Category: Rhetoric

Introduction

The article Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation explores the behaviors associated with the aforementioned generation and proposes an explanation for why millennials are perceived as entitled and narcissistic. It presents data regarding Millenials as compared to other generations, particularly the Baby Boomers. The article also contains input and opinions from various experts and celebrities ranging from Kim Kardashian and MTV president Stephen Friedman to Army recruiter Gary Stiteler and psychology professor Roy Baumeister (Millennials). The author uses rhetorical devices to convey their message while also committing rhetorical fallacies.

Overall, rhetorical devices exist to allow a speaker or writer to better convince or persuade the public. This is done through invoking ethos, pathos, or logos in the audience to strengthen the arguments made by the speaker or writer. However, at times the speaker or writer may commit a rhetorical fallacy, which is when an argument contains a flaw in its logical structure. Rhetorical fallacies may not be immediately evident to the audience. The author of Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation uses repetition, similes, and rhetorical questions, while simultaneously committing the rhetorical fallacies of hasty generalization and equivocation, among others.

Rhetorical Strategies

The article is using repetition as a rhetorical strategy, as it is essential for creating emphasis and emotional influence. The author calls millennials the Me Me Me Generation after calling their parents a Me Generation (Millennials). Thus, through repetition, the author creates a connection between the two generations while also showing the essential differences. Moreover, by using the word Me repetitively, the article emphasizes the vital qualities of the millennial generation, including narcissism, selfishness, and entitlements (Millennials). This rhetorical strategy helps readers to comprehend that millennials mentioned in the article are too self-centered, as they care about themselves the most. The continuous repetition also emphasizes the difference between baby boomers and millennials without explicitly saying it in the sentence. Thus, the different variations of repetition help readers to understand one of the main points of the article, which compares millennials to other generations.

Another rhetorical strategy used in the article is similes, which is a comparison between various subjects that share analogous features. The author states, every millennial might seem like an oversharing Kardashian (Millennials). Drawing a connection between millennials and a celebrity with traits ascribed to them provides a context for typical millennial behavior. Millennials tend to share substantial parts of their lives on social media. Thus, the comparison to one of the biggest personalities on Instagram helps readers to understand the point made by the author more clearly.

Lastly, the author of the article chose to include rhetorical questions as one of the strategies. The article asks readers, can you imagine if the boomers had YouTube, how narcissistic they wouldve seemed? (Millennials). The essence of this type of question is not to be answered but to put a point across. In this case, the article suggests that millennials are not the ones to blame for the stereotypical characteristics that are associated with them. The author believes that if other generations had access to the Internet, the situation would have been similar. However, this is not mentioned explicitly, as the rhetorical question helps the audience to comprehend this on their own by answering it in their heads. Furthermore, the author asks readers again, can you imagine how many frickin Instagrams of people playing in the mud during Woodstock we wouldve seen? (Millennials). The round of rhetorical questions makes the audience critically analyze the possible effects social media had on the development of millennials.

Logical Fallacies

Later in the article, the author makes a hasty generalization about the modern workforce adapting to millennials. A hasty generalization is when an author makes an argument based on limited data. The author argues that businesses are changing how they function to meet millennial needs, yet only provides one example, the animation studio, Dreamworks (Millennials). This sample is too small to draw any real conclusions from and Dreamworks is unlikely to be a typical case. The article makes another hasty generalization regarding the social circles of young people. The article states that The idea of the teenager started in the 1920s; in 1910, only a tiny percentage of kids went to high school, so most peoples social interactions were with adults in their family or the workplace (Millennials). Contrasting Millennials to teens of the 1910s does not explain the behavior of millennials. Furthermore, the article makes no comparison of the two generations between Millenials and the teens from the 1910s, which would be more legitimate.

The article uses equivocation, the use of different definitions for the same term, regarding Millenial rebellion or the lack thereof. The author writes that because millennials dont respect authority, they also dont resent it. Thats why theyre the first teens who arent rebelling. Theyre not even sullen (Millennials). However, the author does not define rebellion or even how sullen behavior may be observed and in what amounts. Millennial rebellion may look different from what the author considers rebellious behavior. Since Millenials do not fit the authors unstated definition of rebellion, they are not considered rebellious by the text.

Lastly, the article contains several other fallacies. Firstly, a Post hoc fallacy, where the author states that millennials possess a higher number of photos of themselves than previous generations (Millennials). A post hoc argument commits the fallacy of stating that because an event predated something, it is correlated with it. Then the paragraph concludes with statistics that show that millennials are less politically active than previous generations (Millennials). This framing would make the reader think these two activities are linked, yet the author does not provide detail or argument to connect possessing photos and political participation. Secondly, the article makes a sweeping generalization regarding the TV viewing habits of Millenials. The article argues that Millennials grew up watching reality-TV shows, most of which are documentaries about narcissists. (Millennials). No data is provided and the author does not elaborate on exactly what shows Millenials watch, in what numbers, and how many shows qualify as narcissism documentaries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the author of the article uses various rhetorical strategies and logical fallacies to put his point across to the audience. The text includes repetition, similes, and rhetorical questions as some of the main strategies. Moreover, the author utilizes various rhetorical fallacies, such as hasty generalization, equivocation, Post hoc, and sweeping generalization. The rhetorical choices are essential to communicate ideas in the text without sounding monotonous, as they help readers to use their imagination and critical thinking. Overall, to be rhetorically compelling and convincing, a writer should captivate readers in various engaging ways, which was successfully done by the author of this article.

Work Cited

Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation. Time. 2013. Web.

The use of rhetoric appeals to strengthen the message is a common instrument for many orators, and Patrick Henry is no exception to the rule. In his speech Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, he resorts to all possible means to convince the new government that the war with Great Britain is inevitable (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). In this way, his viewpoint is not entirely of a theoretical nature but a call to action to gain ultimate freedom. Therefore, the consideration of the inclusion of ethos, pathos, and logos in Henrys argument in the speech will demonstrate the way he attracted the attention of the audience to the presented issue.

The first tool which Henry used to persuade people in the need to fight was related to the attempts to prove the credibility of his thoughts by referencing other reliable sources. Thus, for example, he provided extensive information on the past development of the situation by saying that the British ministry unwillingly received their petition (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). The orator also added that the presence of fleets and armies by their shores did not resemble an attempt to find a peaceful way to negotiate (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). Hence, logos was the principal instrument, which he employed to convince others of the inadequacy of actions of Great Britain by invoking their reaction to American initiatives.

The second method contributing to the good reception of Henrys speech was pathos, and it was more frequent than the previous technique. As can be seen from the text, the author incorporated it in the very first sentence by referring to the patriotic feelings of his fellow citizens (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). He further included this appeal in the inquiry about any other possible motives that his listeners could ascribe to the actions of the British government rather than deprive them of liberty (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). In this way, Henry emphasized the need to understand their general attitude contrasted to the patriotism of Americans and thereby evoked their emotional response.

The third rhetoric appeal inherent in the speech was ethos, which implied conveying respect to the authors personality and, therefore, his specific thoughts on the matter. In this way, the upcoming war and its significance for the prosperity of the country were demonstrated through the lens of his personal credibility. For instance, when telling about the actions of American citizens in negotiating with Great Britain, he highlighted his involvement in the decision-making process alongside other leaders (Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death, n.d.). Hence, the consideration of his contribution to the political affairs of the country persuaded the listeners in his awareness of the actual problems.

To summarize, Patrick Henry successfully used logos, pathos, and ethos in his speech intended to demonstrate the necessity of war actions against Great Britain. First, he referred to credible sources of information reflecting on the measures taken by the British government in relation to their country. Second, Henry appealed to the patriotic feelings of his fellow citizens to attract their attention to the global problem. Third, the orator presented himself as a person directly involved in negotiations and, therefore, aware of the current situation. Thus, the effectiveness of his attempts to transmit his thoughts on the matter was conditional upon the use of the mentioned rhetoric appeals.

Reference

Patrick Henry  Give me liberty or give me death. (n.d.). The Avalon Project. Web.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, prescribed three modes of rhetorical persuasion  ethos, pathos, and logos. An outstanding rhetoric persuasion should have an ethical appeal, an emotional appeal, as well as a logical appeal. In the Declaration of Independence document, and Thomas Jeffersons account, the founding fathers not only aired grievances, truths, and the denial of liberty, but they also artistically embroidered all the elements of rhetoric persuasion in their assertions. The Declaration of Independence appeals to ethics, emotions, and logic  the three fundamental elements of rhetoric.

The Declaration of Independences appeal to ethics is undisputable. In the opening paragraphs of the declaration, there is an ethical appeal for why the colonists needed separation from the colonizer. The first paragraph of the declaration read,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth [&] decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (The Declaration of Independence).

In the statement above, Jefferson and the founding fathers were appealing to ethics. It was necessary and essential to have an ethical explanation for that desire to gain support for their need to be independent. The founding fathers needed to explain why they needed to separate as decent respect to the opinions of humankind. In the second paragraph, the declaration continued on the ethical appeal stating that humans bore equal and unalienable rights  to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (The Declaration of Independence).

These statements are moral, ethical, and legal overtones that the audience can associate themselves with. If someone were to ask, Why is this separation necessary? The answer would come right from the second paragraph. Jefferson and the founding fathers were more than aware that such a move as declaring independence required an ethical appeal with salient and concrete causes in place of light and transient causes, and they appealed to ethics right at the beginning of the declaration.

Other than appealing to ethics, Jefferson and the founding fathers required the audience to have an emotional attachment to the Declaration of Independence. The audience had to feel the same way as the founding fathers did. In the second paragraph of the declaration document, the drafters appealed that the people had a right to change and abolish a government that had become destructive of the equal and inalienable rights of all humankind. Humankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to the right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed (The Declaration of Independence).

However, if there is a long train of abuses and usurpations (The Declaration of Independence), there was a need to reduce the adversities under absolute Despotism, as the peoples right and duty. At the beginning of paragraph 30, the drafters of the declaration called their preceding assertions oppressions. An oppressed person is not a happy person. By making the audience  the colonists  remember their suffering and how patient they had been with the colonizers, Jefferson and the drafters appealed to the audiences emotions.

The other rhetorical appeal in the Declaration of Independence is that of logic  logos. Other than bearing ethical and emotional overtones, the declaration equally bore logical sentiments. At the end of paragraph two, The Declaration of Independence reads, To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world (The Declaration of Independence), after which follows a string of grievances against the King of England and the colonizers. The entire draft bears logical appeal and the rationale behind the call for independence. How the founding fathers interwove the causes for independence in the declaration is a representation of logic.

There is evidence of inductive reasoning showing what the colonists required  independence from England  and why that was the only resort. The declaration is also logically appealing because it is not that the colonists have not sought the colonizers ear for the grievances they had; they had In every stage of these Oppressions Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms, but their repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury (The Declaration of Independence). Reason would only dictate that the colonists resort to other measures such as declaring themselves independent from a tyrannical system.

A rhetorical analysis of the Declaration for Independence shows the employment of ethical (ethos), emotional (pathos), and logical (logos) appeals by the drafters. In the statement of their reasons for calling to be independent of the crown, the founding fathers elucidated an ethical appeal. In the statement of their grievances against the King of England, the drafters appealed emotionally to their audience. Lastly, the drafters of the declaration interwove logic into every argument they presented by employing inductive reasoning in the description of the relationship between the colonies and the colonizer and why they formerly needed emancipation from the latter.

Work Cited

The Declaration of Independence: The Want, Will, and Hopes of the People.  Ushistory.org, 2018. Web.

On August 28th, 1963, Martin Luther King delivered his most fiery speech to shock the United States  I Have a Dream. America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned, a black rights advocate shouted from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (King 1963, pp. 4). The speech is full of outrage and contains allusions to the Bible and the US Declaration of Independence. It is considered one of the best in the history of mankind. The main theses of Kings political speeches were not only the equalization of the rights of Whites and Blacks but also a more global idea  world peace for the sake of the prosperity of mankind.

The format of Martin Luther Kings speech is quite simple, as the entire text can be conditionally divided into two parts. The first part presents a picture of an American nightmare full of injustice and humiliation of human dignity. This part is about both the past and the present day, namely, August 28th, 1963. In addition, in the first part of his speech, King calls people to stand up for themselves and their dignity. The second part of the speech, however, is much more positive. It represents Kings view on the bright future of the United States, his dream, his hope and belief in equality and justice for all people, regardless of skin color.

Martin Luther King used a variety of rhetorical techniques, such as speech figures and tropes, in his speech. Among these techniques, allusions are the most prominent. For the first time, the allusion in Kings I Have a Dream speech is used immediately after the opening sentence, which is an homage to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. US President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery with this proclamation. The reference is symbolic and carries a lot of meaning, setting the tone of the speech from the very beginning. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, said King (1963, pp. 2). This passage is also a starting point  the beginning of the story, indicating the date and place of the event.

Among English-speaking speakers, references to Shakespeare and the Bible were especially popular, which is exactly what Martin Luther King did in his speech. For example, King (1963) said: This sweltering summer of the Negros legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality (pp. 7). This is a very subtle allusion to the play by William Shakespeare, Richard III. Moreover, King often refers to the Bible in his speech, which, of course, is natural and not surprising because he was a pastor. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity (King 1963, pp. 2), he announced right at the beginning of his speech. This is, in fact, an allusion to Psalm 31, verse 4: Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength (King James Bible 1769). Being a deeply religious person, King artfully weaved homages to Bible into his speech, which only helped him translate his idea to the masses in a more understandable and relatable way.

Although this historical event happened a long time ago, the general idea of Kings speech is modern and relevant to this day: it is impossible to win by responding with violence to violence. Martin Luther Kings insistent calls for unity and nonviolent action in response to oppression and brutality are worthy of deep respect and long memory. His speeches have become key moments in American history in the struggle for racial justice. And this particular, unique speech, I Have a Dream, is, indeed, a real rhetorical masterpiece, presented in a powerful and inspiring way.

Reference

King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online.

King, M. L. (1963).I Have a Dream. American rhetoric.

Introduction

Applying rhetorical theory to analyzing political speeches and conversations becomes a fundamental step in understanding the worth of the chosen forms, compositions, and effects of every word. This approach makes it possible to identify the symbols and meanings used, and there are five major canons for examination: invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory. Michelle Obamas speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 is a perfect combination of these cannons. The first lady succeeded in underlying the matter and communicating the theme with strong words, solid examples, and real experiences. Michelle Obama showed how effective monologue could sound and followed all rhetorical cannons to offer a good lesson for other public speakers.

Rhetorical Analysis of Michelle Obamas Speech

Invention is one of the major skills for speakers to apply in communication. Its goal is to convince the audience that there is a perfect follow-up plan. In her speech, Michelle Obama did not share a list of clear major points, but she underlined the main idea  her definite support of Hilary Clinton in the current presidential elections (PBS NewsHour, 2016). Despite the omission of this critical step, the speech touched the minds and souls of millions of Americans at that moment. However, public speakers need to remember that the audience might want to know the reasons for communication and demonstrate their desire to continue participation.

Arrangement is the structure of the content in the speech. Michelle Obama used a unique approach to connect her interest in family values and their impact on American politics (PBS NewsHour, 2016). First, she introduced her daughters and underlined her role as a parent, and then she defined her position in supporting Hillary Clinton. The next step was the discussion of the candidates history, her skills, and the nature of the election. There was also the indirect recognition of the opponent and his weaknesses in front of Clintons position. Her conclusion included the necessity to cooperate and make the right decision for the countrys leader.

Michelle Obamas style deserves attention and recognition for many reasons. She used provoking allusions to Barack Obama as the first African American President or Donald Trump and the 140 characters approach (PBS NewsHour, 2016). Her irony and humor about snap decisions, thin skin, and nuclear codes at your fingertips proved the necessity to think about the importance of these elections (PBS NewsHour, 2016). Finally, the repetition of the phrase our kids who underlined the inevitable responsibility to future generations (PBS NewsHour, 2016). These literary techniques strengthened her message and caused the audience to applaud as a way to agree with her words.

A perfect combination of memory and delivery cannons cannot be ignored in this speech. It was evident that Michelle Obama told all those words without additional help or scripts. She effectively used body language and memorized real-life events to show that the best political decisions should come from the persons heart. She never lowered her eyes to find some tips and continue her monologue. The tone of her voice, pauses, and emphasis on the details were appropriate during the whole speech, which allowed the audience to react and accept all her information.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this rhetorical analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of Michelle Obamas speech at the Democratic National Convention. On the one hand, someone could admit that there was no plan in her content because she failed to mention the main points and demonstrate her invention skills. On the other hand, there was logic in each part of her monologue, and her purposes remained clear and achieved. This speech did not contain those monotonous words prepared beforehand but was full of emotions and sincere words about Americas greatness and uniqueness.

Reference

PBS NewsHour. Watch first lady Michelle Obamas full speech at the 2016 democratic national convention [Video]. YouTube. Web.

Modern life does not stop striking one with injustice and cruelty that happens in the world. Some are silently observing what is going on around them, others take some stand and become outrageous supporters of their views. As the writers role in a most general sense presupposes a firmness of ones position concerning this or that event crucial for the development of the country he or she lives in, Arundhati Roy has her own views on the actions of the United States government and shares them with the readers and listeners afterward.

The main point that the author makes is that the US government does not succeed in establishing a good relationship between power and powerlessness. On reading her speech I interpreted this idea in a slightly different way: it is in the Unites States interest to divide the world for those who are with them, and those who are against them.

The readers/listeners attention to the problem discussed is attracted with the first sentences. The author admits that she is going to read her speech out loud and stresses the two reasons for reading: first, she is a writer and she feels more comfortable when she writes and not tells and, second, the complexity of the problem under consideration increases the responsibility of the one who deals with it: I think we have to be very, very precise about what were saying and how we say them and the language that we use. (Roy 1)

Once the readers/listeners attention is drawn to the problem the author aims at finding the necessary words that will not scare the audience off. Due to the seriousness and the acuteness of the subject under analysis, the author seems to run risks because of being misunderstood. She warns the audience that she is not an ideologue who wants to pit one absolutist ideology against another, but as a story-teller who wants to share her way of seeing. She continues: Though it might appear otherwise, my writing is not really about nations and histories; its about power. About the paranoia and ruthlessness of power. About the physics of power. (Roy 1)

I like the way the author presents her views on power: she states that she believes that the accumulation of vast unfettered how storytellers the institution, the authority of the person that accumulates it inevitably leads to excesses of power. The speaker makes the problem understandable for everyone, thus she helps the audience realize that no one can stay aside and has to take some position.

The reality of life is that those who are this or that way concerned with American problems are either Americans or Anti-Americans. Those who blindly follow the demagogical principles of the US government are treated as Americans by it; those who criticize the actions of the US government are considered Anti-Americans. The author ruthlessly attacks those who pin labels of the types. She asks a lot of rhetorical questions that cannot but touch the readers/listeners hearts and make them find adequate answers:

But what does the term anti-American mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that youre opposed to freedom of speech? That you dont delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean that you dont admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans? (Roy 2)

As far as this problem is concerned the speaker concludes that to call someone Anti-American does not simply mean to be a racist but to suffer from a lack of imagination as well, as this implies an inability to see the world in terms of other than those the establishment has set out for you. (Roy 2) Though it sounds rather categorical, it is indeed the characteristic of the contemporary policy the USA dictates to the rest of the world: If youre not a Bushie youre a Taliban. If you dont love us, you hate us. If youre not Good, youre Evil. If youre not with us, youre with the terrorists. (Roy 2) I wonder why the author did not use all capital letters in these utterances? To my mind, this might have contributed to the authors persuasiveness.

To support her point the speaker suggests a lot of examples of inadequate actions of the American government. Different actions of the government in the world arena get the speakers bright description; she constantly reminds the audience that drastic consequences might have been avoided if the US government could think of other nations but for the American one. The authors point is that every problem can be resolved without resorting to acts of war:

Should Delhi, Islamabad, and Dhaka be destroyed? Is it possible to bomb bigotry out of India? Can we bomb our way to a feminist paradise? [Laughter] Is that how women won the vote in the U.S? Or how slavery was abolished? Can we win redress for the genocide of the millions of Native Americans upon whose corpses the United States was founded by bombing Santa Fe? (Roy 2).

The terrorist attack 9/11 warned the American administration that every evil caused by it to other nations is penal. Nearly three thousand civilians lost their lives in that lethal terrorist strike. The author chooses laconic and, I would say, sharp sentences to render the horror of the situation: The grief is still deep. The rage still sharp. The tears have not dried. And a strange, deadly war is raging around the world. (Roy 2) The last sentence emphasizes the fact that the whole world faces a disaster that can only be stopped by the United States. What worsens the situation is the US governments unwillingness to stop the war that was once started by them. The idea that America is interested in this war runs through whole Roys speech.

War inevitably brings deaths. Grief, failure, brokenness, numbness, uncertainty, fear, death of feeling, the death of dreaming (Roy 3) are eternal companions of war. The author speaks of the meaning that loss has for people who got used to living with these feelings and states that measures should be assumed immediately to change the current situation.

Constant applause throughout the authors speech signifies the approval of her ideas by the audience. When the author sounds witty about the actions of the US government the listeners laugh can be heard. This means that the author managed to touch the listeners hearts and make them think of the problem of American politics on the international scene. The author encouraged everyone to understand that the problem is not so distant as it might seem, unfortunately, the disaster knocks already at the doors of each and every. No one knows what aspect the US policy of moral equivalence can get at a new stage of its development. Will it be some new sanctions against the peoples like Iraqi or some new tendencies will appear in the American policy?

The speaker quotes the words of the former US ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright concerning the drastic results of the American sanctions in Iraq: Its a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it. (Roy 5) I cannot understand how a woman can talk of some mathematical calculations when it comes to the death of at least one innocent child. I suppose that on the statements like this the policy of the United States in its complexity and atrocity is based. Governors like Albright make the world more cruel and indifferent to the grief of others.

Another quotation that the author provides her audience with is Donald Rumsfelds one. He once said that the mission of the Americans in the War Against Terror was to persuade the world that the Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life (Roy 8). Though it is hard for the speaker to admit, she does that The American Way of Life is simply not sustainable. Because it doesnt acknowledge that there is a world beyond America. I suppose a storm, of applause that comes after these words, speaks for the listeners acceptance of this cruel but objective truth.

As long as the world is run by the three of the most secretive institutions which all are dominated by the US the net of the War Against Terror will become wider and wider. If adequate measures are not taken, the system of American war policy will fail by itself, not only because too few people usurp too much power but because it is flawed. To paraphrase Roy, this system is constructed by the human intelligence but undone by human nature (Roy 8). Isnt it high time to use intelligence and neglect the drawbacks of our nature?

I suppose that at last America has to understand that the world is not divided into Americans and non-Americans, and it does not revolve on the American axis. As there is no pure black and pure white color in nature there is no sharp division of the world into those who care for and those who are against Americans. The US government needs to understand that those who do not support its actions will not necessarily take some actions against it. The preventing policy appears to be a rather beneficial one in a number of cases, but how cannot the US government see that the price of it is too high? I do realize that it is much more convenient to close ones eyes to the drastic results that the government policy has and enjoy the benefits that it has for ones country, but one day the policy of this type will definitely ruin the whole world. So, its the price worth it?

Works Cited

Roy, Arundhati. Come September. Retrieved 2008.

Platos Gorgias is the writing written in the form of dialogues between Socrates and sophists. In these dialogues, philosophers argue and share their views on virtue and rhetoric. According to Gorgias, A rhetorician is capable of speaking effectively against all comers, whatever the issue, and can consequently be more persuasive in front of crowds about& anything he likes (Dodds, 1990). Hence, in his view, rhetoric is mainly used for compellingly presenting an argument.

Socrates argues that oratory practices that became popular among sophists in Athens pursue convincing and persuading rather than speaking the truth. And the same will be true of the orator and the oratory in relation to all other arts. The orator need have no knowledge of the truth about thongs; it is enough for him to have discovered a knack of persuading the ignorant that he seems to know more than the experts. (Dodds, 1990). He despises such practice because oratory rhetoric can be practiced and mastered. Whether it is true or not, any argument, whether the speaker knows the subject or is ignorant.

Consequently, the example of how rhetoric and oratory skills can be abused to persuade people into doing harmful things is seen in Thank You for Smoking book The main protagonist of the book Nick Naylor is a lobbyist for a tobacco company. He is able to win any argument with his wit and his speeches. For example, he made a speech in congress where he started with the statement show of hands who out there thinks that cigarettes arent dangerous? knowing that the cigarettes are indeed dangerous and that nobody interacts with the audience in Congress (Buckley 2010). He mastered three rhetorical appeals as Ethos that appeals to credibility; Logos appeal to reason, and Pathos appeals to emotions. Therefore, regardless of the truth behind his words, the audience is most likely to be convinced by Naylors rhetoric at the end of his speech.

References

Buckley, C. (2010). Thank you for smoking: A novel. Random House.

Dodds, E. R. (1990). Gorgias: A Revised Text, with Introduction and Commentary.

Structure

Firstly, we have to mention that the distinction between structural and stylistic peculiarities of persuasive essay writing have to be taken into consideration. It is commonly preferred to analyze the structure of the essay at first, looking for the authors methods of achieving his/her purpose of persuading the audience.

Hence, at the beginning of the peace of writing under the name Black Widows Recruited for Terrorism in Russia, a reader can already observe the authors attitude towards the issue or a problem. The very first sentence of the essays introduction provides the contrast in generalizing information, which indicates importance of this picture changing the hundreds of peoples way of thinking. Generally, the authors task at the beginning of persuasive piece of writing was to attract the readers attention.

As a matter of fact, the writer has accomplished this task by choosing the technique of opening with a strong statement with slight exaggeration. Having further introduced the main thesis of the essay and having given some background information, the writer moves smoothly to the body of the piece.

In the main part of the essay the author represents his main arguments and reasons, which confirm his thesis statement. Briefly, the first body paragraph offers a distinct case of an act of terror realized by women. The author empathizes further the distortion of a perception of womans function in the society.

The second paragraph describes the phenomena of Black Widows, who being in a flow of revenge were committing crimes. All the proceeding paragraphs are aimed at backing the points stated above. These paragraphs have purpose to explain and give reasons for a phenomenon, woman terrorism in particular.

However, we have to point out, that the author did not use the technique of including a fully distinguished rebuttal section into the main body of the essay. Instead, the writer has directly come to conclusion, which was an appeal to certain people, in particular legislative establishments, which can work on the ways of improving the situation of Black Widow Terrorism.

Style

Factual Information

Facts are one of the most powerful means of persuasion. The author in his article has used a considerable amount of facts, which one can be checked on veracity. Introducing factual information was a reasonable way of supporting ones point and offering the issue for further discussion;

Appeal to Authority (Quoting)

It is always highly desirable to back u your opinion with particular thoughts of experts, which are already professionals in their field and can offer a reader security and sure about the words they say or prove. For example, in the current article a reader may observe the following personalities as Speckhard and Yulia Yuzik.

Appeal to Examples

A variety of examples, which have been used in the article, are quite an effective mean of persuasion.

Audience

On the whole, the article Black Widows Recruited for Terrorism in Russia is aimed not only at the legislation establishments, who are empowered to change the increasing processes of woman terrorism, but also at an educated general public.

The issue of woman terrorism and its reasons may be a topic of consideration for psychologists, sociologists and representatives of other social studies, who are willing to join to finding the solution to this problem.

Rhetorical Strategies

Appeal to Reason

The author has developed his arguments being guided by motives and reasons. He bases his conclusions only with reference to authoritative people and facts.

Appeal to Ethos

The latter implies credibility and reliability of the author. The writer of this particular essay is considered to apply this rhetorical strategy successfully, while using only credible sources to develop an argument. Further, the writer sets a common point through admitting beliefs of the opposite sides of an argument. Last, but not least, the author has organized his article in an easy to follow pattern.

Appeal to Emotions

Appeal to emotions is one of the key points in persuasive essay. As far as our mind is inclined to visualization and sensual perception on the whole, this technique may appear a useful tool for persuading. We can state, that the author of the article has managed to achieve expected results through appeal to audiences emotions. The writer uses emotionally colored language, which induces the reader to react correspondingly. E.g. a cherubic teenager smirking as she waves a pistol in the air

In general, the author of the article has achieved the result in arguing over the question of woman terrorism, its reasons and appealing to the legislative bodies and all people on the whole to contribute to solving this problem.

Works Cited

1. Lunsford, Andrea Everythings an argument Bedford/St. Martins; Fourth Edition edition. (2007): 123-134.
2. Schuster, Simon Russias Black Widows: Terrorism or Revenge? (2010). Web.

In all of these op-ed pieces, the author very convincingly expresses his or her opinion through the use of something that can be called personal rhetoric. That is what makes most of these op-ed pieces similar. The differences stylistically are of device and method, and can be expressed simply by citing directly parts of each article side by side.

First, here will be covered the use of personal rhetoric, as it has so been named. It is not but before the first few lines of each piece in which the author establishes a personal foundation for the rest of the article to be built on. Anna Quindlen begins her article In a Peaceful Frame of Mind, with this expression of subjective experience: It was the part about reading that got to me (Quindlen, In a Peaceful&).

In a piece designed to express the inhumanity of outlawing euthanasia, Quindlen here established what would be her grounds for considering the politically volatile option. Without getting into lofty intellectual rhetoric, she appeals to the humanity of us allhoping we will think of that thing we do that makes the arduousness of life bearable being taken by some biological twist of fate. Here, like in all op-ed pieces, there is a high risk of losing audience out of an inability to relate with what has been asserted by the writer. If people just cannot identify with wanting to die because of losing the ability to read, then the rest of the article may not stand firmly on that shaky ground.

Staples style in Editorial Observer; Why Colleges Shower Their Students With As is much more formal. He does not use a personal rhetoric, is informative, and uses strictly the third person throughout is piece. His assertions are factual, not subjective. His conclusion reads as follows: Addicted to counterfeit excellence, colleges, parents and students are unlikely to give it up. As a consequence, diplomas will become weaker and more ornamental as the years go by (Staple, Why Colleges&).

Though the rest of his performance is without personal opinionhere is where his pieces editorial nature is exposed. He is using the example of college superficiality to make a broader statement about Americas addiction to counterfeit excellence. Though using a contrasting diction of a tone informative and factual, he indeed is attempting to convey a personal belief, much like Quindlen, with more of a veneer of absolute truth.

Brooks is much more like Quindlen. In his article The Gender Gap at School he begins ingest: There are three gender-segregated sections in any airport: the restrooms, the security pat-down area and the bookstore (Brooks, The Gender Gap&). It is important to note that he does not shape this topic sentence in completely subjective form, as does Quindlen, however he does present the issue of the articlegender differenceswith a flair of familiarity, through humor, that does compare with Quindlens opening and contrast with Staples.

Britz takes her readers into the world of a college admissions office in her op-ed To All the Girls Ive Rejected. She begins with a personal anecdote, telling of her daughter opening a letter from a college that has put her on a waiting list (Britz, To All&). In this piece, like in Brooks and Quindlens, a personal touch is put upon the realities of a bigger issue. Here, the bigger issue is the great competition caused by the increase in female application to college. She brings to light the realities of rejecting highly qualified female applicants due to this phenomenon. Each of these three articles contrast with Staples piece, because he uses a distant, informative tone to convey facts in order to comment on the state of the American appetite for superficial excellence.

The commonality of all of these is the subjective nature of the purpose of their editorials. That is of no surprise. The forms however are shaped very differently, from Britz, who is essentially apologizing to all the girls she is forced to reject, to Staples who is turning a critical eye on the American search for more, faster; instead of less and substantial.

Works Cited

Brooks, David. The Gender Gap at School. The New York Times. 2006. Web.

Britz, Jennifer. To All the Girls Ive Rejected. The New York Times. 2006. Web.

Quindlen, Anna. In a Peaceful Frame of Mind: Demanding Control Over Their Medical Care May Not Relinquish It In Their Final Days. Newsweek. 2002. Web.

Staples, Brent. Editorial Observer; Why Colleges Shower Their Students with As. The New York Times. 1998. Web.

Introduction

Political literature uses the most artistic language in communicating to the public. People refer to politics as an art that makes anything possible. Policy-making involves persuading crowds into an idea, so it needs a language that is compromising, conflicting, convincing, and cooperative to ensure information passes on according to the politicians motive. Political writers commonly use vague language to confuse or deviate peoples minds from real situations when addressing the public. Sometimes the legislative ideas do not make literal sense, may mean the opposite of what a politician is trying to pass across, or can use outdated vocabulary. George Orwell argues that the language politicians use is vague, ambiguous, and unrecognizable. In the article Politics and the English Language, the writer uses various rhetorical devices such as pathos and ethos to persuade readers of the languages vagueness. This essay discusses the rhetoric devices George Orwell uses to convince the audience of the credibility of his arguments regarding the ambiguity of political language.

Essay Summary

George Orwells essay is among his best pieces of literature. In the article, the author identifies and criticizes the way politicians communicate as using bad English. He argues that modern discourse uses meaningless words that are written without a clear format. He begins his essay by focusing on the link between discourse writers language and the current political views. According to him, the quality of a language affects individuals way of thinking because dialects define thoughts. He states that political language is corrupting the way politics is degraded nowadays, which negatively affects society. Orwell gives five examples of political vocabulary that he considers faulty language (Orwell, 3). From the five writings, he concludes that each has stale imagery and lacks precision. He criticizes the radical authors method of writing as being meaningless because most phrases are unclear and do not communicate the intended message (Orwell, 4). He also argues that this kind of political writing is becoming common and needs corrections for better discourses.

Rhetorical Devices

Ethos

Throughout the essay, Orwell uses his language expertise to persuade readers of the credibility of his argument on the vagueness of political language. He gives a passage from his writing to demonstrate the effect of how politicians communicate. In the passage look back through this essay. And for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against (Orwell, 7), The writer also admits to using the faulty language he is fighting against. Although the essay is well written and clear, Orwell considers repeating words such as again and again overusing English. He justifies his argument that faulty political language influences even the best writer such as himself. Using his work as an example of the influence of bad writing, The author proves that he could also be corrupted by political language, urging political writers to use precise language that is less wordy.

Logos

Logos is an authors approach to persuade the readers view through logical reasoning. Orwell persuades readers by giving examples of two sentences containing literal mistakes. He demonstrates that the first sentence contains more words with fewer syllables, does not comprise ancient words, has more vivid imagery, and only one phrase that he considers vague (Orwell, 5). On the other hand, the second sentence has few words and many syllables and does not encompass any imagery or phrase that clearly explains the intended message. According to Orwell, most people write discourses using the second sentence, which is unclear, too wordy, and does not make much sense. In addition to the two sentences, the author gives an example of a bible verse from Ecclesiastes, which he compares to how authors write discourses today (Orwell, 5). Translating the verse from ancient to modern language will result in a meaningless passage if the writer uses political language because ancient language is complicated and requires precision during translation.

Pathos

Pathos creates an emotional appeal to the audience; while using ethos to challenge the readers mind. Orwell uses pathos to show readers the pathetic state of political language, particularly when analyzing the fallacies in the politicians language. The author argues that political writers use metaphorical phrases that audiences cannot understand; hence do not get a clear picture of what they mean. For example, such authors describe a populations movement as millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the road with no more than they can carry (Orwell, 7). According to Orwell, the descriptions are vague and give a different picture from a simple transfer of people; therefore, the way politicians communicate is disturbing and confusing. By showing the emotional atrocities of political vocabularies, such as the emotional deception, the author of this article gains the audiences attention and proves the credibility of his argument that lawmakers language is misleading.

Conclusion

Many literature experts criticize politics and the English language as being too idealistic. The world needs more writers like Orwell, who can influence authors to heed his argument for better discourses and social communication. This writer uses the most straightforward and understandable rhetorical devices in discussing and criticizing the use of such a vague language, which gains the readers attention on the credibility of his arguments. The ethos and logos challenge the reader to reconsider the use of political language in discourses. Generally, Orwells essay is relevant to todays language use in writing as politics influences most aspects of life nowadays.

Work Cited

Orwell George. Politics and the English Language. The Orwell Foundation. The Orwell Foundation, 2021. Web.