I think the clam in this documentary was just to inform. The evidence used were the interviews that they got. The reasoning was logos because they used facts and statistics in the movie. The whole thing was actually pretty good, except for maybe some of the interviews. Some of the words were a bit hard to see, I don't know if because of the background or the colors but it looked good. Maybe for the interviews it could be at a quieter place to be able to hear the people and the answers better. Apart for maybe the words and the times the movie stopped, it was really good.i also really liked how the music tied in well with everything and actually kept you focused and didn't distract.
There wasn't a claim in this documentary. The documentary was was informative. Evidence that this group used was given by interviews. The evidence was logos because it included facts and reasoning. The documentary overall was poor, and I really didn't get the flow of the different topics and interviews. There were lots of pauses and the writing was very hard to read. The interviews were lacking and the questions asked could have been more than elementary level. But, even though the video lacked these elements, the group did a good job completing the documentary and following the rubric
I think the claim of this documentary was that media has a bad affect on teens. The claim was kind of dificult to find. The documetary did ues evidence to support its claim. The evidence was logos because it used reasoning and facts. The documentary used reasoning to connect but the reasoning was a little weak. It utilized technology in a semi effective way because sometimes it was very difficult to understand what they were saying. The documentary i think could be more polished and edited and i wasnt ever really that engaged in it.
Hannah Crosier Ms. Gurian Period 2 November 29,2010 The claim, I think was to inform people that technology could have some bad effect on teenagers. The evidence was the facts, statics and interviewing people. The evdience type was logos because of the statics and facts. The reasoning was connected to both the claim and the evidence. The music fitted well with the documentary. I loved the facts, though some of them are hard to read. It helped me understand more about technology's effectiveness can do. Despite the fact that the video kept on freezing, it had my attention on it the whole time. It was awesome. Good job.
Media affect kids in many different life styles negatively. Mr. O said that media is a distraction in his classes. That he will catch many people texting everyday during class and if they are not texting they are on there ipods. He says that the music they listen to teaches students different ways of talking(slang). Television, video games, and the computer are distracting many students from school work and doing what needs to be done. Technology used in this video was decent. The background music was definitely not needed through out the whole video and slides with information on them were barely visible if any visibility. The documentary is engaging because it is all true and every teen uses media. For the most part it was polished but the background music and slides with information need to be fixed up.
I thought the claim of this video was to teach people that technology can have bad influences on kids. They used logos to get their point across, by using statistics. Those statistics were the evidence they used to prove their point. Some problems were that the video kept freezing when I was in the middle. Also that there was background music and some slides were hard to read which made it hard to stay into the video. But for the most part the information was good and it was a good video
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the clam in this documentary was just to inform. The evidence used were the interviews that they got. The reasoning was logos because they used facts and statistics in the movie. The whole thing was actually pretty good, except for maybe some of the interviews. Some of the words were a bit hard to see, I don't know if because of the background or the colors but it looked good. Maybe for the interviews it could be at a quieter place to be able to hear the people and the answers better. Apart for maybe the words and the times the movie stopped, it was really good.i also really liked how the music tied in well with everything and actually kept you focused and didn't distract.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't a claim in this documentary. The documentary was was informative. Evidence that this group used was given by interviews. The evidence was logos because it included facts and reasoning. The documentary overall was poor, and I really didn't get the flow of the different topics and interviews. There were lots of pauses and the writing was very hard to read. The interviews were lacking and the questions asked could have been more than elementary level. But, even though the video lacked these elements, the group did a good job completing the documentary and following the rubric
ReplyDeleteI think the claim of this documentary was that media has a bad affect on teens. The claim was kind of dificult to find. The documetary did ues evidence to support its claim. The evidence was logos because it used reasoning and facts. The documentary used reasoning to connect but the reasoning was a little weak. It utilized technology in a semi effective way because sometimes it was very difficult to understand what they were saying. The documentary i think could be more polished and edited and i wasnt ever really that engaged in it.
ReplyDeleteHannah Crosier
ReplyDeleteMs. Gurian
Period 2
November 29,2010
The claim, I think was to inform people that technology could have some bad effect on teenagers. The evidence was the facts, statics and interviewing people. The evdience type was logos because of the statics and facts. The reasoning was connected to both the claim and the evidence. The music fitted well with the documentary. I loved the facts, though some of them are hard to read. It helped me understand more about technology's effectiveness can do. Despite the fact that the video kept on freezing, it had my attention on it the whole time. It was awesome. Good job.
Media affect kids in many different life styles negatively. Mr. O said that media is a distraction in his classes. That he will catch many people texting everyday during class and if they are not texting they are on there ipods. He says that the music they listen to teaches students different ways of talking(slang). Television, video games, and the computer are distracting many students from school work and doing what needs to be done. Technology used in this video was decent. The background music was definitely not needed through out the whole video and slides with information on them were barely visible if any visibility. The documentary is engaging because it is all true and every teen uses media. For the most part it was polished but the background music and slides with information need to be fixed up.
ReplyDeleteI thought the claim of this video was to teach people that technology can have bad influences on kids. They used logos to get their point across, by using statistics. Those statistics were the evidence they used to prove their point. Some problems were that the video kept freezing when I was in the middle. Also that there was background music and some slides were hard to read which made it hard to stay into the video. But for the most part the information was good and it was a good video
ReplyDelete