Tanmayee Yenumula: Outside Readings (Set 2): Editorial 12.5.10

The title of The Chicago Tribune’s editorial piece, Beyond Scanning: Look for better, less intrusive methods, was the first technique used in helping the author craft his/her narrative persona and voice. The author is referring to the issue of the recent terrorist threat and the ensuing heightened security, which has led to questions about whether the right to privacy is being protected without compromising security. The stance was clear from the title itself and remained that way throughout the entirety of the piece.

The author followed the common structure often associated with persuasion by simply listing claims followed by pieces of evidence. Thus, this piece didn’t have a wide variety of writing techniques, focusing more on multiple pieces of evidence. The point of simply listing claim followed by evidence after evidence, from polls to the latest intelligence in terrorist activities, was to have a clear, straightforward structure that did not detract from the author’s stance—security checkpoints need to come up with better technology that do not compromise privacy in favor of security.

It is interesting to note that although the stance is quite clear, it is mostly established by the title and the structure. When speaking about tone, the author actually seems to be quite mild. He mentions both sides of the argument, with perhaps a little more emphasis on the other side than is needed, which led to a milder tone. The title was really the main “technique” used to craft this stance because it was just so clear and straightforward. Also, the fact that it was the title allowed the reader to know exactly what the author was planning on talking about in the piece and allowed the reader to overlook some weaker points of the text without losing track of the stance

This author’s piece was not perfect. It had both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths for this piece were that the structure was very organized, allowing for the stance to be very clear., and that the author made sure to mention both sides of the argument. The introductory “hook” was strong and appealing, as was the conclusion. However, the weaknesses are that the some of the points in the middle weren’t as strong. There were points where I noticed some points and the evidence, which were quite weak. I overlooked those because the stance was so clear from the title. That leads me into the other weakness. There was too much hanging on the title. The title seemed to be the main technique used by the author to state the stance. That’s perfectly alright but I felt that there was too much importance to the title and not enough to the actual piece. However, maybe some of the evidence might have been too subtle for me too notice because of the author’s mild tone.

I think that this would not work too well on the AP because the actual text lacks the substance necessary for the extensive analysis of the AP free-response question. Although the piece technically has a clear stance that can be attributed to one or two techniques, there is just not enough substance in the overall piece to write a thorough, analytical essay.