The aim of this exercise is to evaluate the argumentation in your formal draft by identifying the claims you make and reviewing how well you support them.
Estimated time: 1.5 hours
Due by 9:30 a.m. Thursday, February 22nd
- Read the Argumentation Handout.
- Print a copy of your formal draft of Essay 1.
- Underline the main claim in each paragraph.
- Circle the specific evidence you introduce to support the main claim in each paragraph.
- Bring this copy of your formal draft to class on Thursday.
- In a comment to this post, copy and paste the paragraph in your formal draft that you believe makes the most persuasive argument. Briefly explain why you think this argument is persuasive using the concepts of claims, reasons, and evidence.
In Cohen’s writing pattern example of cultural references, he focuses on the monster Noseferatu. He states, “Or we might analyze Murnau’s self-loathing appropriation of the same demon in Nosferatu…” (6 Thesis II). The monster Nosferatu arose in the 19th century simply starting out as a word in the Greek and Hungarian world that was a synonym for “vampire”. However, later in the early 20th century the name became more popular due to the first film of Nosferatu where the monster was a vampire with the name Nosferatu. This name was used to culturally create an image of a vampire but then got further developed to be the name of a vampire in the early 20th century. However, Cohen uses this cultural reference to show comparison between vampires and how one broad term such as vampire can be split into several other categorizations making the idea of a vampire not just be one thing but culturally different external appearances as well as different stories behind this new reinvented vampire. This pattern allows to better understand who Cohen’s intended audience is because his use of comparison with different vampires gives away the idea that he needs substantial evidence to convince these old historians that monsters such as vampires can be recreated and already have been as early as the 20th century. These old historians would be able to quickly grasp this example of cultural references because they could see that the recreation of monsters isn’t an idea that just began but has already been happening just has not been such an emphasized topic.
I think this argument is persuasive because it has a clear claim on how Cohen’s use of cultural references connects with his use of comparing different vampires to show recreation of monsters over time. It also has reasons like where did Nosferatu come from, how it connects to Cohen’s writing pattern and also why it helps us understand his audience. It gives evidence with background research, quotes from the text as well as connection with each point.
In thesis 2,the monster always escapes, Cohen states that monster often damage things , it would disappear and left some physical things like footprint in stead. Even if the monster is caught, it would come back in different form or other places. In morte’d Arthurs(Cohen 4), “no matter how many times the ogre of Mountain Saint Micheal was killed by king Arthur, the monster would reappear in another heroic chronicle”(Cohen 4). However, King Arthur is only one example, and the ogre he slays is only one monster. The monster can not always be considered as evil , though it general is. In some horrible movies, the monsters always seems to be killed in the end of the movies but they also reappear in another movie with similar story. That is why Cohen states: “the undead returns in slightly different clothing”(Cohen5). What kind of culture make these monsters revive? We always are willing to see the monsters come back to make sure they will been killed by our favorite heroes. Maybe we are the person who are unwilling let them die. Cohen also uses the complicated relationship between social, cultural,and literary-historical to tell us the monster should be examined(Cohen 5).
in my opinion this paragraph is the most persuasive in my assignment , the story of ” king Arthur” can well support Cohen’s idea: monster always escape . and in our real life , we watch many horrible movies , every time the monsters die in a movie they will come back in another movie in different form with similar story. and the monsters are always killed by the heroes then reappear. who give the monster chance to escape ? who exactly us ? the answer is human beings,we are the person who want the monster come back. the culture scare us but the monster.
The author has some distinctive writing patterns. Just to mention a couple of them, he used specialized terminology or words in different languages such as French and Latin. Some examples of this we can see in “longue duree” (1), “modus legendi” (1), “monstrum” (2) “differance” (2), “morte d’Arthurs” (2), “la decadence” (3), “ce dangereux supplement” (7), “chanson de geste” (8), just to mention a few of the French and Latin terms he utilized. Based on the specialized terminology pattern we can propose that the essay was intended for people with specifics backgrounds. The reason is because the terminology he used including terms from French and Latin is used by people with some specific education around the world, especially people in literature, science, and history fields. Something we can also take into consideration is that he is the Director of the Medieval and Early Modern Studies as he mentions on his website (http://jeffreyjeromecohen.com/). As a director he must be very familiar with medieval history and times. If we do a little research this period was from the 5th to 15th century, the beginning of the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance. About that time was a flowering time of Latin, and at the same time France was one of the centers of the arts especially in the 12th and 13th centuries, this could influence the way he writes and utilizes terms in these specific languages. Someone that shares the same field with him will understand without further explanation because they are already familiar with the terms.
In my opinion this is the most persuasive paragraph because is providing examples and the possible explanation why he used them base on his background and he utilized a lot of more examples that are in someways related to the one mentions above and it’s not just the specialized terminology he is using, also the examples he cited in his essays are always somehow related to the terminology and his background
The carefully crafted literary-historical, historical and post popular cultural references might become apparent to any inquiring college student after careful reading and research, however, these examples will instantly be in the context of cultural historians. Cultural history is the study of popular cultural traditions and cultural interpretations of historical incidents using the combined approaches of anthropology and history. When the writer analyses “the new kind of vampire invented by Bram Stoker”(5), he does so as though he expects the audience to know who Bram Stoker is and his interpretations of the vampire were. This can be gathered because Cohen jumps right into analyzing Stoker’s descriptions of the vampire’s sexuality in relation to homosexuality at a time “when gender as a construct was scrutinized at almost every social register”(5), without providing the mentioned context. This example directly supports Cohen’s claim in the thesis that monsters are born “each time to be read against contemporary social movements or a specific, determining event”(5). In the case of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”, homosexuality was not the norm and it itself and the literature itself served as a social movement to create the monster. This directly reinforces the main argument and increases his credibility as the writer utilizes logos with his literal and historical analogies. The same can be said for Cohen’s use of historical examples. He refers to the “political machine”(8)”Manifest Destiny”(8) without providing further explanation to what the movement was or what it meant at the time, much like when was referring to Bram Stoker’s literary works regarding the vampire. From this, we can further provide foundation to the idea that the reader would have to be someone who knows references well enough to know exactly the relation of this to the author’s claim in the thesis, and so far the evidence points them to being cultural historians, or someone with an extensive knowledge of history. This example also further supports the claim of the monster being created at a “determining event”(5) which was the Manifest Destiny, a 19th-century belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was not only rational but necessary. This serves both as an effective use of logos and ethos. This is a historical analogy that is a direct evidence of the writer’s claim, which is a effective employment of logos. Based on the writer being a professor of English and Medieval Studies, the reader further finds the credibility of the writer’s claim as this shows that he is knowledgeable in history, thus this also serves as an impressive practice of ethos. Through his examples that come from many angles of study, it is as though Cohen leaves no space for counter-argument from his intended audience.
This is a somewhat edited version of the paragraph written on the formal draft.
I think this is the most persuasive argument in my essay. The central claim of this paragraph is that this essay was not written for college freshmen but, instead, for cultural historians.The evidence provided for this claim are observations of how the writer provides the examples, and which examples he uses. The facts he provides are also in relation to the main claim of the intended audience. Then the evidence is interpreted accordingly in the paragraph. Like, in the case of the writer Derrida, Cohen provides no context to who Derrida is or what his works meant or why it’s famous.
The carefully crafted literary-historical, historical and post popular cultural references might become apparent to any inquiring college student after careful reading and research, however, these examples will instantly be in the context of cultural historians. Cultural history is the study of popular cultural traditions and cultural interpretations of historical incidents using the combined approaches of anthropology and history. When the writer analyses “the new kind of vampire invented by Bram Stoker”(5), he does so as though he expects the audience to know who Bram Stoker is and his interpretations of the vampire were. This can be gathered because Cohen jumps right into analyzing Stoker’s descriptions of the vampire’s sexuality in relation to homosexuality at a time “when gender as a construct was scrutinized at almost every social register”(5), without providing the mentioned context or providing further explanation in the following text. This example directly supports Cohen’s central claim in the thesis that monsters are born “each time to be read against contemporary social movements or a specific, determining event”(5). In the case of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”, homosexuality was not the norm and it itself and the literature itself served as a social movement to create the monster, and a cultural historian would be aware of this. Given, someone well versed in in past history can know what this meant, but they would have a hard time to relate this to the social movement or how this monster is related to the culture. This directly reinforces the main argument and increases his credibility as the writer utilizes logos with his literal and historical analogies.
Another example of a fictional literature is his explanation on the idea of vampires in Thesis II: The Monster Always Escapes. In Thesis II, he writes that monsters may die in their stories, but the stories still get passed down through the times and must be examine/study through the “matrix of relations” that generate them (5). Cohen then presents vampires as monsters that escapes then comes back with the turn of the century or a change in ideas. In that explanation, he uses examples of vampires in stories from Dracula to Nosferatu. He talked about stories like Anne Rice’s books The Vampire Chronicles who use these myths to portray vampirism and homosexuality together that helped create “a pop culture phenomenon in the process” (5).
I feel this paragraph is the most persuasive because I was able to place context and use evidence correctly. I was able to talk about vampires in the context that Cohen used and explain its meaning to my audience as well.
Cohen uses many rhetorical patterns to build his theses. One of those patterns is specialized terminologies. For example, “différance” (4) and “monstrum” (4) in the thesis I; “morte’d Arthurs” (4), “fin de siècle” (4), and “la décadence(4)” in thesis II. However, these terms offer many essential information. These terms all come from French. When an author writes an article for people, he or she usually aims at expressing something to readers. However, in “Monster Culture (theses seven)”, Cohen doesn’t offer any explanation about these terms. Let’s think about why does Cohen do like that? As a writer who has sophisticated skills of writing, he should not forget giving explanations to his readers. Therefore, the only possibility is that he knows all the readers are familiar with these terms, to they know their meanings at least. However, why is Cohen so familiar with his intended readers? If I am a writer, I may roughly know what kind of people will become to my readers. However, I cannot guarantee all of them will be what I thought, so I may still put some accessible explanations to avoid accidents, such as people who are out of my intended audiences become to my readers. Nevertheless, in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses), it is obvious that Cohen did not concern about that case. Therefore, this article is published in a specific circle, and he definitely knows all the people who will become to his readers, or he and those audiences have already known each other in real life. In the thesis I, Cohen uses the term “différance(4)” to describe monster’s bones-“These epistemological spaces between the monster’s bone are Derrida’s familiar chasm of différance: a genetic uncertainty principle, the essence of the monster’s vitality, the reason it always rises from the dissection table as its secrets are about to be revealed and vanishes into the night” (4). The term “différance(4)” is a French term which means “different and deferral of meaning.” This term was created by Jacques Derrida, who was French philosopher, and it first time was used in Jacques Derrida’s 1963 paper “Cogito et histoire de la folie.” Why does the author choose use “différance(4)” instance of other terms? When a person makes a decision, he or she must choose the best way. In other words, “différance(4)” is the best term which can describe author’s purpose in here. Back to previous sentence and go forward to the next sentence, Cohen is explaining his opinion monsters are created in a certain moment, and it revives with the brand new meanings they receive. Therefore, the author chooses “Derrida’s familiar chasm of différance(4)” to describe “monster’s bones”. He refers the literature professional term for his readers which presents the best description of his opinion. In addition, because Jacques Derrida was well-known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction, his figures has been used in many works which associates with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy. Here, Cohen gives very significant clues to us. When a person tries to argue some ideas, there usually are three ways to persuade others- “Ethos”, “Logos”, and “Pathos”. They respectively indicate “author’s experience”, “logic, reasoning and facts”, and “appealing emotions and values of the audience”. In these ways, the most convincing way is “Logos”, namely, logics, reasoning and facts. As well as what Cohen wrote in Thesis I, he chooses the best choice- “différance”. It means Cohen thinks that the term “différance” or the term’s creator-Jacques Derrida can arouse sympathy between his intended audiences. For example, when we are students in high school and taking physics, which physical terms and famous physicians will come to your mind? You must know Newton and Law of Newton. What if I say there is a question which applies First law of Newton, and I use the term from First Law of Newton to explain. Will it be convincing to you? It is same case in here. Going back to previous point, Cohen refers Jacques Derrida’s term because he knows that all of his intended audiences place Jacques Derrida in high status. Additionally, Jacques Derrida is famous in philosophical realm, so they all learn philosophy and are familiar with Jacques Derrida. Furthermore, in Cohen’s mind, they all should know why he uses “Logos”. If this explanation is not very obvious, let’s look at another example. In the Thesis II, there is another term has been mentioned by the author “morte’d Arthurs” (4). This term comes from a reworking tales “Le Morte’d Arthurs”. It was rewritten about legendary King Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin, and the Knights of the Round Table by Sir Thomas Malory. In the sentence of “morte d’ Arthurs (4),” the author refers it as an introduction of the thesis II-“The monster Always Escapes.” After combining the previous and the following contents, I thought that Cohen may want to state that even though monsters were killed or ended so many times in a legendary story, they will reappear in another ear stories. He uses “morte d’ Arthurs (4)” to visualize the fact that the monsters leave numerous legendary stories through reappearing over and over, so that he can deliver the most closest information to his readers. However, when I read this part at the second time, I got a question-“wait, I don’t know what “Le Morte’d Arthurs” is, how does he can deliver his meaning to me？” Those readers who are similar with me will raise same question. We don’t have any literary and fictional backgrounds, so we don’t know what he is talking about. What about Cohen’s intended audiences? Do they understand this meaning of term? Definitely! That’s reason why Cohen didn’t give any interpretation of any term because they all have already know them. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding about this article. I went back to do research again. On the Wikipedia, it states that “Le Morte d’Arthur is one of the best-known works of Arthurian literature in English”. What is “Arthurian literature”? After continued my research, I got it: Arthurian literature is a bibliography of works about King Arthur”. This is a big discover! If Cohen’s intended audiences just are familiar with philosophy, we may conclude he wrote for some people who from philosophical background. However, what if his audiences also know about literary history and fictional history? It seems like those intended audiences and Cohen all are from a specific circle so that they will own similar knowledge of literature and philosophy. Cohen and intended audiences are familiar with each other, are familiar with philosophy and literary history, and are familiar with writing patterns. Who are they? The answer is colleagues. Only the people who are deal with same works will have similar backgrounds with Cohen. Moreover, his colleagues have learned and studied the same topic with Cohen, and they were holding different viewpoints about the monster culture!
This is the most persuasive paragraph in my essay. I start with the introduction of rhetoric pattern to explain why does Cohen use this kind of pattern. Then, I catch one or two terms to analyze what it is meaning in the article through providing researches. Also, I put some real-life experience to persuade readers.
In these II, the monster always escapes, either get away and come back, or you will kill one and it replaced by more. They can never be caught, or if they can, they must be back. The monster can become any type or shape; it will come back with different form or outlook. This has mentioned in Cohen’s essay “(i)n each of these vampire stories, the undead returns in slightly different clothing.(5)” When a monster is killed, there is always some remnant, some talisman, for it left behind. If there is no physical element left behind, there is at least a small glimpse of the monster or footprints, something that makes people uncertain of its death and ultimate destruction. In this these, Cohen used many different examples to creation it. Such as historical examples, fictional examples, literary examples, popular culture examples and cinematic examples, etc. The fiction examples Cohen used in this paragraph is important. For instance, the monster always stronger than human, it might eat people or killed someone, but no one really saw a monster. Furthermore, the monster can’t be killed and used over and over again, and they come back with the different meaning in each time.
Monsters are in between reality and fantasy because they are part nature and part culture. Monsters are reality because monsters can also be around in our life, like some evil human. Monsters are also abstract because they are created by people’s imagination. Monster is the harbinger of category crisis, it because monster does not fall into neat in any specific classification of animals or people that are known to us or fit into our world. Moreover, monsters are dangerous because their physical, psychological, or social characteristics cross the lines of classification. Monsters can be half human, half animal, not fitting them into either category. It defies binary logic to our horror.
Monsters are in between reality and fantasy because they are part nature and part culture. Monsters are reality because monsters can also be around in our life, like some evil human. Monsters are also abstract because they are created by people’s imagination. Monster is the harbinger of category crisis, it because monster does not fall into neat in any specific classification of animals or people that are known to us or fit into our world. Moreover, monsters are dangerous because their physical, psychological, or social characteristics cross the lines of classification. Monsters can be half human, half animal, not fitting them into either category. It defies binary logic to our horror.
Monsters are in between reality and fantasy because they are part nature and part culture. Monsters are reality because monsters can also be around in our life, like some evil human. Monsters are also abstract because they are created by people’s imagination. Monster is the harbinger of category crisis, it because monster does not fall into neat in any specific classification of animals or people that are known to us or fit into our world. Moreover, monsters are dangerous because their physical, psychological, or social characteristics cross the lines of classification. Monsters can be half human, half animal, not fitting them into either category. It defies binary logic to our horror. A monster is the different and the unknown, just as Cohen states, and this is precisely why we need them. Without monsters, we would have no socially acceptable way of analyzing the foreign and “scary.” Monsters are dangerous because they threaten our lives. Like vampire drink human’s blood, zombies eat human. Anything that goes against our spiritual norms makes us feel scared and anxious. It’s the only basis for monsters. The main point in this these is to convey that monster are not easy to categorize and with trying to do so causes crisis, frustration, and aggravation. To make ourselves comfortable with places, people and things, we tend to categorize things. All of these are classified as typical physical features and some salient features. The horror of monsters is that they are often unnatural, not just one category, but many different categories. One of the most common characters described in this paper is the count of vampires, a monster that is neither dead nor alive. When a person cannot be divided into a basic category, this tends to frighten us, because it is contrary to our common norms. He destroys the laws of nature that we human beings create. In addition to violating our normative community, Monsters also tend to act as a forewarning of our cultural crisis.
This is the most convincing passage in my essay. In this fragment, I try to analyze the author’s stance, the part of the rhetorical technique he used, and the characteristics of the intended audience, and then the expansion of the original sentence to the interpretation of the article, to guess the author’s meaning of this article from his own perspective.
Cohen uses a lot of patterns to explain, prove and convince his audience of his stance. Some of his historical examples that he used includes the Justification of Hebrew colonization and monsterization of the Iris. In his essay he uses example of Hebrew colonization as a example of exaggeration of cultural differences turning into monsters. The original inhabitants of Canaan were “envisioned as menacing giants” to justify the colonization of a different culture. They were not actually giants their features were not anything like giants but to satisfy the term monsterization they were called giants. (8). In the other historical example, he uses is the monsterization of The Irish people. The Iris people are humans just like any other human beings on the earth Cohen says that one of the reasons people are monterizied is because of natural differences. In his example he talks about how the English viewed the Irish to have a “monstrous gender” Just because of their appearance which were different from them. (11). Given the types of historical examples used; mainly European historical examples his intended audience seems to be for scholars of European history. He also mentions the myth of monster’s existence and disappearance. He brings up Yeti who is an ape-like entity taller than an average human that is said to inhabit Nepalese snow mountain which is still a myth which no one has ever seen or found. He tries to connect the monsters which we create The Iris people being the example and the actual mythical monsters “Yeti and Vampires” which are unfound for hundreds of years. But people today still believe its existence.
I think this is the most persuasive paragraph in my essay because cohen gives rhetorical examples to prove his point and was able to clarify cohen’s stance and attitude towards his audience.
[Claim]Cohen uses a lot of patterns to explain, prove and convince his audience of his stance. [Claim]Some of his historical examples that he used includes the Justification of Hebrew colonization and monsterization of the Iris.[Evidence] In his essay he uses example of Hebrew colonization as a example of exaggeration of cultural differences turning into monsters. [Reasons]The original inhabitants of Canaan were “envisioned as menacing giants” to justify the colonization of a different culture. They were not actually giants their features were not anything like giants but to satisfy the term monsterization they were called giants. (8). [Evidence]In the other historical example, he uses is the monsterization of The Irish people. [Evidence]The Iris people are humans just like any other human beings on the earth Cohen says that one of the reasons people are monterizied is because of natural differences.[Evidence] In his example he talks about how the English viewed the Irish to have a “monstrous gender” Just because of their appearance which were different from them. (11).[Reason/Analysus] Given the types of historical examples used; mainly European historical examples his intended audience seems to be for scholars of European history. He also mentions the myth of monster’s existence and disappearance. He brings up Yeti who is an ape-like entity taller than an average human that is said to inhabit Nepalese snow mountain which is still a myth which no one has ever seen or found. He tries to connect the monsters which we create. [Reason]The Iris people being the example and the actual mythical monsters “Yeti and Vampires” which are unfound for hundreds of years but people today still believe its existence.
An essential writing pattern in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)” is historical examples. For example, in thesis IV, Cohen uses “the Jews of crimes (8)” to further support his ideas. Europe is a Christian world, but the Jews are not Christians. They were called pagans and were rejected by Europeans in the Middle Ages. The Jews were accused to bring the plague to Christian children who were bleeding, and they regarded Christian children as the sacrifices of the Passover. This crime could not be forgiven. Cohen uses another example like “Richard III (9)” to support his views. For instance, in thesis IV, Cohen states that Richard was a monster from his birth and declarations. Richard III has been quite controversial in the history of Britain. His time in power is short, but his image as a tyrant is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. The definition of monsters is not limited to the supernatural mixture. The monster could be a nation or a person, even history itself. The true degree of historical examples is quite high. They are more convincing and can resonate with history lovers.
I think historical examples are the most important writing pattern in Cohen’s essay. The historical example is the real event that happened in the past. Real events are more inspiring and resonating. I chose two historical examples from Cohen’s essay to show that the form of monsters is constantly changing. They are not only limited to a solid object. They can be anything.
The first writing patterns in “Monster Culture” first thesis: the monster’s body is a cultural body. The main idea of this thesis is in the second paragraph “the monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroad, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment – of a time, a felling, and a place. The monster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy (ataractic or incendiary), giving them life and uncanny independence. The monstrous body is pure culture.” In this paragraph Cohan argues the monstrous body is the culture. Cohan show some points will let people have some confuse. Why the monstrous body is the culture? What is the contact between the monstrous and culture? Why Cohan use the monster to description the culture? The first pattern I want to analysis is about advanced vocabulary. Cohan used a lot of advanced vocabulary in this article. This is difficult but is also important writing and rhetorical patterns in “Monster Culture”. For example, in the first paragraph of first thesis, there has two words “corpse” and “acephalic”. The word “corpse” means dead body. The word “acephalic” means someone or something is no head. I think normal people will use dead body more than corpse. will this sentence be easier to understand, if Cohan choices dead body not corpse? I am sure it is easier to read. The word “acephalic” looks like a wrong word, why Cohan used it? Cohan didn’t mean to let people who is read his article to easy understand it. In this paragraph Cohan use many words are not we will see it every day. Because he didn’t want to use the simple word to description it, he was writing for the people who already have some search for the culture, they have to know some different culture and they know what is the common between different culture. If you are just normal reader I think you will not understand this article very clearly.
I think this is the most persuasive paragraph of the formal draft. I mention that one important rhetorical patterns of he was use it which is advanced vocabulary. I use some word to prove he use the advanced vocabulary. And I explain why Cohen choice uses the advanced vocabulary. How it works for his intended audience.
When people first started to analyze the article ” Monster Culture (Seven Theses)” there will be some kind of hard to put this article into an easier and understandable form. Therefore, it is will much easier to understand this article by finding patterns or connections that tie every paragraph together. In the article, monsters can be simply defined as our human’s history culture. Over the course of this essay, Cohen frequently using the examples of monsters from different cultures forming a connection between a myth of a monster toward another, we can describe as a rhetorical pattern that Cohen uses in his article, such example will be when Cohen compare the Mount Saint Michael who got killed by King Arthur in the middle age to the myth toward undiscovered Yeti from the Tibet snow mountain. A similar example will be the creation of the vampire to the new creation of the homosexual vampire from the pre-modern era. The transformation of the old monsters to the new monsters will always have a close relationship to culture, political, sexually, economically, racially during their formation time period. Cohen use this kind of pattern to develop his article because first, it helps the article itself becomes much more convincing, it helped to solve the questions for those who are curious about monster cultures. This also helped proves his first statement where he claims monsters are a formation of the history cultures.
I think is this the most persuasive paragraph because it explained everything with a convincing reason supported, and the reason behind this use of rhetorical patterns really helped to convince it’s intended audience.
Cohens intended audience is directed towards his peers of equal or higher
Educational level and with authority . for the purpose of publishing his theory of understanding cultures by the monsters they bear. We know that cohens theory was published so we know he was successful in persuading his audience to accept his theory. Because his theory was to be reviewed by experts,Cohen intentionally used terms, phrases,and references not common to a college freshman .which is Cohens thesis is no for everyone.it was for his peers of equal or higher level of education that have authority.