Oleksandr Levtchenko
English 102 Project 2
Andrew McCann
Big, Bad, Red Wolf?
English 102 Project 2
Andrew McCann
Big, Bad, Red Wolf?
3320 Powelton Avenue
Box A520/R521
Philadelphia PA, 19104
Box A520/R521
Philadelphia PA, 19104
Andrew McCann
5069 MacAllister
32nd and Chestnut
Philadelphia PA, 19104
Dear Andrew McCann,
This is a comparison of two articles that argue for or against Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and his “style” of governing. It is not easy being the president of such a large and fragmented country like Russia, so no matter what someone like Putin will do, they will be criticized for it by someone. Considering how the Western world views Putin, making the argument that he is a good leader and that the U.S. and European Union should help him is a tough argument to make. It was amazing to see such large argumentative holes in both articles although there is a clear winner. My peer reviewer said that I did not include any information on Beslan. I thought that most people would know a terrorist attack like that, like they know about 9/11, but I included a little explanation there for those that did not. I also fixed up some of the grammar and typos.
-Oleksandr Oleksandrovitch Smirnov Levtchenko III
FINAL DRAFT:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been a hot topic in global news ever since he came to power. In his own country he is known as a national hero that has made his country strong with oil money and does not let any other country (especially the U.S.) bully them around. To the Western World he is known for his human rights abuses and his undemocratic ways. Two articles from the New York Times took different sides on Putin’s character. In “Stop Blaming Putin and Start Helping Him,” the author declares that the West, namely the U.S., has only pointed fingers at Putin instead of lending a helping hand. The other article, entitled “Putin Gambles on Raw Power,” compares Putin to the Soviet dictators of old. Both articles are written shortly after the Beslan tragedy, where Chechen terrorists took a school hostage. Each side has some strong points but they both have surprisingly glaring weaknesses.
Let’s start off with the article that chooses to go with the popular side and demonizes Putin. The very first thing that catches your eye is the computer-generated graphic of a hand made of metal (supposedly iron) that is slowly wrapping around the Kremlin. It is one thing to have a satirizing cartoon that has some insight in it, put this is just a needless insult that doesn’t do a good job at swaying a reader to any side. The first paragraph in the article gives examples of what other countries do after a terrorist attack hits their nation: “After the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans rallied behind their government of their own free will. After the Madrid train bombings last March, Spaniards ousted theirs. President Vladimir V. Putin took steps last week that seem to ensure that Russians will do neither.” This is however a bad statement because the majority of Russian citizens love their president, a fact that this article conveniently forgets to say. The article supports the first paragraph by saying that Putin “ordered an overhaul of the political system, stripping Russians of their right to elect their governors and district representatives in Parliament.” This is a strong fact, but one that is not referenced. It then makes a great point by saying “Putin’s response seemed like a non sequitur, since how the country conducts its elections on the regional level has little, if anything, to do with the fighting the terrorism that war in Chechnya has spawned.” This is a powerful blow to Putin’s reputation because it shows his illogical decision that “dashes hopes here and abroad that Russia had left behind its long, tortured history of authoritarianism when the Soviet Union collapsed.” It doesn’t help his case when Putin nostalgically talks about the Soviet Union and how it was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
The second article takes a more practical approach to dealing with Putin. It talks about the scheduled four hour press discussion with “American and Western European journalists…but given the unfolding horrors at (Beslan), we were certain it would be canceled. Instead, President Putin turned it into a very personal exercise in public diplomacy.” This makes you sympathize a little with the president because it shows his determination in spite of the terrorist attack. The article then says “Why did he meet with a group of foreigners at this critical juncture? Clearly, he was sending a message that he needs the United States and Europe to pay careful attention as he responds to the massacre.” This is a logical conclusion. However in the next part the author takes some liberties as to what the President was trying to get across: “More specifically, he was saying three things: first, the situation in the North Caucasus is no longer just about Chechnya but involves dozens of potential ethnic and religious conflicts across the region; second, the West must stop simply criticizing me for the war in Chechnya without offering me any realistic solutions; and third, some things you are doing are making it much more difficult for me to resolve the situation.” Now either the author is trying to read Putin’s mind, or she is paraphrasing what Putin said at the press conference. If it is the former then those assumptions can hardly be used to make a logical argument. If it is the latter then it was not clearly stated. A link to a transcript of the event would have been useful here. The article also states a lot of facts without giving out sources. For example: “In spite of repeated Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia over the last five years, Mr. Putin has managed to prevent a general anti-Chechen and anti-Muslim backlash.” This is a great contributor for the author’s case but without a real source behind it, it lacks authority. Also, “Many Russians are publicly calling for an ‘Israeli approach’ in response to the Beslan horror – that is, walling the Chechens in.” Again, where does that come from and exactly how many people does the phrase “many Russians” constitute? It could be several thousand Russians but if it’s not a large percentage of the population then that really doesn’t mean anything. The strengths of this article lie in its steps towards practicality. Instead of just arguing for or against Putin, it gives the U.S. government some advice as to what it should do in order to make the global and Russian political situations better. The article presents logical and reasonable ideas such as “we should offer to share intelligence with the Russians to help them discern the links between the Beslan terrorists and others operating in Europe; the British, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards and Turks are already keeping tabs on these groups and probably know of connections with Chechnya.”
Both arguments were full of logical and argumentative holes, but “Putin Gambles on Raw Power” seems to be the winner here. The other argument was very much full of information that wasn’t credible because you didn’t know where it came from. Also, it made arguments based on what Putin could be thinking, and that is something you really can’t base a logical argument on. And, you can tell me that a president is pro-democracy, but if he takes away his citizens’ right to vote then you have lost the argument because as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.”
ROUGH DRAFT:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been a hot topic in global news ever since he came to power. In his own country he is known as a national hero that has made his country strong with oil money and does not let any other country (especially the U.S.) bully them around. To the Western World he is known for his human rights abuses and his undemocratic ways. Two articles from the New York Times took different sides on Putin’s character. In “Stop Blaming Putin and Start Helping Him,” the author declares that the West, namely the U.S., has only pointed fingers at Putin instead of lending a helping hand. The other article, entitled “Putin Gambles on Raw Power,” compares Putin to the Soviet dictators of old. Each side has some strong points but they both have surprisingly glaring weaknesses.
Let’s start off with the article that chooses to go with the popular side and demonizes Putin. The very first that catches your eye is the computer-generated graphic of a hand made of metal (supposedly iron) that is slowly wrapping around the Kremlin. It is one thing to have a satirizing cartoon that has some insight in it, put this is just a needless insult that doesn’t do a good job at swaying a reader to any side. The first paragraph in the article gives examples of what other countries do after a terrorist attack hits their nation: “After the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans rallied behind their government of their own free will. After the Madrid train bombings last March, Spaniards ousted theirs. President Vladimir V. Putin took steps last week that seem to ensure that Russians will do neither.” This is however a bad statement because the majority of Russian citizens love their president, a fact that this article conveniently forgets. The article supports the first paragraph by saying that Putin “ordered an overhaul of the political system, stripping Russians of their right to elect their governors and district representatives in Parliament.” This is a strong fact, but one that is not referenced. It then makes a great point by saying “Putin’s response seemed like a non sequitur, since how the country conducts its elections on the regional level has little, if anything, to do with the fighting the terrorism that war in Chechnya has spawned.” This is a powerful blow to Putin’s reputation because it shows his illogical decision that “dashes hopes here and abroad that Russia had left behind its long, tortured history of authoritarianism when the Soviet Union collapsed.” It doesn’t help his case when Putin nostalgically talks about the Soviet Union and how it was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
The second article takes a more practical approach to dealing with Putin. It talks about the scheduled four hour press discussion with “American and Western European journalists…but given the unfolding horrors at (Beslan), we were certain it would be canceled. Instead, President Putin turned it into a very personal exercise in public diplomacy.” This makes you sympathize a little with the president because it shows his determination in spite of the terrorist attack. The article then says “Why did he meet with a group of foreigners at this critical juncture? Clearly, he was sending a message that he needs the United States and Europe to pay careful attention as he responds to the massacre.” This is a logical conclusion. However in the next part the author takes some liberties as to what the President was trying to get across: “More specifically, he was saying three things: first, the situation in the North Caucasus is no longer just about Chechnya but involves dozens of potential ethnic and religious conflicts across the region; second, the West must stop simply criticizing me for the war in Chechnya without offering me any realistic solutions; and third, some things you are doing are making it much more difficult for me to resolve the situation.” Now either the author is trying to read Putin’s mind, or she is paraphrasing what Putin said at the press conference. If it is the former then those assumptions can hardly be used to make a logical argument. If it is the latter then it was not clearly stated. A link to a transcript of the event would have been useful here. The article also states a lot of facts without giving out sources. For example: “In spite of repeated Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia over the last five years, Mr. Putin has managed to prevent a general anti-Chechen and anti-Muslim backlash.” This is a great contributor for the author’s case but without a real source behind it, it lacks authority. Also, “Many Russians are publicly calling for an ‘Israeli approach’ in response to the Beslan horror – that is, walling the Chechens in.” Again, where does that come from? What I liked about the article was that it gives the U.S. government some advice as to what it should do in order to make the global and Russian political situations better. The article presents logical and reasonable ideas such as “we should offer to share intelligence with the Russians to help them discern the links between the Beslan terrorists and others operating in Europe; the British, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards and Turks are already keeping tabs on these groups and probably know of connections with Chechnya.”
Both arguments were full of logical and argumentative holes, but “Putin Gambles on Raw Power” seems to be the winner here. The other argument was very much full information that wasn’t credible because you didn’t know where it came from. Also, it made arguments based on what Putin could be thinking, and that is something you really can’t base a logical argument on. And, you can tell me that a president is pro-democracy, but if he takes away his citizens’ right to vote then you have lost the argument because as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.”
Bibliography:
Hill, Fiona. "Stop Blaming Putin and Start Helping Him." The New York Times 10 Sep, 2004 <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10hill.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin>.
Myers, Steven Lee. "Putin Gambles on Raw Power." The New York Times 19 Sep, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/weekinreview/19myer.html?pagewanted=1&sq=help%20putin&st=nyt&scp=4.
Associated Press, "The Quotable Putin and Medvedev." ABC News 16 Feb, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4301218.
Fairey, Shephard. "Putin and TIME: The View From Russia." TIME 20 Dec, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1697072,00.html.
PEER REVIEW:
Evaluation
by Anas Shraim
Student:
Oleksandr Levtchenko
-->
Assignment Name:
Project 2: Analyzing Argument
Instructor:
Prof. Andrew McCann
Date:
02/18/2008
1.
Original Argument About a Workplace
(Excellent) Wow, this is a highly insightful analysis of the various published arguments that argues clearly that one approach is more compelling.
There are a lot of quotes here boss.
?
2.
Audience
This reader could follow the writing even though I haven`t read the articles in question. The author clearly understands that his or her readers will NOT have read the articles they have, and they therefore summarize and paraphrase sections of their chosen articles.
Good summary.? What is Beslan?
?
3.
Use and Quality of Evidence
No comment
4.
Sentence style PR
(Good) Your writing here is solid.
5.
Organization
(Excellent) The project has a clear organizational logic. Transitions between ideas are handled well, and the reader always has a sense of where he`s been and where he`s going.
6.
Writing/grammar PR
(Fair) The project contains only a few grammatical errors, but those errors do detract from the document`s credibility.
Some of the typos make it hard to read.
7.
Checklist (read carefully and check all that apply)
•
There are serious issues with mechanical errors (typographical/spelling/grammar etc.)
More than one or two of these errors interferes with your reader`s ability to comprehend your writing. Remember, if you have written a draft it is okay to have friends proofread your work. They can`t rewrite your entire paper for you, but they can help you identify errors and show you how to fix them.
Proofing is a part of the process, and successful writers find a way to separate themselves from the content of their writing when they are proofreading. In other words, you almost have to read as if you are not the writer. There are tricks to do this better. One is to read out loud (if you never tried this, you might be amazed at how well you can catch your mistakes this way). Another is to read the document backward sentence by sentence; this helps break the flow of your thoughts so you can focus on mechanical errors.
•
No Works Cited page included.
This is a major oversight and verges on plagiarism.
