path of the next generation. Edmundson does other things to come off well to the reader as well. Edmundson seems to truly care about the state of the next generation because he takes

Shorris was researching for a book on poverty, and he was influenced into completing an experiment where he would teach the liberal arts to the impoverished. His central claim is that the liberal arts teaches the poor how to succeed in a political—as Thucydides defines it—society. Edmundson and Shorris both write essays on liberal education and contemporary culture; however, both authors come to different conclusions. While Edmundson decides that liberal education has become useless in today’s culture, Shorris documents how a liberal education has changed the lives of sixteen people. Shorris’ essay includes a younger generation that does have passion—this is opposed to Edmundson describing an entire generation as generally passionless. The difference between the two authors is that Edmundson bases his findings on his experience with privileged students and then applies it to a whole nation of young adults; meanwhile, Shorris writes about his experiences with impoverished young adults, but he doesn’t apply his results to the entire nation. Edmundson is speaking too generally when he says that the generation of his students is passionless, that they cannot benefit from a liberal education, and that they are all going to school as consumers. In contrast with Edmundson’s students, Shorris’ students were changed; this shows that not every group of students is the same as Edmundson’s students. Shorris’ essay gives another side to the story that Edmundson tells; although Shorris’ argument doesn’t totally invalidate Edmundson’s, it does limit