This is an essay aimed at persuading one party to concur with the point of view of another party. This is as a result of emails swap over between a former English teacher, David Armstrong and the management of the Dasani section of the Coca-Cola industry. The emails were deliberate actions to propagate the two opinions, David’s defense for the English language rules, and the Industries defense over the use of a non-grammatical slogan. Dasani Company adopted a slogan with a grievous grammatical error which they believed was a worthwhile decision. The former English teacher on the other hand does not agree with the company’s efforts to justify their decision. The two sides mount a discussion with each side convinced of persuading the other to accept its point of view.
Arguments and their effects
David argues successfully that the use of ‘Everyday’ in the slogan is lacking in grammatical principle. The word is an adjective and should be used to describe ordinary or routine circumstances with an example in the everyday life. He goes further to critique its use by depicting the wrong use of grammar as an abuse of the language. In their response, the Coca-Cola industry justifies their action by suggesting that in advertisement slogans not all general rules of grammar are followed. The company is convinced that alterations can be done to these rules to develop more valuable messages.
David Armstrong uses his grammatical skills as a teacher of English to provide a suitable substitute for the anomaly, a style he tactfully uses to portray his mastery of the language. This he does with the hope of convincing the industry to appreciate his contribution as a voice of reason in matters appertaining to language. He further argues that the statement ‘everyday’ is insufficient to be categorized as a complete sentence in that it lacks the substantial requirements of an English statement. In her response written on behalf of the company, Joy argues that the two options available were critically analyzed and subjected to test and the version adopted ‘everyday’.
In the communication by David, he wishes to portray himself as a concerned but sophisticated consumer. With this tact he pushes for his opinion thus depicting his concluding remarks as well as his signing off remarks. He concludes by expressing his wishes that his opinion would be considered. He also describes his mail as one that was respectfully submitted. On her part, Joy expresses gratitude and promises that the remarks would be looked into.
The argument proceeds further with David describing dissatisfaction with response and says that he could not understand what impact a grammatically wrong statement would make. He further introduces a new ironical twist by casting aspersions on a new term used impactful which he suggests does not appear in any English dictionary. This new argument has further effect of portraying the command he holds in the English language and how he spares no effort in critiquing those that abuse the rules of grammar.
His tact of using irony goes further to suggest to the company meaningless slogans that would be used such as incorporating the words like ‘well ordinary’ at the end of the slogan which he claims follows the same procedures used in the initial grievous slogan. He further suggests that the tests carried were inaccurate and wonders about the impact of poor grammar on the market. He goes further to give examples of slogans which he is sure the company wouldn’t use yet they too depict similar errors as the current slogan. This goes further to criticize the marketing department of the company.
In conclusion David wonders how a company of such status as the Coca-Cola industry would not mind upholding high quality standards in grammar. In response, a different individual named Rich gives a brief appreciation and explains why the word impactful does not appear in the dictionary. The response by a different person emphasizes organizational responsibility. This successfully describes organizational mandate and depicts a company’s view of the matter rather than an individual’s view. Rich tactfully evades the matter by promising to share it with the relevant people. The signing off indicates the position of an advertisement specialist meant to downplay David’s dissatisfaction. This also describes the seriousness with which the company takes its affairs.
This escapism does not seem to deter David who further goes to remind the company that no communication had yet been made about the promise. He describes the urgency of his matter and compares it to the reputable image of the company. He does not tarry to describe the company’s advertisement as nonsensical and wonders whether its impact on childhood schooling was considered alongside other impacts. David wisely demands for a consideration of his opinion by suggesting that the company was doing dreadful damage to the language, was not commensurate to the company’s reputation and did not consider the social impacts it was doing to the society. Nothing seems to go unnoticed to David and by suggesting that with further research it was possible to notice that most words with suffixes do exist in the dictionary he wishes to criticize the level of the company’s research.
Each of the two sides seems confident of their opinions and none seem to accept the other’s belief. While David tries to apply irony humor and criticism to achieve his goals, the company applies escapism in achieving their efforts. The two spare no efforts in trying to justify their point of view. The two successfully mounts their augments with none fruitfully managing to convince the other to concede defeat.