Group E Prompt

I think that no matter what, that drive to go out into the wild was because of their love for the wild, not due to their family problems. It may have been a secondary objective, to escape from their families and be free for a while, but if you love something and you go and do that, it won't be because you hate your family. I love playing video games, and i play them yet i love my family. People go see concerts because they love that band, and they dont go necessarily because they need to escape from their family. Its because thats is what they want to do.

Group D response

I think the approach Krakauer takes towards his novel is on the right track. He employs plenty of pathos to help stir the emotions of the reader and get them to feel what it is he feels about Christopher McCandless. If i were writing this though, I would most likely employ a balanced view of pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos to draw the reader into an emotional state that is appropriate. Follow this with logos, so that there are facts for the reader to believe and understand. And after the combination of emotions and facts, lay out a few good sentences as to why, and why you should believe me. I think that type of outline could help diminish those that would tear down McCandless for what he did, and further help support my opinion, as well as Krakauer's (as they are the same). But i do not see a more fitting title that "Into the Wild." Its plain, yet much can be drawn from those three words.

I do not believe i really would allow myself to be adopted, even if i didn't like my parents, and the adoptee was someone i respected. Some families have it really bad, but i think that builds your character, to some extent. With those harsh times or scary moments, those are things you can build upon, and i feel that if its anything but your family, then its fake. But that may just be me.

Groub B Respoonse

To be honest i wasnt very inspired at all by the past campaigns. I pay more attention to the little details of what each candidate had to say, rather than how they said it or what they stand for. Both parties lacked individuality i believed. Their promises were so similar it was hard to dictate who actually believed what. And unfortunately i was not 18 at the time so couldnt take any action. Overall however i think the entire campaign as a whole was an incremental step towards something greater for america.