Summarize your argumentation discussion and include your salient position points (including your counterarguments) ![]() His reason for comparing these two is to assert the disparities between white-collar workers with blue-collar workers.Ĥ. One portion where Rose compared different views was when he stated that: “The big difference between the psychologist’s laboratory and the workplace is that in the former the problems are isolated and in the latter they are embedded in the real-time flow of work with all its messiness and social complexity”. Where does Rose mention differently views and what is his reason for bring them up? ![]() Therefore, I agree with his contentions that blue-collar workers apply different levels and expansiveness of skills in their respective work settings depending on their experiences and how they perceive tasks could be improved in the undertaking of their expected roles and responsibilities.ģ. Rose’s arguments and the manner by which these are presented make them convincing through the use of rhetorical appeals which include logical and emotional appeals. Discuss how convincing his argument is and whether you agree or disagree with it and why? Mike Rose asserts that people in blue-collar jobs, deemed to be repetitive, routinary, and do not require high-level of literacy, actually require as much application of diverse skills including cognitive, verbal, mathematical, visual representations and illustrations, and analytical skills as people in white-collar jobs apply.Ģ. ![]() What salient points does he make to develop his position?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |