First, watch a video, the link is :

In this video, host Mike Rugnetta suggests three possible effects of fandom.

(Then some classmates answered the following(you DO NOT need to answer these questions, you need to analyze some classmates’ answers to these questions)

Describe the causal chain for one of the three effects.

Which of the three effects do you think is the best argued? Why? (Answer this using your knowledge of argumentation. You’re claiming that one of the effects is the best argued, so you need to back it up with sound reasons and evidence.)

Do you recognize any logical errors in the video’s argument? If so, provide the timestamp (when it happens) and explain it.)

Then the following are several classmates’ responses, after reading those, answer this: Based on the causal chain they provided, what are the effect’s main cause, contributory causes, immediate cause, and remote causes? (You need to answer this question to all of the classmates’ responses)

Then choose one of the best responses, and do the following: provide a brief analysis about the effectiveness of the reasons and evidence used to support your classmates’ claims about the best argued effect. Was the logic clear? If not, why? Or how could it be improved? As a reader, did you find the evidence convincing? Why or why not?

Here are the classmates’ writings:

Classmate Roxane:

Causal chain: More fan voices are easily heard—>As Fandoms grow, so too will their influence—->Fans control casting, finales and new properties.

He best argues the effect that Fandoms will control the media. Significant (and relevant!) evidence is given to support this claim. He provides several examples demonstrating how this is already happening in today’s society. For instance, fans basically raised Sherlock Holmes from the dead and encouraged Monica and Chandler’s relationship in Friends. His line of reasoning is very convincing due to such strong supporting evidence.

[6:57] Mike’s argument contains minor logical errors (in this case- slippery slope fallacy). He states that perhaps producers will eventually feed off fan works as copy-wright laws “cinch even tighter” and that all media transforms into fandom driven nonsense. This cause and effect spirals the argument out of control- although, it’s important to consider that he probably means this as a joke given the playful context of the video).

Classmate Jim:

1. The second effect is that fandom could challenge or even improve the copyright law. When a company, or an author publish a new film or a new book, it will attract many people to watch and read it and then, some of them will be the fans of their work. Some fans would like to create or make some adjustments on their favorite characters. Therefore, some companies may sue to these works because they are copying. However, this is hard to judge if he or she is copying something instead of transforming its original work to a whole new thing. As a result, the society and the government need to focus on the copyright law and to make some necessary adjustments to protect fandom’s right to transform without harming the original company’s interests.

2. I think the second effect is best argued. He firstly quotes the definition and introduction from an official lawyer, which is an authority in dealing with the copyright cases. This help to increase his credibility. And at the following contents, host Mike takes a lot of examples to describe the existing fact about the copyright law with strong evidence to support his opinion. His explanation is convincing and reasonable for people to understand.

3. In this video, host Mike speak it well. He provides sound and effective evidences to support his opinion,

Classmate Halley:

1) With fans being able to influence the media that they celebrate, it holds the original creators and directors at a higher stake due to having to alter their ideas and cater to what the fans ultimately want to see. For example, dictating finale’s, who is casted, and other production decisions.

2) I believe that the effect of “will fans be able to control the media they celebrate?,” is best argued. The fandoms may sometimes result in having too much power and control. For example, the fandom resurrected Sherlock Holmes in fan fictions when Doyle killed him off in 1893. However, it is important to have a good balance and acknowledge what fandom’s may want. One does not necessarily have to allow them to alter the ideas of the creators because of demands, but by listening to their envisioned storylines, that can unfold a bigger picture imagined by the fans that the creators may be surprised by. These fandoms are devoted to the media, so they might help to carry on the desired story line or create a whole new one. Ultimately, these fans are expressing their love for their creation and their voices being put to use may necessarily not be a bad thing.

3) I personally did not recognize any logical errors in the video’s argument as Mike provides many counts of evidence to support this topic; however, fans controlling the media could come off as a logical error as they do have strong influence, but ultimately cannot directly control it because they do not have the final say on these calls. (This is briefly discussed around 1:45-2:30).

Classmate Thomas:

The causal chain for fandom in politics arises from the root cause relating to fandom itself. The existence of fandom brings about groups of people who focus on different celebrities and/or personas. This existence gives rise to the possibility of a fandom relating to a celebrity, who may choose to run for public office. As this person runs for office, the popularity of this person grows and so does the fandom itself. More people notice this growing fandom, and either join this fandom or create fandoms for other personalities. The similarity between the structure of political parties and fandoms also contributes to the growth and popularity of fandoms in politics. The ending result is the increasing prevalence of fandoms in politics and the creation of more political-based fandoms.

The best argued effect is also the rise of fandoms in politics. Mainly, the reason behind their ease of creation arises from their similarity to political parties. The author noted that the same ideals and beliefs that govern the structure of modern-day political parties also govern fandoms. They are simply groups of like-minded individuals with a central belief that they share with each other. It is not far fetched to assume that these groups could easily shift towards political influence in the future. Additionally, the author also noted that fandoms surrounding political candidates have already existed. Ronald Reagan was previously a film star prior to his election as president. This means that he likely already had a fan-base, as most actors/actresses do to some extent. When he ran for office, his “fandom” grew and likely contributed to his election. Additionally, I did not notice and recognize any logical errors in the authors argument. He did not give any absolute statements and backed up his rationale with facts and photos.