Saved by the bell... except I wasn't.

This semester, I can honestly say I have learned more about communication, whatever form it may take, than I have in any other class in my life. I initially thought I had learned more about digital communications, however, upon examining my progress over the semester, that is the one thing I have not learned much about. Despite the regrettable lack of evidence to support this claim, I have made considerable progress in nearly every other aspect of communication.

Whether or not I consciously learned it, I have noticed myself approaching technical documents and confusing concepts a bit differently than I did five months ago. On more than one occasion, I’ve caught myself reading and rereading things for individual points or themes, then reading the article or paper as a whole, once I had a good grasp on the “basics” of that particular article or paper.

Also, I feel I have made leap-and-bound improvements in my ability to carry on a conversation due to the rhetorical triangle. For instance, when discussing technical concepts with people who are at least as (or more) knowledgeable about the concept as I am, I find myself phrasing my sentences differently than when I am explaining concepts to people who don’t understand them as well as I do. Also, I’ve noticed myself varying what vocabulary I use, based upon the group of people I am talking to.

All of this is not to say I haven’t learned about digital technologies, although my learning in that category isn’t as dramatic as in others, as I had been communicating digitally nearly as long as I can remember. Because of this, my learning was more or less limited to discovering and becoming fairly proficient with some of the tools that had been available to me previously, that I just had not known about.

For instance, I have learned more about new digital writing techniques than I have at any other point of time. Prior to this semester, I had never explored all that Google had to offer outside of the normal search functions or the translator and map applications, and I had very little experience helping others or receiving help with research from my peers.

I have learned more about the various Google services over the course of this semester than I have learned about nearly any other form of digital drafting/publication in my whole life. I found out about Google docs, and while I haven’t used it very much, I find it to be an exceptional alternative to program-based word processors. It has nearly all the functionality of regular word processors, for free, without any of the limitations of program-based word processors. For example, this essay exists on a server somewhere in the world, that I can access and edit from any computer with an internet connection, whereas program-based word processors save to the hard drive of the computer they exist on.

Unfortunately, one of the things I didn’t notice much improvement in was time management, as evidenced by the fact that this analysis is far shorter than I wished it to be, and is barely come in within the time limit.

Seems as if I'm a bit late with this...

Well, I seem to have forgotten about this until just now... Better late than never I suppose.
My research question is: How do I get better motivated?
Admittedly, I don't have much research of my own to present, not yet anyway.

Argument Analysis Paper

Tom Atkins

Dr. Brandon

ENG112-08PR

2 February 2012

Why The Check Engine Light Must Die

            Opinions are everywhere. Some opinions are based purely on how the person feels, occasionally having basis in actual fact, but often times not. Some opinions are based largely upon experience. Unfortunately, some opinions are held simply because it is or isn’t popular to hold them, and worst yet, some opinions are formed strictly from hearsay, basing the opinion completely on second-hand information, (or the illusion thereof) or in some cases, disinformation. Unfortunately it is a rare day when one finds an opinion based upon a feeling which has basis in fact, but today, I believe I have found just that. Jason Torchinsky wrote an article for the internet automotive news website Jalopnik, titled Yes, The Check Engine Light Still Needs To Die, and upon review of the article, his opinion does have merit, and while I won’t go as far as to say it is based upon facts, it does present some counter-counterarguments that are fairly hard to find fault with.

            Torchinsky’s entire article centers around garnering support for the government-mandated elimination of the Check Engine Light, (CEL) replacing it with a display of what fault code was produced, or a brief description of the problem that would cause a check engine light on a currently produced car, this time responding to some detractors of his opinion or providing further clarification of points he previously made.

            The author’s first argument is something he refers to as “The AutoZone Fallacy.” He opens this argument by defending the fact that if one’s CEL comes on, big-box auto parts stores such as AutoZone, Advance Auto Parts, NAPA, and others, will hook up an OBD-II (second-generation, standardized worldwide On-Board Diagnostic system) scan tool to one’s car, read, either reset or, more often, report what caused the CEL and offer a recommended course of action for the motorist to take. However, Torchinsky points out that often times, a big-box auto parts store is not nearby (read: within walking distance) when the CEL in one’s car lights up.

            Following this, the author proposes that the CEL be eliminated in favor of a small readout (or even temporarily repurposing an existing readout in the gauge cluster or on the dashboard) that would either display the Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) that would cause a CEL, or display a short description of the problem, along with perhaps an assessment of severity. In the case of the latter, he points out, such readout would provide the driver with enough information to make a judgment call and either ignore the warning, proceed at a reduced rate of speed, or stop as soon as it is safe and call for assistance. A readout displaying only the DTC that could cause a CEL would still provide the end user with the necessary information to make an informed decision, they would merely have to search the internet for that particular code for that particular make and model of car. Torchinsky also cites that eliminating the CEL in favor of a readout would not, as he so eloquently phrased it, create a car that “holds a blade to the driver’s neck until he or she gives a shit,” as it would be just as easy to ignore as the CEL is today.

He goes on to compare the current CEL system to the odometer, proposing that, by in large, people do not check their odometer every day, but that nobody would accept being forced to go through a third party, much less a retailer within the automotive industry, to check the mileage of their car, even if the service was provided free of charge. He cites that “OBD codes are even more important, as they can directly affect your or your car’s safety,” and asks “why should you have to go anywhere to find out what the issue is,” (Torchinsky).

            All of these arguments, except the last, work on logos appeals, and are, in my opinion, very well crafted, as they address nearly every counter-argument, before it has a chance to be brought up. The last argument relies more upon pathos appeals, proposing parallels between two similar and very loosely related systems and outlining the lack of acceptance that converting other systems to operate like the CEL would cause.

            After that, Torchinsky delves into a series of smaller arguments and counterarguments, first among which he titles “OBD-II Scanner Snobbery.” He addresses the apparent elitism among motorists who have purchased (or been given) their own scan tool, citing that “not owning one in no way suggests that you somehow haven’t earned the right to be knowledgeable about the car you own,” (Torchinsky). I have not encountered (or seen evidence of) this attitude, more due to lack of potential for exposure to it than anything else, so I can’t speak to the validity of this counterargument. This argument primarily uses a pathos appeal, highlighting [and subsequently calling for the removal of] a hierarchy of which groups of motorists can access information.

            Following the order of arguments as they were laid out in the article, the author’s next argument is apathy, which he already partially addressed under “The AutoZone Fallacy.” I already partially addressed this argument, but in the name of equal-opportunity argument debunking, I will delve further into this point, self-explanatory as it may be. Simply put, Torchinsky points out that those motorists who want to know what is wrong with their car as soon as a problem arises will revel at the new display, but that those motorists who chose to ignore the CEL now will continue to ignore any system put forth to tell them more about their car. The new system would not force an otherwise apathetic driver to care about the problem; it would merely provide more information to those who do care. His next argument is so closely intertwined with the apathy argument that it can be adequately addressed in conjunction with it.

            Some opponents of the proposed changes argue that not only do people not care; they do not want to be informed. Many of the same counterarguments above apply to this, but Torchinsky counters with the fact that some automotive technical jargon has made its way into popular catchphrases used in car and truck advertisements, such as the fact that the term “Hemi” is synonymous with Chrysler Group auto manufacturers Dodge and Chrysler, purely due to their insistence on identifying their high performance V8 engines purely by the shape of the combustion chambers. This, he proposes, indicates that people don’t wish to be as blissfully ignorant of the details of their car as some people believe.

            Those two arguments rely primarily upon logos appeals, but it could be argued that there are pathos appeals being made as well, as both issues bring to light the perceived feelings of the general public and the counterarguments respond in kind.

            Torchinsky’s next argument addresses the perception that systems like this perpetuate the so-called “nanny state,” an often-derogatory term used to describe a nation that legislates an inordinate number of systems and outlaws an equally inordinate number of once-harmless things in the name of the safety of that nation’s citizens. The author defends his stance, arguing that, in calling for the refinement of the system, he was advocating for increasing the rights, abilities, and knowledge base available to the end user, not to remove rights or abilities from the end user. He also addresses the sub-argument that mandating a system like this would force smaller, lower budget, enthusiast-centric automotive brands (such as Morgan or Lotus) to pull out of the United States market due to a lack of resources to comply with regulations. Torchinsky counters that argument with the fact that any four (or more) wheeled vehicle currently sold for public use, on public roads, is already equipped with a fully functional OBD-II system and theoretically has the capability to be minutely reprogrammed to comply with the proposed regulations.

            The author’s final counterargument is that “People won’t know what to do with the codes.” He postulates that this concern shows a definite underestimation of both auto makers and the customers who buy their product. Expanding upon that postulation, he notes that the proposed system did not have to only display the DTC; that it could display a description of the problem and either an assessment of severity, or a recommended short-term course of action for the motorist to take. He further counters the argument by stating that problems present today, such as misdiagnosis of a problem, won’t be magnified by the additional information that the proposed system would provide, and that the new system would not give people the mistaken belief that they were capable of fixing problems they previously lacked the confidence, skills, and equipment to address. Torchinsky also proposes that a system like this could provide valuable information to used car buyers, as the general health of the engine would be monitored by the OBD-II system and that information could be made available to the end user quite easily through this display, even when there was not an active DTC.

            In conclusion, Jason Torchinsky has managed to create a very well written, as well as skillfully argued, defense of his case for the elimination of the Check Engine Light. He responded to detractors of his previous article on the topic, addressing counterarguments made to his first article as well as addressing counterarguments before they had been presented.


For anyone interested, here's a link to the article

So yeah...

I'm in English class. What's up?