Why People Hate Things

I did not like the article “Let’s Think Outside The Box of Bad ClichÐ"©s” by Gregory Pence. I do not agree with any of the arguments he makes. He is ineffective in the way he tries to persuade his readers to think more instead of using trite phrases. He organizes his article in a manner I find unusual and uses selective details to create an overall tone of annoyance. Often, Pence uses negatively connotative diction to show his emotions, but he has overdone it.

I did not like the overall topic of the article. It seems that everything that Pence said was based of emotional reasoning. After reading, I don’t think Pence is a very good Bioethics teacher. If I spent long hours slaving over an essay to get it back with silly comments that don’t tell me anything I would be very mad. It’s basically doing the same thing as the student by writing “Then why write it?” after reading from a student’s paper “It goes without saying.” I find that the way Spence uses some rhetorical questions to answer his students are unacceptable.

Spence uses organization along with selection of detail to set an overall tone of annoyance. I can tell by the diction he uses such as “I despise the phraseвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ to begin his example from a student’s paper. He goes as far as to say “spare meвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ when addressing a student’s use of jargon. Near the end of the article, Spence talks about his job as a reader of essays on medicine, ethics, and money. To describe his feelings for the job he says that he must “endure endless string of nounsвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ These negatively connotative words show the reader that Spence is quite annoyed with his job. The thing I don’t understand is why he even does this job. If it annoys him to read all these essays, why do it?

There are a lot of things that Spence could do to create a better article. First off, Spence could have had a stronger