http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E7DF113EF936A2575AC0A9649D8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
TAKING NOTE; So Many
Screeners and So Little Shampoo, but Are Our Planes Safer?
By Juliet Lapidos
In this editorial, Juliet Lapidos rants on one of the most hated systems by American people: airport security. She discusses the irrational TSA and why she believes they have taken it too far.
Diction: Juliet Lapidos
maintains a distinct tone throughout her article. Her tone clearly defines her
opinion in this matter. Lapidos complains that, "Airport security is a game of catch-up, and it
seems the TSA rarely considers whether new technology obviates the need for
annoying and intrusive restrictions.” Her use of words such as annoying and
intrusive express her strong emotions towards the subject. These words easily
convey to the reader how this system makes her feel. When I read those words I
imagine what it’s like to walk through an airport security scanner. Annoying
and intrusive seem like the best way to describe that machine to me. I feel
claustrophobic and invaded, similar to the author. Her diction allows the
reader to easily relate to the exhausting security experiences. “Mr. Paul's
vendetta against the TSA has some merit (Lapidos)”. Here, I think Lapidos
exaggerates a little when she describes Paul’s emotions towards TSA as a
vendetta. This word choice emphasizes on the hatred for TSA, and vendetta
surely lets the reader know how strong this emotion is. I think the author
included this to highlight the disapproval for the system.
Details: Lapidos strongly feels that the TSA is
inefficient and ineffective. She supports her opinion with costly facts that
would quickly result in more people supporting her opinion. Her motif is to
make her audience understand why TSA is inefficient, and to make them agree.
She comments on the excessive spending, then mocks the results: “In 2006 the TSA spent $29.6 million on 207
"puffer" machines designed to shake lose explosive particles. They
failed to work in dirty, humid airport environments.” “The TSA employs about
62,000 people at a cost of more than $3 billion a year in payroll, compensation
and benefits (Lapidos)”. Not only does this fact draw the reader in, but also
it allows for the reader to understand why Lapidos feels so strongly about
this. TSA’s workforce is larger now than in 2005, even though there are fewer
travelers. These details show the suspicion of this correlation.
Syntax: The structure of
this article is unique and works well with the author’s goal. Lapidos uses
rhetorical questions to pull the reader in to think about what she is saying.
“Is it really necessary to ban shampoo and hand cream (Lapidos)”? I’m sure
every reader could quickly answer that question and unknowingly become engaged
in her work. In the start of the article, Rand Paul’s opinion is the center of
our focus. Then we shift to problems of the TSA, “The TSA seems like a
caricature of wasteful bureaucracy (Lapidos)”. I personally think this line in
the middle of the article is very effective. It allows the reader to get into
the discussion, then it nails down a single issue: a wasteful bureaucracy.
I think you did a really good job connecting the details, diction and syntax to this article. I like how you used your own personal experience of going through an airport security system to relate to the article. I think you did a good job showing how the readers might feel through each experience It would be even better if you combined all the three DIDLYS into one essay like structure it would give the reading response more flow. The quotes that you use from the article really make the reading more clear and precise. I think the syntax portion could be connected more with the structure and it would be easier to use some more syntax aspects. Good job :)
ReplyDeleteNice work including good examples for all of them. A little bit more background on the article would help the reader follow it more, but good otherwise
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting analysis. I like how you bring in some of your own experiences such as going through the airport scanner and I can certainly relate to you there. I think it is very interesting how you split your essay up and labeled it "Diction:", "Details:" and "Syntax:". This did help make it very clear what you are talking about but I think a more traditional approach to the essay would have been better as it can easily be inferred what the focus of each paragraph is. Maybe you could add in an introductory paragraph to say what you are going to talk about and introduce what the writing is about as I think this would help address that problem and any confusion about what the TSA article was about. In general I thought this was a very good analysis. You picked a topic that a lot of people can relate to and your essay really grabbed my attention.
ReplyDelete