Question 1
My friend and I were discussing which Pokemon was best to choose at the beginning of the game. I told him that Squirtle was a much better choice than Charmander because Brock, the first Gym Leader, is a rock Pokemon collector. Rock Pokemon are weak against water Pokemon, such as Squirtle, so it would be an easy way to get through the first gym leader. My friend kept saying, "Yeah, but rock Pokemon are just as weak against fire Pokemon, like Charmander!" I kept telling him he's an idiot because not only are rock Pokemon not weak against fire Pokemon, but they are actually quite immune to fire Pokemon attacks. After about ten minutes of yelling about our disagreements, my friend finally came to the realization that he was thinking of Psychic Pokemon. He was not thinking of the gym leader Brock at all. For some reason, he had Sabrina, the psychic pokemon gym leader in mind.
This was a level 1 conflict level because it was simply a misunderstanding. Just like in Kaufer's example, "It's just that when you said Jones' car, I had Smith's car in mind." My friend had Sabrina in mind when I said Brock. What a moron.
Question 2
Savio describes the current living situation in America as a "chrome-plated consumer's paradise." Lending itself to his analogy perfectly, the paradise he suggests we live in is something that Sproul Hall is fortunately immune to. This is why he considers it epicenter of student rights just as Mississippi is to civil rights. Just as Mississippi had become one of the few places in America where people began to stand up for their rights as citizens and as humans, students had begun to do the same at Berkeley. In both instances, the oppressed majority decided to not just sit around and do nothing, becoming "standardized, replaceable, and irrelevant," as Savio puts it.
Question 4
Arguing in the stasis of cause greatly helps Bullard keep his audience from making accusations about his motives. By drawing upon numerous historical examples of other environmental disasters, he shows his audience that he is not just complaining. He is showing them a history of racial injustice by our government. Had he not included any other examples besides Katrina, it would come across as if Bullard was just looking for someone to blame. By putting the historical examples in the text, it shows that his motive is to simply make his audience aware of a reality that is rarely seen. Wells-Barnett does the same thing. Without her references to multiple historical happenings, her argument would be put in a completely different context. Savio does not argue in the same way as the other two authors. Savio merely mentions that injustice against students had been happening for some time, but he never references specific events in history. Had he done this, his argument may have held a little more weight.
