English 2 Johnfrey Amistad

STEM-11 Titan

ACTIVITY (Let’s Get Started!)

Read the following paragraphs and analyze the two texts using the question
below.
TEXT 1
During the 21st century, the word Facebook came into our awareness. In fact, it is
one of the most popular social networking sites with over one million users. Almost ¾ of
these users are between 13 to 25 years old, and these people use FB everytime they have
an opportunity to do so at school, at home, in the mall, and anywhere else. So, FB seems
to just be a waste of time. It is a complete distraction to students. Many students fail to
complete their assignments and projects because they are addicted to FB. Some use
words and acronyms that only they an understand., and it crosses over even during face-to-
face conversations. FB also becomes a tool for bashing and a venue for gossiping. These
are just some of my impressions of FB.

TEXT 2
There is no doubt that Facebook is a great technological innovation. It offers the
opportunity to connect and reconnect with people. It is a venue for self-expression. It can
be a tool for marketing and entrepreneurship. But according to new research, Facebook
makes us spend more. It also changes our appetite by making us eat more. FB users tend
to be more prone to pressure as well. They tend to like things they do not really like just
because some of their friends clicked the “like” button. Other psychologists claim that FB is
a butcher of self-esteem. In FB, we see happy faces enjoying parties and dining. We see
families bonding. We see posts about people’s achievements. All of these tend to make us
more envious of other people.

Guide Questions:
1. What do you think prompted the writers to write the paragraphs?
2. What are your thoughts and feelings about each of the paragraphs?
3. What do you think are the writers and their disposition in life?
4. What do you think is the central claim of both texts?
5. Do you share the same sentiments with the writers?
6. Do you think the pieces of evidence presented are sufficient and valid to support the
claims? Why or why not?
7. Are there evident flaws in reasoning in the texts? If yes, enumerate them.
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

ANALYSIS (Let’s Think About It!)

Get one authentic political campaign brochure of one of the presidential candidates
in the 2016 national elections. Analyze the brochure using the following details. You
may use other sources to validate the accuracy of the content. Encode your report
on a short bond paper using font size 12, Arial. Thus, include the link of the brochure
you found in the internet.
1. What is the stand of the author about the candidate?
2. Who are the primary and secondary target readers of the ad campaign?
3. What cultural, social, and political situation influenced the writing of the ad campaign?
4. Are the pieces of information valid, accurate, and sufficient?? Justify your answer.

APPLICATION
In each of the following questions, provide your complete answers. Make sure
to read and follow the instructions.

Lesson 6 Exercises

I. A. Read the following paragraphs and answer the following questions.

The K to 12 Program was introduced in the Philippines with the aim of providing sufficient time
to master concepts and skills, prepare graduates for higher education, produce lifelong learners, and
prepare students for middle level skills development, entrepreneurship, and employment (Republic of
the Philippines Official Gazette). Hence, the program added to years of Senior High School (SHS).
The courses that can be learned from SHS include accounting, welding, machinist work, agriculture,
music, medical technology, and culinary and hospitality work.
Although the intention of adding SHS is commendable, some critics claim that there is still a
mismatch between schooling system and working system. As regards the implementation of SHS,
some people are concerned about the lack of learning materials provided to the schools. For
example, during the school year 2013-2014, learning materials for one school in Tondo arrived during
the last two quarters of the school year. The lack of sufficient facilities such as classrooms, chairs,
and computer laboratories, is also a problem. Moreover, more students require more teachers, but
there seems to be a lack of teachers as well. Colleges and universities also assert that they will be
losing revenues with the implementation of SHS since there will be no enrollees for the first year in
2016.
Despite these observations, DepEd is optimistic that these shortages and problems will be
overcome as they claim that these are being addressed. Meanwhile, the Coordinating Council of
Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA) lauds DepEd’s implementation of the K to 12 Program.
According to its chairman, additional two years of education should not be seen as a burden.
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

1. What do you think is the stand of the author? Is s/he for or against the
implementation of SHS? Justify your answer.
2. What is the central claim of the text?
3. Who do you think is the target reader of the text? Why?
4. What was currently happening when the text was written? What prompted the author
to write the text?
5. Do you think there is sufficient and valid evidence against and for SHS? Justify your
answer.
6. Based on your experiences, should SHS continue to be implemented?

Part B. Complete the following table by writing the statements from the previous
paragraphs that fall under the appropriate type of claim.
Claim of Fact Claim of Value Claim of Policy

II. Get 10 different print/online advertisements that contain logical fallacies. Analyze
these ads carefully by identifying the fallacious statements and their types. If there are
multiple fallacies in one ad, choose the most glaring. Use the following table as your
format.
Product/Brand Fallacious Statement Type of Logical Fallacy
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

III. A. Read the given article carefully and answer the questions that follow.
Why ‘Smart’ Objects May Be a Dumb Idea

A FRIDGE that puts milk on your shopping list when you run low. A safe that tallies the
cash that is placed in it. A sniper rifle equipped with advanced computer technology for
improved accuracy. A car that lets you stream music from the Internet.

All of these innovations sound great, until you learn the risks that this type of connectivity
carries. Recently, two security researchers, sitting on a couch and armed only with
laptops, remotely took over a Chrysler Jeep Cherokee speeding along the highway, shutting
down its engine as an 18-wheeler truck rushed toward it. They did this all while a Wired reporter
was driving the car. Their expertise would allow them to hack any Jeep as long as they knew
the car’s I.P. address, its network address on the Internet. They turned the Jeep’s entertainment
dashboard into a gateway to the car’s steering, brakes and transmission.

A hacked car is a high-profile example of what can go wrong with the coming Internet of
Things — objects equipped with software and connected to digital networks. The selling point
for these well-connected objects is added convenience and better safety. In reality, it is a fast-
motion train wreck in privacy and security.

The early Internet was intended to connect people who already trusted one another, like
academic researchers or military networks. It never had the robust security that today’s global
network needs. As the Internet went from a few thousand users to more than three billion,
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

attempts to strengthen security were stymied because of cost, shortsightedness and competing
interests. Connecting everyday objects to this shaky, insecure base will create the Internet of
Hacked Things. This is irresponsible and potentially catastrophic.

That smart safe? Hackers can empty it with a single USB stick while erasing all logs of
its activity — the evidence of deposits and withdrawals — and of their crime. That high-tech
rifle? Researchers managed to remotely manipulate its target selection without the shooter’s
knowing.

Home builders and car manufacturers have shifted to a new business: the risky world of
information technology. Most seem utterly out of their depth.

Although Chrysler quickly recalled 1.4 million Jeeps to patch this particular vulnerability,
it took the company more than a year after the issue was first noted, and the recall occurred
only after that spectacular publicity stunt on the highway and after it was requested by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In announcing the software fix, the company
said that no defect had been found. If two guys sitting on their couch turning off a speeding car’s
engine from miles away doesn’t qualify, I’m not sure what counts as a defect in Chrysler’s world.
And Chrysler is far from the only company compromised: from BMW to Tesla to General
Motors, many automotive brands have been hacked, with surely more to come.

Dramatic hacks attract the most attention, but the software errors that allow them to
occur are ubiquitous. While complex breaches can take real effort — the Jeep hacker duo spent
two years researching — simple errors in the code can also cause significant failure. Adding
software with millions of lines of code to objects greatly increases their potential for harm.

The Internet of Things is also a privacy nightmare. Databases that already have too
much information about us will now be bursting with data on the places we’ve driven, the food
we’ve purchased and more. Last week, at Def Con, the annual information security conference,
researchers set up an Internet of Things village to show how they could hack everyday objects
like baby monitors, thermostats and security cameras.

Connecting everyday objects introduces new risks if done at mass scale. Take that
smart refrigerator. If a single fridge malfunctions, it’s a hassle. However, if the fridge’s computer
is connected to its motor, a software bug or hack could “brick” millions of them all at once —
turning them into plastic pantries with heavy doors.

Cars — two-ton metal objects designed to hurtle down highways — are already
bracingly dangerous. The modern automobile is run by dozens of computers that most
manufacturers connect using a system that is old and known to be insecure. Yet automakers
often use that flimsy system to connect all of the car’s parts. That means once a hacker is in,
she’s in everywhere — engine, steering, transmission and brakes, not just the entertainment
system.

For years, security researchers have been warning about the dangers of coupling so
many systems in cars. Alarmed researchers have published academic papers, hacked cars as
demonstrations, and begged the industry to step up. So far, the industry response has been to
nod politely and fix exposed flaws without fundamentally changing the way they operate.
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

In 1965, Ralph Nader published “Unsafe at Any Speed,” documenting car

manufacturers’ resistance to spending money on safety features like seatbelts. After public
debate and finally some legislation, manufacturers were forced to incorporate safety
technologies.

No company wants to be the first to bear the costs of updating the insecure computer
systems that run most cars. We need federal safety regulations to push automakers to move, as
a whole industry. Last month, a bill with privacy and cybersecurity standards for cars was
introduced in the Senate. That’s good, but it’s only a start. We need a new understanding of car
safety, and of the safety of any object running software or connecting to the Internet.

It may be hard to fix security on the digital Internet, but the Internet of Things should not
be built on this faulty foundation. Responding to digital threats by patching only exposed
vulnerabilities is giving just aspirin to a very ill patient.

It isn’t hopeless. We can make programs more reliable and databases more secure.
Critical functions on Internet-connected objects should be isolated and external audits
mandated to catch problems early. But this will require an initial investment to forestall future
problems — the exact opposite of the current corporate impulse. It also may be that not
everything needs to be networked, and that the trade-off in vulnerability isn’t worth it. Maybe
cars are unsafe at any I.P.

Part A. Answer the following questions. You may use all available resources in
answering them.
1. What is the main claim of the author?
2. What is the main purpose of the author?
3. What is her tone in delivering the message and how is this tone shaped by the
language she used?
4. What is the background of the author?
5. Who are the target readers of the article?
6. What was the context for writing the article? What was the current socio-political,
economic, and cultural situation when it was written?
7. Do you think there is sufficient and valid evidence that supports the main claim of the
author? Justify your answer.
8. What are the other important pieces of information that might probably be missing?
How would these missing pieces of information influence the overall structure, tone, and
message of the article?
9. What are the logical fallacies and manipulative language used by the author, if there
are any? Was she accurate and objective in presenting the ideas?
English 2 Johnfrey Amistad
STEM-11 Titan

Part B. Write a short essay countering the claim presented in the text. Be sure to
support your arguments with convincing evidence from reliable sources. Use a separate
sheet for your essay.