John Oliver | hjwebsite

Name: Hailey Jenkins

Body Paragraphs: Synthesizing Evidence and Analysis

Thesis: The overall argument of the paper.

Claim: The subpoint of the thesis that the writer will argue in a specific paragraph.

Data: Evidence gathered to support the claim.

Warrant: Explanation of why or how the data supports the claim; the underlying assumption that connects your data to your claim.

Backing: Additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.

Counterclaim: A claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim.

Rebuttal: Evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim.

Conclusion: A restatement of the paragraph’s main argument that provides a definitive ending for the point.

Instructions: We will watch an episode of John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight as a class. While watching, think of the episode as a “filmed research paper.” First identify what seems to be the thesis statement of his text. Next, choose three of Oliver’s main points to break down. Oliver will be making a number of main points to support his thesis so do not worry about catching every single one. Finally, respond to the ending questions.

Thesis: Oil industry in North Dakota seems great for the state, but on closer examination, the industry comes with a high price

Claim #1: The oil industry is bad for ND's land

Data #1: The farmland in ND is not very fertile because of the oil industry

Warrant #1: The farm land is getting ruined

Backing #1: Saltwater harms the land

Conclusion #1: The oil industry affects other ND industries such as farming.

Claim #2: The oil industry is bad for the workers

Data #2: An oil worker died, on average, every 6 weeks

Warrant #2: One man was working around and with very dangerous things for 69 hours straight

Backing #2: The workers were exposed to very dangerous conditions

Conclusion #2: Accidents happened way too much, and hurt the workers not the companies.

Claim #3: The big oil companies don’t get in trouble when bad things happen to the workers

Data #3: There are only 8 compliance workers in North and South Dakota that regulate the oil industry

Warrant #3: When bad things happen, the oil companies are only fined a small amount if anything.

Backing #3: The oil industry is even less regulated than Texas, which is very unregulated

Conclusion #3: The oil industries aren't held responsible when bad things happen.

How did Oliver incorporate the counter-argument into his show?

He mentioned that the oil companies do bring in a lot of revenue to the state

Consider how Oliver’s techniques follow the techniques of a typical research paper.

He makes his claim and then supports is with data and mild humor.

Explain how Oliver’s techniques deviate from the techniques of a typical research paper and whether they are successful in persuading his audience.

Oliver iintroduces humor into his argument while explaining the problems with the oil industry in North Dakota. He is successful because the humor draws people's attention more than facts and reasoning.

Rhetorical Situation
1. What is his purpose: His purpose is to raise awareness and to entertain people by discussing a serious issue in ND with humor.
2. Who is his audience: The people of North Dakota and anyone watching his show.
3. Does the genre work for this purpose: Yes, because it fun, yet serious
He picks sources that one would choose to trust, and cites those sources.
Oliver has bias by saying that north Dakota oil industry isn’t perfect
Logos

Ethos: variety of sources, his reputation

Pathos: using images of a worker who had passed away with his dog