Civil Disobedience: Prose Analysis “I heartily accept the motto,—’That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically,” Henry Thoreau wrote in his famous work “Civil Disobedience”(1). The purpose of this text is to convince the reader of the injustices and corruption of the government, while simultaneously calling him or her to action. Thoreau is very… thorough in his arguments and makes an abundance of profound statements. After breaking down his text and seeing the structure and method to his writing, it becomes clear how Henry’s work spoke to so many people. By using rhetorical sleight of hand to build his ethos, make the reader identify with him and his cause, and to proclaim his moderateness and reluctantness, he was able to write one of the most profound pieces of literature from his time. Henry devotes a significant portion of his essay to show the reader that he can be trusted, and that he has Phronesis, or practical wisdom. He claims to have denied the government’s demand for taxes on two separate occasions, earning him, rather, unjustly earning him a jail sentence. His time spent in jail in the name of standing up to the government’s “rule by the stick” tactics shows his devotion and trustworthiness to his cause. In fact, when one considers that Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” while in the aforementioned jail cell, it becomes painfully apparent that he has practical wisdom. Likewise, the author promotes taxes when it comes to education, shedding even more light on his craft (12). By establishing a strong ethos, his identity
This and posts that follow under my name are the prose analysis written by John Tettis. He left yesterday for a mission trip. Please keep him in your prayers. And BTW, get these finished ASAP! You don't want all of this work hanging over your head when you are trying to get ready for school to begin!
strategy easily gives the reader a sense of belonging, and makes him or her vulnerable to be called to action. “Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure,” Thoreau claims, in a clear attempt to unify his audience against a common enemy (1). Thoreau uses a classic “us versus them” tribal tactic. “The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies,” Thoreau shamelessly pronounces (3). Again, he’s alienating citizens (his audience) from the military, and thus from the government, further making us identify with him, making us susceptible to his call to action. “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them . . . [who] sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing . . . They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect . . . At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them”(4). Henry cleverly insults his audience, without directly doing so, all while calling us to action. How familiar does this quote sound to me or you today, hundreds of years later? It’s meant to make the reader uncomfortable for not doing something about his or her objections to slavery, at the same time giving an outlet to fix that uncomfortableness: get up and do something. This appeal to emotion is text-book pathetic (in a rhetorical sense). Not only does the jailed author make his audience squirm in their seats due to their own inaction, he shows them that his ideas are moderate, and reasonable. Or at least tricks them into buying that.
Two of the most effective and sneaky rhetorical strategies are to appear moderate, and to appear as if one’s conclusion was met reluctantly. After heavily criticizing the government, the author explains, “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government”(2). He tells his audience that he’s moderate, while proclaiming not-so-moderate ideas for his time. Be that as it may, he still manages to appear moderate, by coupling this with his ‘reluctantness,’ the near anarchist states, “I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. . . . and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and state governments”(13). By claiming moderation and reluctantness, Henry appears to be completely reasonable in his ideas, and that any logical man could come to the same conclusion. Henry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” while in jail for not paying taxes. He calls his audience with an evident sense of urgency to resist the evils of government overstepping. His knowledge of rhetoric allows him to cover his borderline anarchist views in a shroud of reasonableness. He does this by employing a plethora of rhetorical tricks, the most prominent among those being ethos inflation, identity strategy, and the coupling of moderation and reluctant conclusions. These ideas in their base form are dangerous, but Thoreau presents them in a way that coaxes the reader into near anarchy. Thoreau shows us not just the danger of overstepping government, but the danger of a rhetorically inclined man. Work Cited Thoreau, Henry David. "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." Project Gutenberg. Trans. Sameer Parekh. N.p., 12 June 2004. Web. 26 July 2019.
Kara VanEerden Mrs. Messineo AP English Language and Composition 1 August 2019 Common Sense Revolutionary man Thomas Paine once wrote, “It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct,” and used simple words like these to convey a monumental message. His ability to use rhetoric to convince his countrymen to fight in a revolution would decide the future of the colonies and everyone in them. In parts III and IV of his pamphlet, “Common Sense”, Thomas Paine used methods that aimed to change the perspective of his audience, three of which are identifying his targets, stating the facts, and expressing sympathy. By presenting the information in this way, he gave the audience a chance to consider the current situation, dwell on any underlying guilt, inspire action, and much more. One step Paine took toward achieving his goal was to simply determine who he was persuading, and basing his decorum on the answer. His goal was to show people the issue in the current governing situation, and inspire them to do something about it. He used a rather blunt method of achieving this is most cases, yet the language he used did not seem out of place. Paine refocused the issue via hard truths and analogies that packed a punch. His “tough guy” decorum appealed to his target audience of strong young men with a passion for their future. In Jay Heinrichs’s, Thank You for Arguing, he explained how this tactic is used and why it is effective. The entirety of chapter five in Heinrichs’s book details the importance of decorum (47). Through successful application of this tool, Paine set himself up to get exactly what he wanted.
By making precise choices about the words his used and how he used them, Paine was able to change the way his audience viewed the situation at hand without belittling or angering them. One very straightforward way he did this was by sharing a few pieces of pure truth. Statistics, such as the cost of a navy, became a helpful persuasive tool (Paine 30). He didn’t have to be manipulative or sly to begin to change their minds. He simply showed that he was educated, and by making that clear, developed a tone of leadership and made himself a more trustworthy voice. Looking back to chapter four of Heinrichs’s text, we see him mention why appealing to the logos of an audience is so important (41). Facts show no bias or partiality. He used this method as a means to convince the people in the colonies that English leadership was absolutely not helpful, and in fact quite harmful to their society. By utilizing simple facts and statistics, Paine opened the door to the idea of a complete focus shift from the previous popular opinion. A final advantage Paine had, and used effectively, was the fact that he completely understood the situation the people he was attempting to persuade were facing. He could appeal to their pathos by acknowledging the struggles they were facing, and give them logical solutions that aligned with the outcome he was aiming for. Heinrichs goes over the usefulness of persuasion via sympathy through the pathos in chapter four of Thank You for Arguing (44). However, he did not turn the ordeal into a sob story. For example, in part III of “Common Sense”, Paine goes over the people’s obvious concern for civil war (25). He explains how he dreads the same thing, but the likelihood of that happening is far higher under European powers rather than an independent state. He established firm leadership, while also showing his concern for his fellow people of the colonies. This form of firm but obviously caring leadership was an extremely effective method of getting his point across. “Common Sense” is a literary work that has absolutely impacted our history as a country. Thomas Paine’s skillful use of rhetoric through decorum, logic, and sympathy created an argument that can be credited for starting the movement that led to the independence of the United States. Analyzing literature such as this shows the beauty of good rhetoric, and opens the door to the endless possibilities of this persuasive art.Works Cited Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017. Paine, Thomas. “Common Sense.” Edited by Moncure D. Conway, vol 1, parts 3 and 4, Project Gutenberg, 2001.
Megan Gordon Mrs.Messineo Ap English and Composition 1 August 2019 Silent Spring Rachel Carson wrote in her famous environmental writing Silent Spring “We must change our philosophy, abandon our attitude of human superiority and admit that in many cases in natural environments we find ways and means of limiting populations of organisms in a more economical way than we can do it ourselves”(Carson 136). With this quote, it becomes clear that in her text she is calling out the government to take into account the harmful effects of their actions. She however is also calling out everyday society to look into the facts, and also into their morals about how their environment is being treated. In this text, it’s easy to identify that along with many quotes, she uses certain styles of writing and methods of rhetoric to get this argument across. While at some points it is clear by the decorum that she is using that she is trying to speak to the government and plead them to change the way they are handling the environment, she is most often arguing for the audience. The switch is almost always clear because she changes her style of writing from mostly statistics and government decisions to telling stories about how these environmental changes affect everyday society. She uses her arguments as a way to give the facts to the audience and show them the reality of what is happening to their environment, which is important when she is trying to establish logos. She also uses morals and emotions to make them feel bad and take her side in the end. These methods include using storytelling and commonplaces when appealing to the everyday audiences pathos.
One of the most relevant positions she uses to capture the audiences attentions and emotions is storytelling. She vividly paints a picture at the very beginning of the story of an event that could happen to our earth if we don’t change our ways(10). It was a smart choice to start off the text like this because it catches the readers attention and makes them want to learn more about the facts of the situation. She uses this technique many other times throughout the book but ties it into facts instead of making up an experience. Her telling real life examples of how pesticide sprays can harm wildlife and the environment can help the audience use the facts of a situation to decide what side they are on, but also be able to feel emotions for what is happening so they take her side. Carson uses many commonplaces throughout her story so the audience can feel like they are all on the same page. One example from the text is “ It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects it has also turned them against the earth.”( 154). The quote from the book is an excellent example of a commonplace that is used throughout the book. The author repeatedly correlates all of the problems that come from pesticides affecting all of earth, which relates every human that lives here. These quotes that she uses also all have one type of rhetoric involved to relate her goal. They all use a patriotism technique that establish the people in government who release the chemicals as earths common rival( Heinrich’s 108). Silent Spring is an excellent example of a literary work that uses scientific facts and emotions to reach one specific goal. The author used many specific types of rhetoric that helped her get her point across clearly. Some of theses techniques included commonplaces, stories, imagery, and patriotism. These techniques allowed the author to get a problem that mainly only biologist cared about to become a worldwide phenomenon that almost everyone developed an opinion on. Work Cited Carson, Rachel. 1907-1964, Silent Spring. Boston. Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017.
John Bolton has once said “...smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.” The quote recognizes Henry David Thoreau’s argument on how civilizations should disobey unjust governments. Thoreau uses many forms of literary rhetoric to persuade his audience to side with his ideas, and does this through large help of his ethos, logos, and pathos making this text an extraordinary argument against the untrustworthy government of his time. Thoreau starts his work with a series of logos arguments about his beliefs that government treats men as machines, in his words, and how men are unwillingly accepting the rules of government, such as raising taxes and slavery. This is a argument of logic, also explained in "Thank You For Arguing" (Heinrich's 40) He tries to set the idea through the men of America that the government is corrupt, and how they are allowing such injustices happen, yet keeps an open field to allow the men to hold their opinions, and does not close off any other ideas. “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.“(16) He keeps it close to the fact that they will at least know of the wrong-doing if they do support the government. “The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.” (4) Henry David Thoreau plays with the emotions of the audience by throwing in rhetorical pathos, and claiming how, similarly to the logos aspect, men that participate in wars are being used as instruments by the government, and how the men are basically puppets to those in power. This helps create an emotional audience, creating a need for reform by the American men which is the audience, and helps win over those men to his argument. Finally, Thoreau uses rhetorical ethos to win his argument. He uses it in a sense to make him seem like a trustworthy person. He tells of a nonfictional account of his time he spent inside of a jail cell, explaining that he was there due to his resistance towards the government and their taxes. This is one way to help make Thoreau seem like a credible leader, as he has had first hand experience with the government. “When I came out of prison,—for some one interfered, and paid the tax,—I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common...” (35)
He accounts of his time and jail and gives a comparison of the changes that he saw. This experience in jail helps his claim that there must be change made. One of the final takeaways was Henry David Thoreau’s clever uses of imagery and metaphors to attack the governments usage of jail. “The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in town.” (30) Henry Thoreau says that the room he stayed in was almost too nice for a prisoner. He pokes fun at how lousy of a jail it is for being too nice, moreover. He continues to picture a fairytale-like town far into the woods, which allows the audience persuaded pathetically. In his description he uses metaphors to explain how the jail is like a city, and his cell is like an apartment in the city. This was clever in proving his point that he should not of received what he had due to the terms he was on. Henry David Thoreau uses a mix up of ethos, logos, and pathos in order to persuade his audience toward his ideas by playing with their emotions, and hitting them with the facts. He makes himself known as a trustful leader, and is not afraid of facing his opposition head on. He makes well-use of his imagery, in a low-like way, forcing his ideas upon the audience. He creates an atmosphere that helps win the argument for himself by using different rhetorical tools.
Works Cited
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017.
Thoreau, Henry David. "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." Project Gutenberg. Trans. Sameer Parekh. N.p., 12 June 2004. Web. 26 July 2019.
Alex Muccio Mrs.Messineo Ap English and Composition 8-1-19 ‘Me Talk Pretty One Day’
In a strikingly relatable and comical narrative, David Sedaris shares a story of dealing with learning a language and putting up with an egregious teacher. The purpose of this text seems to be a mix of the audience relating to Sedaris and just feeling bad for him. The author uses rhetoric very well in this story to make the audience relate to exactly what’s he’s going through. Sedaris makes the reader feel these and other emotions through his use of figurative language and comedic tone.
At the very beginning of the story, Sedaris tells the readers about his differences compared to others he is going to school with. The way the author speaks instantly about this shows the readers that Sedaris is an outcast. He separates himself from the crowd and tells the readers what everyone else is doing and talking about. The author is about double the age of the other students as well, which furthers the divide even more. Sedaris’ verbal mentioning of being uncomfortable and unsure really tells the reader about the author’s mental state. “That's the way they do it here--everyone into the language pool, sink or swim”(Sedaris 26). Sedaris uses figurative language like this to show the competitiveness and overall difficulty associated with this class.
A brilliant method used to show that the author is truly an amateur to the French language, is how he writes his teacher’s dialogue. In this interesting approach, Sedaris uses jumbled up letters to show the readers he does not understand the language very well. This choice of figurative language/rhetoric is something that readers can actively relate to. For example, his teacher says at one point, "Were you always this palicmkrexjs?" she asked. "Even a fiuscrzsws tociwegixp knows that a typewriter is feminine”(27). She says this when Sedaris confuses the gender of the object he is talking about in French. The teacher’s horrendous behavior is a common theme throughout this story, and it’s kind of confusing as well. Sedaris is the most innocuous student, yet the teacher targets and verbally harasses him for no reason. Readers would obviously feel bad that this is happening to the author, but he writes it in such a way that it comes off as just a funny ordeal. As the story continues, the jumbled up words start disappearing slowly, showing that Sedaris is understanding more French. Sedaris even adds that “the world opened up.”
The author adds loads of humor to his seemingly awful experience with his belligerent teacher. By the end of the story, the teacher is cursing out Sedaris, yet again. This time the author has added no gibberish words, showing that he fully understands what she’s saying. To say he is delighted is an understatement. Sedaris makes this situation very humorous because no one would be happy when they are being degraded, but he is. The author is pleased that he understands what the teacher has been calling him, so much so, that he asks her to continue cursing at him! This narrative shows the author go from being a timid outcast to being fearless because of this class. It was truly a blessing and a curse for Sedaris.
Works Cited Sedaris, David. Me Talk Pretty One Day. Little Brown and Company, 2000.
In Cold Blood: Prose Analysis Olivia Matha Mrs. Messineo AP Language and Composition 1st of August 2019
Truman Capote discusses the troubling, real-life occurrences surrounding a gruesome murder in In Cold Blood. Using literary techniques as well as innovative storytelling, Capote is able to capture his audience to communicate the alternating perspectives of the criminals and victims alike. Capote’s “non-fiction novel,” is a unique blend of prose and actuality; later lending itself to be coined as the first true-crime novel. Besides being the driving force for a new wave of literature, however, Capote’s work stands out because of his ability to strike an audience through language. While, In Cold Blood, does not have an agenda to persuade readers, it does have the ability to sway an audience's opinion on the characters, as well as give insight to all points of view. Capote’s purpose for writing this novel was to simply show the readers the raw, humane attributes of a criminal. He adds tension and suspense to the story via flashbacks to the days leading up to the killings, in addition to vehement statements given by the townspeople. His utilization of dramatic irony, multiple points of view, and descriptive speech also aid in setting the stirring and unsettling tone. By doing so, Capote reels in his audience through his captivating use of rhetoric.
(Continued) Capote introduces each character by shedding a positive light on all parties. This includes the killers themselves. For example, Capote makes mention of simple characteristics such as hobbies the men have, hardships they endured and even conversation they share. “Dick was driving a black 1949 Chevrolet sedan. As Perry got in, he checked the back seat to see if his guitar was safely there; the previous night, after playing for a party of Dick’s friends, he hadforgotten and left it in the car,” Capote ties commonalities of the average person to help his readers relate to these characters (Said 18). This rhetorical tactic is called “code grooming.” By definition, code grooming is swaying an audience in the arguing sides favor by using language that can easily resonate with the general group. When tied in with the power of emotion this technique can be very effective. “Something of the kind had happened; the imperfectly aligned features were the outcome of a car collision in 1950—an accident that left his long-jawed and narrow face tilted…” Capote uses emotion here to tug at readers’ heartstrings (Said 26) . Much like code grooming, ethos, or the invocation of sadness or pity, grabs attention by making an emotional relatedness to the killers; in turn making them appear less merciless. When prompted by empathetic concern and relatability, readers can connect to even the worst of people. Similar to many other novels, Capote relies heavily on irony to add tension. Specifically, however, he uses dramatic irony; which is when the reader knows the outcome of a situation but the other characters do not. Many times throughout the novel, the narrator “flashes back” to the days before the murders. This also allows for Capote to use multiple points of view in order to set the tone of the novel. “Nobody answered, so Mr. Ewalt suggested that we go to the house and try to ‘wake them up.’But when we got there—I didn’t want to do it. Go inside the house.I was frightened, and I don’t know why, because it never occurred to me—Well, something like that just doesn’t” (Said 50). Individual characters have sections in the novel where they either
(Continued) recollect on the happenings or on the victims themselves. However, sections are also in a third person omniscient point of view as such, “. Nobody answered, so Mr. Ewalt suggested that we go to the house and try to ‘wake them up.’But when we got there—I didn’t want to do it. Go inside the house.I was frightened, and I don’t know why, because it never occurred to me—Well, something like that just doesn’t” (Said 56). By introducing both third person omniscient and first person points of view, dramatic irony easily lends itself to the overall tone Capote wants to achieve. Naturally, the audience has previous knowledge regarding the background of the novel. The characters, on the other hand, do not even have a clue of what will happen to them. Since readers know what is about to occur, but the characters themselves do not, the ignorance adds a jarring tensity for the audience. Capote uses idiosyncratic diction to latch onto the emotions of his audience. “Her eyes were open.Wide open. As though she were still looking at the killer,” he instills fear into the readers by giving a distinct example of what the woman looked like after being killed (Said 53). Capote does this to set the mood that, although the killers are people with emotions (much like the general population) a murder is still heartless. Although, his descriptions of each character are not limited to the protagonists. As previously mentioned, Capote purposefully talked about the killers, or antagonists, in a manner that did not make them seem as though they are
(Continued) monstrous. This very objective take on all of the characters creates a sense of conflict for the reader. He makes his audience feel a sort of want, to understand and try to reason with the killers. Which, in turn, pushes the pathos medium to an extreme, in order to connect with the audience. Capote, in the end, leaves the decision up to the readers to gauge just how inhumane the killers actually are. Truman Capote reaches new depths at which he is able to affect an audience in his novel, In Cold Blood. By using both countless rhetorical techniques and intriguing storytelling, he is able to show both sides of the story, apropos of the murders. Capote set the bar for the true-crime novels to emerge in the years to follow. His timeless use of literary tactics and riveting details make the book continuously loved by many. With the beauty and intelligence of a novel, yet the cold, hard facts and information of a nonfiction text, Capote’s In Cold Blood is nothing short of a classic.
Works Cited: Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. 1966. pt 1 of 4, Random House. 25 Sept. 1965, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/09/25/in-cold-blood-the-last-to-see-them-alive?reload=true. Accessed 27 July. 2019.
Vivian Mader Mrs. Messineo AP English Language and Composition 1 August 2019 Silent Spring In her controversial work “Silent Spring'' Rachel Carson wrote, “As man proceeds towards his announced goal of the conquest of nature, he has written a depressing record of destruction, directed not only toward the earth he inhabits but against the life that shares it with him,” (52). The source of destruction that Carson focused on was the spraying of chemical insecticides by the United States Department of Agriculture. Rachel Carson effectively used pathos and logos to demonstrate the unnecessary damage done to the environment, as well as ethos to dismantle the government’s character and to prove her own. She followed this up with a highly appealing alternative route, both economically and environmentally, to insecticide spraying. Her writing is a direct appeal to both the population at large and to the government through the use of figurative language to stimulate emotions, heavy use of statistics, and calling her audience to action. Her goal was to alert the unaware citizens of the issues no one wanted to talk about, as well as provide enough information about alternatives to spark government policy changes. Rachel Carson opened her book with a chapter titled “A Fable for Tomorrow.” It is a relatively short chapter, but fulfills its purpose perfectly. Through ample use of imagery, Carson painted a picture in her audience’s mind of a beautiful landscape, whose wildlife lives in harmony with the earth. However, just as her audience is able to visualize this, the scene has changed. She then began to describe the same landscape, deprived of vivacity and its original sense of wellbeing. All the animals and plants have died, and disease runs rampant. Even though she revealed that this place isn’t real, Carson added to her audience’s discontent by explaining that it is still very likely to happen. Through her use of imagery and choice of words, Rachel Carson was able to use pathos to put her audience in an emotionally vulnerable place even before she presented her main argument to them. She also utilized hyperbole sparingly. This can be seen most clearly in the seventh chapter of her book, “Needless Havoc.” Carson placed words into her sentences that have especially negative connotations. This added emphasis onto the truths she was trying to share. At this point in her book, Carson was making her appeal to the citizens of our country. She did this through explaining the government’s lack of justifications for insecticide spraying. She also attested that the chemicals were not safe as the government had made them out to be. By dedicating a small amount of her argument to ethos, Carson was able to make her audience question the government’s character and ability to be trusted.
(Continued) Next, Rachel Carson argued by logos through supplying countless statistics. First, she used statistics that tore down the idea that insecticide spraying was safe for animals, plants, and people. She provided details from many studies that showed the consequences of a spraying spreading outside of the designated areas, as well as ones that documented human illness caused by insecticide poisoning. Her inclusion of these statistics continued to break down any sensible reasons to support insecticide spraying. While these statistics strengthened her argument, Carson also took advantage of the opportunity to strengthen her decorum and enhance the fact that she was qualified to speak on the subject. She then went on to provide copious statistics about biological control, the alternative to spraying chemicals. These statistics were both better for the environment and for the economy because of their long term effects. By putting the harsher statistics first, Carson made the audience more susceptible to supporting the statistics about the alternative methods. This tactic is very effective when used properly. By presenting a less than ideal option first, the option that Carson desired seems much more reasonable. Finally, a main part of Rachel Carson’s argument against insecticide spraying was calling her audience to action. She began to offer choices fairly early on in the book and continued to do so throughout its entirety. In the final chapter of the book, “The Other Road” Carson wrote, “The choice, after all, is ours to make. If, having endured much, we have asserted our right to know… then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us to fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look around and see what other course is open to us,” (144). By choosing her words carefully, Carson gives each member of her audience a sense of responsibility. She wrote in a way that makes each individual feel compelled to act. This is the goal of every argument; to not only get the audience to agree with you, but to get them to act upon their new beliefs. “Silent Spring” was a groundbreaking piece of literature during the time it was published. The topic was an incredible struggle to take on, which Rachel Carson did almost effortlessly with her rhetorical skills. Without the impact of her book, our environment and the standards we treat it with could have been completely different today. Works Cited Carson, Rachel. “Silent Spring,” Fawcett Publications, 1962.
Joseph Wolfe Mrs. Messineo AP Language and Composition 1 August 2019 Civil Disobedience In 1848, Henry David Thoreau gave a legendary oration which challenged regular people all over the nation to get up and do something about the injustices which were occurring in their very own country (1). Published a year later, it would become one of the most famous works of political theory as well as a highly persuasive argumentative essay. So how exactly was Thoreau able to manage all this? Well, by combining the tools of kairos as well as the tense, he amplified the emotions he was working to provoke, all of which helped him achieve his goal of challenging the societal status quo and convincing his audience to prioritize their conscience over corrupt government laws (2). His his essay, Thoreau writes, “All men recognize the right of revolution” (3). With a goal of persuading a nation to stand up and take action against an unjust government, one of the strangest things readers might notice about this quote is that Thoreau writes in the present tense (2). In fact, the whole essay is almost entirely written in the present tense. Generally, the future tense is associated which choice, and it is best for getting an audience to make decisions and take action. However, Thoreau used the present tense, which is used to discuss values which the speaker may hold. While this may seem like an ignorant mistake on his part, it may actually be one of the most persuasive qualities of his essay. He himself admitted that the majority would not agree with his individualistic values, yet he stated that he wished to set a standard for himself (12-13). In this way, he convinces his audience that he is simply discussing his own values, not shoving his transcendentalist ideals down their throats. That makes the present tense a perfect cover for the persuasiveness of his essay. When people don't feel as though they're persuaded or manipulated, they are much more open to listening because they don't think their own values are being challenged. Therefore, this face that Thoreau puts up for his audience allows him to seem selfless and disinterested, as though his only concern is to inform his audience. By seeming disinterested in his own desires, he seems more trustworthy as well, leading his audience to become even more open to his words. In addition, the present tense also gives him another advantage over the future tense. This advantage was known by the ancients as enargeia. This word describes the feeling of being right here, right now, and this is absolutely perfect for a persuasive argument that is urging people to stop wasting time, make a decision, and get up and act right now. In this way, Thoreau was able to use the present tense to actually increase his persuasiveness as well as trustworthiness through both disinterest and enargeia.
(Continued) While these things were extremely useful in making Thoreau more persuasive to his audience, one the most important and most well-executed parts of this writing was Thoreau's kairos. Kairos is the key combination of both rhetorical timing and the medium of the argument. Without it, an entire argument can sometimes lose its persuasiveness altogether. As far as timing goes, Thoreau could not have chosen a better time to publish ideas challenging the nation's government because at this time, not one, but two controversial ideas were being supported by that government: slavery and the Mexican-American War (1,3). Thoreau saw that moods and circumstances were changing in America, so he recognized and seized the persuadable moment. Many Americans across the country did not agree with either of these things, so by publishing Civil Disobedience during this era, Thoreau used these events to make people want to act (1). He was able to change their willingness, the key and the main goal when getting an audience to act. However, kairos was not the only tool that Henry David Thoreau employed to increase the willingness of his audience; he also used a pathetic trick to play on their feelings and emotions. In rhetoric, anger, patriotism, and emulation are often regarded as the three most powerful feelings when it comes to bringing action, so it was no accident that Thoreau consistently used all three of these feelings throughout his essay. However, his most skillful utilization was his usage of anger. While it's not hard to upset an audience in general, it can be difficult to get them upset about the specific thing you want them to be upset about, yet Thoreau did this with ease. One trick he consistently used to evoke anger throughout his work was belittlement, as clearly seen in the following quote, "The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies... they put them on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs" (3). Thoreau does an incredible job of making the government out as a Leviathan that does not care about the American people in the least bit, especially through his recurring metaphor of men as “machines” in the eyes of the government (3,6). He mixes this type of belittlement with feelings of patriotism, which he achieves by urging the American people to revolt and establish the nation as one of moral righteousness (14-15). Take that and add emulation, which he accomplishes by being an example of a just man and encouraging them to follow, and it becomes very clear how he was able to persuade Americans into making the decision to take charge and act. 170 years ago, Henry David Thoreau challenged the American population to get up and do something about the injustices going on in the nation (1). Civil Disobedience was call to action against the government, encouraging the people to follow their consciences and "be man first, and subjects afterward" (2). Such a bold and widespread invitation could not have been nearly as effective without the help of the numerous rhetorical devices which Thoreau employed in his work. Most effective were his framing of issues in the present tense, the incredible execution of kairos, and his careful use of emotion to evoke action. These tools were the true strength behind his words that packed a punch to regular people across the nation, proclaiming Thoreau a master of rhetoric and an American legend.
Work Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Edited by Sameer Parekh, 2004. Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71-h/71-h.htm.
Chelsea Total Mrs. Messineo AP English Language and Composition 1 August, 2019
Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection
“Some difficulties are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered,” remarked the brilliantly established naturalist referred to as Darwin—Charles Darwin (Chapter VI). Darwin was a real man of the 1800s, as he was always yearning for knowledge and clawing for more leverage. He knew just how to gain relevancy and credibility, which was ultimately through addressing the flaws in his own theory of natural selection. Two chapters—Chapter VI (“Difficulties of the Theory) and Chapter VII (Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection) will be spotlighted as Mr. Darwin makes his attempted to provide credibility to his own persuasion. Within the grounds of the previously mentioned quote, one can easily make a generalized deduction that Charles Darwin touches upon how shedding light on the holes that poke through his theory is a difficult task that can leave him frazzled. However, he counters his own doubts by laying out a far more encouraging stance by stating “but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory” (Chapter VI). Darwin is simply clearing the air and reassuring his audience that the difficulties one may discover whilst reading his theory are not a detrimental portion that threatens to dismantle his entire claim. In the “Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Darwin tackles a couple of these imperfections, specifically acknowledging and expanding upon two primary questions, in his theory of natural selection in an effort to ultimately persuade those of his era and beyond of the credibility that is laced across his research and findings. He is utilizing a mode of persuasion known as logos, which is an argument used to convince the targeted audience, in this case Darwin’s colleagues, by employing reason or logic—his research. For example, one might say that people who consume chocolate are about seventy-two percent happier than those who don’t, so more people should eat sweets on the daily (13 Thank You For Arguing). Someone used their skills in observation to take note of the fact that sweets, chocolate in particular, seem to influence the overall satisfaction of a person and was able to successfully reach a conclusion that more people should eat such sweets because of those findings (13 Thank You For Arguing) Charles Darwin did the same thing. He spent five weeks on the Galápagos Islands observing all the island’s rich assortment of wildlife. He took special care to notice the differences in beak sizes of the various finch species that he saw (Chapter II).
These differences suggested that the birds he was watching seemed to develop a theory that these servers species of finch were varies from island to island, which inspired his theory of natural selection. So to take this discussion all the way back to the example of dopamine levels and eating chocolate, Charles Darwin made his own spin on the logos mode of persuasion. Quite a number of finch species vary from island to island on the Galapagos, therefore they must have undergone a change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over serves generations. Charles Darwin is a naturalist; he is someone who was classified as a geologist and as a biologist (Chapter VI). This is relevant information because it not only provides him with the backings to be believed as someone who understands what he is talking about, but it also explains his usage of terminology that often times can be a struggle for some to understand. However, it is especially evident in his writing that the selection and arrangement of words in his writing and speaking—his diction— is one that portrays intelligence and an expanding knowledge of his field. This is really critical when he is attempting to back up his claims and dismantle counter-arguments because his choice of words, or his diction, frequently separates good writing from bad writing. For example, a sixteen-year-old biology student or an experienced carpenter is typically not going to write as eloquently as Charles Darwin because he or she is not as experienced on the topic or, rather simply, they are not as educated on the subject. The diction used by either of these two basically would never measure up and, therefore, not many—if any— scientific colleagues would be enamored enough to believe an argument as outlandish as Darwin’s was at the time. Darwin goes from his deductive conclusions that, to put it simply, “people are going to disagree with me mostly because of their religious bias and close-minded ideals, therefore I must supply them with satisfactory persuasions that will end till my point,” to a serious of miniature inductive conclusions that are reached on the same premise as the seductive ones, except that the inductive conclusions are much more specific (Chapter VI). Two major questions were wrestled and pinned down throughout Chapter VI. The first being “If species have gradually descended from other species, why do clearly defined, separate species exist, instead of numerous intermediate forms of species?”. Darwin cites the research and observations of two of his colleagues— Alph. De Candolle and E. Forbes— in order to find a relatable ground for he and his intended audience. In this instance, Darwin seems to be using a form of the ethical appeal of persuasion. This is referred to as the ethos mode of persuasion, as it is intended to convince an audience of the author’s character or credibility (in this case, it is credibility). Darwin utilizes the fact that these two geologists each have ideas that are accepted by the rest of their cool hues, so Darwin must have a chance at persuading them as well. This is because both of these geologists connect with his argument that neutral territory between a pair of representative species is generally narrow in comparison with the territory genuine to each.
Darwin found answer to both of those main questions through his own observations and also from looking back and analyzing his colleagues’ research. In the case of the first question, Darwin pints out that natural selection needs intermediate varieties of species to become extinct. He goes even further by stating a secondary answer underneath this primary answer—he answers the why through induction. Induction is defined as reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from particular instances or facts. Due to the fact of natural selection urging species to become flawlessly adapted to their environments, some environments lean more towards others, this allowing species to diverge based on their separate environments. He also argues that intermediate environments are so small geologically that intermediate species inhabiting those areas would not be capable of reproducing well enough to carry on their genetic legacy to the next generation (Chapter VI). The second question inquired “could natural selection honestly produce highly complicated organs, such as an eye, from species lacking anything remotely comparable to such complex organs?”. Despite not being as confident in his response to the second question as he was in his first, Darwin does provide an answer. He addresses the fact that it is hard to explain how brand new structures are woven into existence when a species descends from another that lacks there of (Chapter VI). Apparently scientists are not able to see a transparent, undeniable line or organ modification due to gaps in the development of structures. In Chapter VI, Charles Darwin accentuates the uncertainty in scientific theorizing that is inherent and modeling that permit theories to have access to survival regardless of these uncertainties. He shows the strength of inductive reasoning by acknowledging the gaps present in his theory of natural selection (Chapter VI). Darwin accepts the fact that he merely cannot answer some questions, for instance, how a bat develops its rubber-like, veiny wings as a mammal. All though this might appear to be a big issue, Darwin eliminates doubt by weaving principles of modification that can be applied to the development of other species, even if he can’t flat-out explain and prove that the principles are valid for these certain species (Chapter VI). Within the contents of Chapter VII (Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection), Darwin builds on his previous discussion of natural selection but plops in a new dimension, which is the power of mental characteristics (otherwise known as instincts) to shape the survival and continuation of a species (Chapter VII). He discussed the heredity of instinct, switching focus from the election of physical characteristics to the acquirement of mental characteristics.
Charles Darwin instills in his reader’s memory that the beneficial advantages picked up from instincts also become a piece of the puzzle that is natural selection’s molding of species (Chapter VII). He admits that habit may play an unknown role in the development of variation, however he supplies an example of hereditary characteristic that would be impossible to be carved out by habit or choice. This example was the birthing of sterile worker ants. In this moment, Darwin is free from objectivity—free from his own biases of the natural world and is able to make clear, conscious points and admit that, although his theory may be flawed in some aspects, he is certainly capable of defending himself and his revolutionary ideas (Chapter VII). Darwin utilized a large handful of varied intranets in the toolbox of persuasion. He used a language—figurative language— in which figures of speech are put to use in order to make the argument persuasive, impactful, and effective. Many of his colleagues had an expansion of biases centered around the religious beliefs of Christianity at the time (Chapter VII). Creationism was the widely used method of teaching the people of the time period the manners of life. Now what is amazing about Charles Darwin is that he himself was a Christian and certainly believed in God, however, he didn’t allow his personal beliefs to become obstacles in his scientific understanding and his ability to remain objective. Darwin, by defending his own theory with inductive reasoning, attacks natural theologians who consider the complex structure of each species the working of God resting them independently. In the end, Charles Darwin argues the point of natural selection providing the indispensable explanations for the development of species. As a little cherry on top, Darwin also gives a nod to the brilliance of creation, thus he leaves space for God in his theory of natural selection (Chapter VII). His tone was intelligent and compelling as he argued in the future-tense, always suggesting new ways for natural selection to work. He argued deliberately. It was all a matter of choice (2 Thank You For Arguing). Darwin could have been angry about his colleagues being hesitant to accept his ideas, but instead he left out anger completely from these chapters, which only made him that much more persuasive (9 Thank You For Arguing). He emulated himself to spark his credibility, which only highlighted his pure purpose of introducing a fresh, intimidating idea.
Work Cited
Darwin, Charles. “On the Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection.”. On the Origin of Species. J. Murray, 1859. Date of Access- July 12, 2019. Print.
In John Hersey’s Article Hiroshima, he focuses on the lives of six individuals and the challenges they all faced. By using ethos and pathos the author successfully lets the reader connect to the six people. The story follows each of the survivors through many days and concludes at how their lives turned out. The article started out by describing the survivors normal everyday routine, moments before the explosion. Pathos is used to help set the scene of the day and to help the reader sympathize and relate to the innocent people. It is easy to put yourself in their place because the story describes them doing things that are apart of everyone’s normal day. The people are interacting with each other, they are going to work, and trying to help one another. The people had been warned that their city could be the next to be the victim of bombing. Reading about the tasks the people had to complete paint a clear image in your mind. That image makes it very easy to relate to the stress that everyone was feeling. They had no way of knowing when the destruction would hit, but they tried to prepare as much as they could. The reader can also relate to the survivors decision to not let the horrible event take their life but to grow stronger and help more people. A horrible event like a bombing can do more than damage your body, it can damage your soul. In the article it describes how some of the survivors were not always mentally strong. The priests in the city never put their needs before others because they knew that many people needed help to stay strong. Hersey introduces each of the survivors by describing their personalities and the things they were doing before the bomb hit. Many times the citizens of Hiroshima were warned of an airstrike and each time they would do as instructed. After being warned several times everyone was exhausted and it was difficult for them to keep motivated. Somehow deep within themselves they found the strength, even after the bombing, to try and get to safety. With most of the odds not in their favor the survivors came together to help the community. Everyone used the skills that they knew to help one another. The character of the survivors never really changed, it grew stronger. Each person was faced with obstacles that would determine whether they lived or died. Everyone was constantly struggling mentally and physically to get themselves safe. Since this was the first time an atomic bomb had been used no one knew the after effects. The sickness that affected the survivors was a horrible thing to go through after the bombing. No one knew what it was or how to cure it. It tested the will of everyone who suffered through it. Once the survivors started to get healthier they started to question they logic of the bomb and of America. They hated that their own people were put through this suffering and pain. The priests of Hiroshima compared the use of the bomb to poisonous gas and thought that it was very wrong to use it on civilians. Others in Japan understood the American’s use of the bomb. They saw the civilians and the military as one and knew that the bomb was used to stop the blood shed. Some Japanese thought that those who supported the war should not complain when the war affected the nonmilitary people. Hiroshima by John Hersey was a different perspective shown on the bombing of Hiroshima. The people of the city came together and fought to save themselves.
Hersey, John. “Hiroshima.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 16 Nov. 2018, www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima.
Mary Cerroni Mrs. Messineo AP English Language and Composition 1 August 2019 Angela’s Ashes This story is a story of emotions, hardships, and overcoming them. The author understood how to relate this to the audience. Knowing how to relate these feelings is a common and good way to make an audience want to continue reading, because they seem to understand the characters, even if those reading have never understood what the characters are going through. The story begins with a bit of a glimpse into the past. It describes what the father and mother previously went through and how their family got where they are now. The past view of hardships and difficulties is a good way to begin the story so the readers understand not only the feelings and senses of the narrator, but also those of the other members of the family. This adds to the personal feel of the story. The emotions in this story are made very clear. The author uses the present tense, which affects the reader in a different way. Is makes it seem as though they are there with them. The emotions and feelings are much better understood by who is reading it. Angela is narrating the story, and it makes her seem closer to the reader. A sort of person relationship is developed, making the reader feel the things the narrator is feeling. The story this way becomes more intimate. The way the author portrays the sentiment of Angela and her fellow characters is shown clearly and can be experienced through the words to the readers. This writing style is effective for more reasons than just the emotional and sensitive feel of the readers. It also more clearly describes the story. The audience can more easily understand what the actual plot is about through the eyes of the role in the book. It is made more clear what is objective going on, such as who is doing or saying what. A clear story makes for a better read.
Civil Disobedience: Prose Analysis
ReplyDelete“I heartily accept the motto,—’That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically,” Henry Thoreau wrote in his famous work “Civil Disobedience”(1). The purpose of this text is to convince the reader of the injustices and corruption of the government, while simultaneously calling him or her to action. Thoreau is very… thorough in his arguments and makes an abundance of profound statements. After breaking down his text and seeing the structure and method to his writing, it becomes clear how Henry’s work spoke to so many people. By using rhetorical sleight of hand to build his ethos, make the reader identify with him and his cause, and to proclaim his moderateness and reluctantness, he was able to write one of the most profound pieces of literature from his time.
Henry devotes a significant portion of his essay to show the reader that he can be trusted, and that he has Phronesis, or practical wisdom. He claims to have denied the government’s demand for taxes on two separate occasions, earning him, rather, unjustly earning him a jail sentence. His time spent in jail in the name of standing up to the government’s “rule by the stick” tactics shows his devotion and trustworthiness to his cause. In fact, when one considers that Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” while in the aforementioned jail cell, it becomes painfully apparent that he has practical wisdom. Likewise, the author promotes taxes when it comes to education, shedding even more light on his craft (12). By establishing a strong ethos, his identity
This and posts that follow under my name are the prose analysis written by John Tettis. He left yesterday for a mission trip. Please keep him in your prayers. And BTW, get these finished ASAP! You don't want all of this work hanging over your head when you are trying to get ready for school to begin!
Deletestrategy easily gives the reader a sense of belonging, and makes him or her vulnerable to be called to action.
ReplyDelete“Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure,” Thoreau claims, in a clear attempt to unify his audience against a common enemy (1). Thoreau uses a classic “us versus them” tribal tactic. “The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies,” Thoreau shamelessly pronounces (3). Again, he’s alienating citizens (his audience) from the military, and thus from the government, further making us identify with him, making us susceptible to his call to action. “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them . . . [who] sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing . . . They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect . . . At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them”(4). Henry cleverly insults his audience, without directly doing so, all while calling us to action. How familiar does this quote sound to me or you today, hundreds of years later? It’s meant to make the reader uncomfortable for not doing something about his or her objections to slavery, at the same time giving an outlet to fix that uncomfortableness: get up and do something. This appeal to emotion is text-book pathetic (in a rhetorical sense). Not only does the jailed author make his audience squirm in their seats due to their own inaction, he shows them that his ideas are moderate, and reasonable. Or at least tricks them into buying that.
Two of the most effective and sneaky rhetorical strategies are to appear moderate, and to appear as if one’s conclusion was met reluctantly. After heavily criticizing the government, the author explains, “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government”(2). He tells his audience that he’s moderate, while proclaiming not-so-moderate ideas for his time. Be that as it may, he still manages to appear moderate, by coupling this with his ‘reluctantness,’ the near anarchist states, “I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. . . . and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and state governments”(13). By claiming moderation and reluctantness, Henry appears to be completely reasonable in his ideas, and that any logical man could come to the same conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHenry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” while in jail for not paying taxes. He calls his audience with an evident sense of urgency to resist the evils of government overstepping. His knowledge of rhetoric allows him to cover his borderline anarchist views in a shroud of reasonableness. He does this by employing a plethora of rhetorical tricks, the most prominent among those being ethos inflation, identity strategy, and the coupling of moderation and reluctant conclusions. These ideas in their base form are dangerous, but Thoreau presents them in a way that coaxes the reader into near anarchy. Thoreau shows us not just the danger of overstepping government, but the danger of a rhetorically inclined man.
Work Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." Project Gutenberg. Trans. Sameer Parekh. N.p., 12 June 2004. Web. 26 July 2019.
Kara VanEerden
ReplyDeleteMrs. Messineo
AP English Language and Composition
1 August 2019
Common Sense
Revolutionary man Thomas Paine once wrote, “It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct,” and used simple words like these to convey a monumental message. His ability to use rhetoric to convince his countrymen to fight in a revolution would decide the future of the colonies and everyone in them. In parts III and IV of his pamphlet, “Common Sense”, Thomas Paine used methods that aimed to change the perspective of his audience, three of which are identifying his targets, stating the facts, and expressing sympathy. By presenting the information in this way, he gave the audience a chance to consider the current situation, dwell on any underlying guilt, inspire action, and much more.
One step Paine took toward achieving his goal was to simply determine who he was persuading, and basing his decorum on the answer. His goal was to show people the issue in the current governing situation, and inspire them to do something about it. He used a rather blunt method of achieving this is most cases, yet the language he used did not seem out of place. Paine refocused the issue via hard truths and analogies that packed a punch. His “tough guy” decorum appealed to his target audience of strong young men with a passion for their future. In Jay Heinrichs’s, Thank You for Arguing, he explained how this tactic is used and why it is effective. The entirety of chapter five in Heinrichs’s book details the importance of decorum (47). Through successful application of this tool, Paine set himself up to get exactly what he wanted.
By making precise choices about the words his used and how he used them, Paine was able to change the way his audience viewed the situation at hand without belittling or angering them. One very straightforward way he did this was by sharing a few pieces of pure truth. Statistics, such as the cost of a navy, became a helpful persuasive tool (Paine 30). He didn’t have to be manipulative or sly to begin to change their minds. He simply showed that he was educated, and by making that clear, developed a tone of leadership and made himself a more trustworthy voice. Looking back to chapter four of Heinrichs’s text, we see him mention why appealing to the logos of an audience is so important (41). Facts show no bias or partiality. He used this method as a means to convince the people in the colonies that English leadership was absolutely not helpful, and in fact quite harmful to their society. By utilizing simple facts and statistics, Paine opened the door to the idea of a complete focus shift from the previous popular opinion.
ReplyDeleteA final advantage Paine had, and used effectively, was the fact that he completely understood the situation the people he was attempting to persuade were facing. He could appeal to their pathos by acknowledging the struggles they were facing, and give them logical solutions that aligned with the outcome he was aiming for. Heinrichs goes over the usefulness of persuasion via sympathy through the pathos in chapter four of Thank You for Arguing (44). However, he did not turn the ordeal into a sob story. For example, in part III of “Common Sense”, Paine goes over the people’s obvious concern for civil war (25). He explains how he dreads the same thing, but the likelihood of that happening is far higher under European powers rather than an independent state. He established firm leadership, while also showing his concern for his fellow people of the colonies. This form of firm but obviously caring leadership was an extremely effective method of getting his point across.
“Common Sense” is a literary work that has absolutely impacted our history as a country. Thomas Paine’s skillful use of rhetoric through decorum, logic, and sympathy created an argument that can be credited for starting the movement that led to the independence of the United States. Analyzing literature such as this shows the beauty of good rhetoric, and opens the door to the endless possibilities of this persuasive art.Works Cited
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017.
Paine, Thomas. “Common Sense.” Edited by Moncure D. Conway, vol 1, parts 3 and 4, Project Gutenberg, 2001.
Megan Gordon
ReplyDeleteMrs.Messineo
Ap English and Composition
1 August 2019
Silent Spring
Rachel Carson wrote in her famous environmental writing Silent Spring “We must change our philosophy, abandon our attitude of human superiority and admit that in many cases in natural environments we find ways and means of limiting populations of organisms in a more economical way than we can do it ourselves”(Carson 136). With this quote, it becomes clear that in her text she is calling out the government to take into account the harmful effects of their actions. She however is also calling out everyday society to look into the facts, and also into their morals about how their environment is being treated.
In this text, it’s easy to identify that along with many quotes, she uses certain styles of writing and methods of rhetoric to get this argument across. While at some points it is clear by the decorum that she is using that she is trying to speak to the government and plead them to change the way they are handling the environment, she is most often arguing for the audience. The switch is almost always clear because she changes her style of writing from mostly statistics and government decisions to telling stories about how these environmental changes affect everyday society. She uses her arguments as a way to give the facts to the audience and show them the reality of what is happening to their environment, which is important when she is trying to establish logos. She also uses morals and emotions to make them feel bad and take her side in the end. These methods include using storytelling and commonplaces when appealing to the everyday audiences pathos.
One of the most relevant positions she uses to capture the audiences attentions and emotions is storytelling. She vividly paints a picture at the very beginning of the story of an event that could happen to our earth if we don’t change our ways(10). It was a smart choice to start off the text like this because it catches the readers attention and makes them want to learn more about the facts of the situation. She uses this technique many other times throughout the book but ties it into facts instead of making up an experience. Her telling real life examples of how pesticide sprays can harm wildlife and the environment can help the audience use the facts of a situation to decide what side they are on, but also be able to feel emotions for what is happening so they take her side.
DeleteCarson uses many commonplaces throughout her story so the audience can feel like they are all on the same page. One example from the text is “ It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects it has also turned them against the earth.”( 154). The quote from the book is an excellent example of a commonplace that is used throughout the book. The author repeatedly correlates all of the problems that come from pesticides affecting all of earth, which relates every human that lives here. These quotes that she uses also all have one type of rhetoric involved to relate her goal. They all use a patriotism technique that establish the people in government who release the chemicals as earths common rival( Heinrich’s 108).
Silent Spring is an excellent example of a literary work that uses scientific facts and emotions to reach one specific goal. The author used many specific types of rhetoric that helped her get her point across clearly. Some of theses techniques included commonplaces, stories, imagery, and patriotism. These techniques allowed the author to get a problem that mainly only biologist cared about to become a worldwide phenomenon that almost everyone developed an opinion on.
Work Cited
Carson, Rachel. 1907-1964, Silent Spring. Boston. Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017.
John Bolton has once said “...smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.” The quote recognizes Henry David Thoreau’s argument on how civilizations should disobey unjust governments. Thoreau uses many forms of literary rhetoric to persuade his audience to side with his ideas, and does this through large help of his ethos, logos, and pathos making this text an extraordinary argument against the untrustworthy government of his time.
ReplyDeleteThoreau starts his work with a series of logos arguments about his beliefs that government treats men as machines, in his words, and how men are unwillingly accepting the rules of government, such as raising taxes and slavery. This is a argument of logic, also explained in "Thank You For Arguing" (Heinrich's 40) He tries to set the idea through the men of America that the government is corrupt, and how they are allowing such injustices happen, yet keeps an open field to allow the men to hold their opinions, and does not close off any other ideas. “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.“(16) He keeps it close to the fact that they will at least know of the wrong-doing if they do support the government.
“The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.” (4) Henry David Thoreau plays with the emotions of the audience by throwing in rhetorical pathos, and claiming how, similarly to the logos aspect, men that participate in wars are being used as instruments by the government, and how the men are basically puppets to those in power. This helps create an emotional audience, creating a need for reform by the American men which is the audience, and helps win over those men to his argument.
Finally, Thoreau uses rhetorical ethos to win his argument. He uses it in a sense to make him seem like a trustworthy person. He tells of a nonfictional account of his time he spent inside of a jail cell, explaining that he was there due to his resistance towards the government and their taxes. This is one way to help make Thoreau seem like a credible leader, as he has had first hand experience with the government. “When I came out of prison,—for some one interfered, and paid the tax,—I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common...” (35)
ReplyDeleteHe accounts of his time and jail and gives a comparison of the changes that he saw. This experience in jail helps his claim that there must be change made.
One of the final takeaways was Henry David Thoreau’s clever uses of imagery and metaphors to attack the governments usage of jail. “The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in town.” (30) Henry Thoreau says that the room he stayed in was almost too nice for a prisoner. He pokes fun at how lousy of a jail it is for being too nice, moreover. He continues to picture a fairytale-like town far into the woods, which allows the audience persuaded pathetically. In his description he uses metaphors to explain how the jail is like a city, and his cell is like an apartment in the city. This was clever in proving his point that he should not of received what he had due to the terms he was on.
Henry David Thoreau uses a mix up of ethos, logos, and pathos in order to persuade his audience toward his ideas by playing with their emotions, and hitting them with the facts. He makes himself known as a trustful leader, and is not afraid of facing his opposition head on. He makes well-use of his imagery, in a low-like way, forcing his ideas upon the audience. He creates an atmosphere that helps win the argument for himself by using different rhetorical tools.
Works Cited
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. 3rd ed., Three Rivers Press, 2017.
Thoreau, Henry David. "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." Project Gutenberg. Trans. Sameer Parekh. N.p., 12 June 2004. Web. 26 July 2019.
Alex Muccio
ReplyDeleteMrs.Messineo
Ap English and Composition
8-1-19
‘Me Talk Pretty One Day’
In a strikingly relatable and comical narrative, David Sedaris shares a story of dealing with learning a language and putting up with an egregious teacher. The purpose of this text seems to be a mix of the audience relating to Sedaris and just feeling bad for him. The author uses rhetoric very well in this story to make the audience relate to exactly what’s he’s going through. Sedaris makes the reader feel these and other emotions through his use of figurative language and comedic tone.
At the very beginning of the story, Sedaris tells the readers about his differences compared to others he is going to school with. The way the author speaks instantly about this shows the readers that Sedaris is an outcast. He separates himself from the crowd and tells the readers what everyone else is doing and talking about. The author is about double the age of the other students as well, which furthers the divide even more. Sedaris’ verbal mentioning of being uncomfortable and unsure really tells the reader about the author’s mental state. “That's the way they do it here--everyone into the language pool, sink or swim”(Sedaris 26). Sedaris uses figurative language like this to show the competitiveness and overall difficulty associated with this class.
A brilliant method used to show that the author is truly an amateur to the French language, is how he writes his teacher’s dialogue. In this interesting approach, Sedaris uses jumbled up letters to show the readers he does not understand the language very well. This choice of figurative language/rhetoric is something that readers can actively relate to. For example, his teacher says at one point, "Were you always this palicmkrexjs?" she asked. "Even a fiuscrzsws tociwegixp knows that a typewriter is feminine”(27). She says this when Sedaris confuses the gender of the object he is talking about in French. The teacher’s horrendous behavior is a common theme throughout this story, and it’s kind of confusing as well. Sedaris is the most innocuous student, yet the teacher targets and verbally harasses him for no reason. Readers would obviously feel bad that this is happening to the author, but he writes it in such a way that it comes off as just a funny ordeal. As the story continues, the jumbled up words start disappearing slowly, showing that Sedaris is understanding more French. Sedaris even adds that “the world opened up.”
The author adds loads of humor to his seemingly awful experience with his belligerent teacher. By the end of the story, the teacher is cursing out Sedaris, yet again. This time the author has added no gibberish words, showing that he fully understands what she’s saying. To say he is delighted is an understatement. Sedaris makes this situation very humorous because no one would be happy when they are being degraded, but he is. The author is pleased that he understands what the teacher has been calling him, so much so, that he asks her to continue cursing at him! This narrative shows the author go from being a timid outcast to being fearless because of this class. It was truly a blessing and a curse for Sedaris.
Works Cited
Sedaris, David. Me Talk Pretty One Day. Little Brown and Company, 2000.
In Cold Blood: Prose Analysis
ReplyDeleteOlivia Matha
Mrs. Messineo
AP Language and Composition
1st of August 2019
Truman Capote discusses the troubling, real-life occurrences surrounding a gruesome murder in In Cold Blood. Using literary techniques as well as innovative storytelling, Capote is able to capture his audience to communicate the alternating perspectives of the criminals and victims alike. Capote’s “non-fiction novel,” is a unique blend of prose and actuality; later lending itself to be coined as the first true-crime novel. Besides being the driving force for a new wave of literature, however, Capote’s work stands out because of his ability to strike an audience through language. While, In Cold Blood, does not have an agenda to persuade readers, it does have the ability to sway an audience's opinion on the characters, as well as give insight to all points of view. Capote’s purpose for writing this novel was to simply show the readers the raw, humane attributes of a criminal. He adds tension and suspense to the story via flashbacks to the days leading up to the killings, in addition to vehement statements given by the townspeople. His utilization of dramatic irony, multiple points of view, and descriptive speech also aid in setting the stirring and unsettling tone. By doing so, Capote reels in his audience through his captivating use of rhetoric.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteCapote introduces each character by shedding a positive light on all parties. This includes the killers themselves. For example, Capote makes mention of simple characteristics such as hobbies the men have, hardships they endured and even conversation they share. “Dick was driving a black 1949 Chevrolet sedan. As Perry got in, he checked the back seat to see if his guitar was safely there; the previous night, after playing for a party of Dick’s friends, he hadforgotten and left it in the car,” Capote ties commonalities of the average person to help his readers relate to these characters (Said 18). This rhetorical tactic is called “code grooming.” By definition, code grooming is swaying an audience in the arguing sides favor by using language that can easily resonate with the general group. When tied in with the power of emotion this technique can be very effective. “Something of the kind had happened; the imperfectly aligned features were the outcome of a car collision in 1950—an accident that left his long-jawed and narrow face tilted…” Capote uses emotion here to tug at readers’ heartstrings (Said 26) . Much like code grooming, ethos, or the invocation of sadness or pity, grabs attention by making an emotional relatedness to the killers; in turn making them appear less merciless. When prompted by empathetic concern and relatability, readers can connect to even the worst of people.
Similar to many other novels, Capote relies heavily on irony to add tension. Specifically, however, he uses dramatic irony; which is when the reader knows the outcome of a situation but the other characters do not. Many times throughout the novel, the narrator “flashes back” to the days before the murders. This also allows for Capote to use multiple points of view in order to set the tone of the novel. “Nobody answered, so Mr. Ewalt suggested that we go to the house and try to ‘wake them up.’But when we got there—I didn’t want to do it. Go inside the house.I was frightened, and I don’t know why, because it never occurred to me—Well, something like that just doesn’t” (Said 50). Individual characters have sections in the novel where they either
(Continued)
ReplyDeleterecollect on the happenings or on the victims themselves. However, sections are also in a third person omniscient point of view as such, “. Nobody answered, so Mr. Ewalt suggested that we go to the house and try to ‘wake them up.’But when we got there—I didn’t want to do it. Go inside the house.I was frightened, and I don’t know why, because it never occurred to me—Well, something like that just doesn’t” (Said 56). By introducing both third person omniscient and first person points of view, dramatic irony easily lends itself to the overall tone Capote wants to achieve. Naturally, the audience has previous knowledge regarding the background of the novel. The characters, on the other hand, do not even have a clue of what will happen to them. Since readers know what is about to occur, but the characters themselves do not, the ignorance adds a jarring tensity for the audience.
Capote uses idiosyncratic diction to latch onto the emotions of his audience. “Her eyes were open.Wide open. As though she were still looking at the killer,” he instills fear into the readers by giving a distinct example of what the woman looked like after being killed (Said 53). Capote does this to set the mood that, although the killers are people with emotions (much like the general population) a murder is still heartless. Although, his descriptions of each character are not limited to the protagonists. As previously mentioned, Capote purposefully talked about the killers, or antagonists, in a manner that did not make them seem as though they are
(Continued)
ReplyDeletemonstrous. This very objective take on all of the characters creates a sense of conflict for the reader. He makes his audience feel a sort of want, to understand and try to reason with the killers. Which, in turn, pushes the pathos medium to an extreme, in order to connect with the audience. Capote, in the end, leaves the decision up to the readers to gauge just how inhumane the killers actually are.
Truman Capote reaches new depths at which he is able to affect an audience in his novel, In Cold Blood. By using both countless rhetorical techniques and intriguing storytelling, he is able to show both sides of the story, apropos of the murders. Capote set the bar for the true-crime novels to emerge in the years to follow. His timeless use of literary tactics and riveting details make the book continuously loved by many. With the beauty and intelligence of a novel, yet the cold, hard facts and information of a nonfiction text, Capote’s In Cold Blood is nothing short of a classic.
Works Cited:
Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. 1966. pt 1 of 4, Random House. 25 Sept. 1965, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/09/25/in-cold-blood-the-last-to-see-them-alive?reload=true. Accessed 27 July. 2019.
Vivian Mader
ReplyDeleteMrs. Messineo
AP English Language and Composition
1 August 2019
Silent Spring
In her controversial work “Silent Spring'' Rachel Carson wrote, “As man proceeds towards his announced goal of the conquest of nature, he has written a depressing record of destruction, directed not only toward the earth he inhabits but against the life that shares it with him,” (52). The source of destruction that Carson focused on was the spraying of chemical insecticides by the United States Department of Agriculture. Rachel Carson effectively used pathos and logos to demonstrate the unnecessary damage done to the environment, as well as ethos to dismantle the government’s character and to prove her own. She followed this up with a highly appealing alternative route, both economically and environmentally, to insecticide spraying. Her writing is a direct appeal to both the population at large and to the government through the use of figurative language to stimulate emotions, heavy use of statistics, and calling her audience to action. Her goal was to alert the unaware citizens of the issues no one wanted to talk about, as well as provide enough information about alternatives to spark government policy changes.
Rachel Carson opened her book with a chapter titled “A Fable for Tomorrow.” It is a relatively short chapter, but fulfills its purpose perfectly. Through ample use of imagery, Carson painted a picture in her audience’s mind of a beautiful landscape, whose wildlife lives in harmony with the earth. However, just as her audience is able to visualize this, the scene has changed. She then began to describe the same landscape, deprived of vivacity and its original sense of wellbeing. All the animals and plants have died, and disease runs rampant. Even though she revealed that this place isn’t real, Carson added to her audience’s discontent by explaining that it is still very likely to happen. Through her use of imagery and choice of words, Rachel Carson was able to use pathos to put her audience in an emotionally vulnerable place even before she presented her main argument to them. She also utilized hyperbole sparingly. This can be seen most clearly in the seventh chapter of her book, “Needless Havoc.” Carson placed words into her sentences that have especially negative connotations. This added emphasis onto the truths she was trying to share. At this point in her book, Carson was making her appeal to the citizens of our country. She did this through explaining the government’s lack of justifications for insecticide spraying. She also attested that the chemicals were not safe as the government had made them out to be. By dedicating a small amount of her argument to ethos, Carson was able to make her audience question the government’s character and ability to be trusted.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteNext, Rachel Carson argued by logos through supplying countless statistics. First, she used statistics that tore down the idea that insecticide spraying was safe for animals, plants, and people. She provided details from many studies that showed the consequences of a spraying spreading outside of the designated areas, as well as ones that documented human illness caused by insecticide poisoning. Her inclusion of these statistics continued to break down any sensible reasons to support insecticide spraying. While these statistics strengthened her argument, Carson also took advantage of the opportunity to strengthen her decorum and enhance the fact that she was qualified to speak on the subject. She then went on to provide copious statistics about biological control, the alternative to spraying chemicals. These statistics were both better for the environment and for the economy because of their long term effects. By putting the harsher statistics first, Carson made the audience more susceptible to supporting the statistics about the alternative methods. This tactic is very effective when used properly. By presenting a less than ideal option first, the option that Carson desired seems much more reasonable.
Finally, a main part of Rachel Carson’s argument against insecticide spraying was calling her audience to action. She began to offer choices fairly early on in the book and continued to do so throughout its entirety. In the final chapter of the book, “The Other Road” Carson wrote, “The choice, after all, is ours to make. If, having endured much, we have asserted our right to know… then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us to fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look around and see what other course is open to us,” (144). By choosing her words carefully, Carson gives each member of her audience a sense of responsibility. She wrote in a way that makes each individual feel compelled to act. This is the goal of every argument; to not only get the audience to agree with you, but to get them to act upon their new beliefs.
“Silent Spring” was a groundbreaking piece of literature during the time it was published. The topic was an incredible struggle to take on, which Rachel Carson did almost effortlessly with her rhetorical skills. Without the impact of her book, our environment and the standards we treat it with could have been completely different today.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. “Silent Spring,” Fawcett Publications, 1962.
Joseph Wolfe
ReplyDeleteMrs. Messineo
AP Language and Composition
1 August 2019
Civil Disobedience
In 1848, Henry David Thoreau gave a legendary oration which challenged regular people all over the nation to get up and do something about the injustices which were occurring in their very own country (1). Published a year later, it would become one of the most famous works of political theory as well as a highly persuasive argumentative essay. So how exactly was Thoreau able to manage all this? Well, by combining the tools of kairos as well as the tense, he amplified the emotions he was working to provoke, all of which helped him achieve his goal of challenging the societal status quo and convincing his audience to prioritize their conscience over corrupt government laws (2).
His his essay, Thoreau writes, “All men recognize the right of revolution” (3). With a goal of persuading a nation to stand up and take action against an unjust government, one of the strangest things readers might notice about this quote is that Thoreau writes in the present tense (2). In fact, the whole essay is almost entirely written in the present tense. Generally, the future tense is associated which choice, and it is best for getting an audience to make decisions and take action. However, Thoreau used the present tense, which is used to discuss values which the speaker may hold. While this may seem like an ignorant mistake on his part, it may actually be one of the most persuasive qualities of his essay. He himself admitted that the majority would not agree with his individualistic values, yet he stated that he wished to set a standard for himself (12-13). In this way, he convinces his audience that he is simply discussing his own values, not shoving his transcendentalist ideals down their throats. That makes the present tense a perfect cover for the persuasiveness of his essay. When people don't feel as though they're persuaded or manipulated, they are much more open to listening because they don't think their own values are being challenged. Therefore, this face that Thoreau puts up for his audience allows him to seem selfless and disinterested, as though his only concern is to inform his audience. By seeming disinterested in his own desires, he seems more trustworthy as well, leading his audience to become even more open to his words. In addition, the present tense also gives him another advantage over the future tense. This advantage was known by the ancients as enargeia. This word describes the feeling of being right here, right now, and this is absolutely perfect for a persuasive argument that is urging people to stop wasting time, make a decision, and get up and act right now. In this way, Thoreau was able to use the present tense to actually increase his persuasiveness as well as trustworthiness through both disinterest and enargeia.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteWhile these things were extremely useful in making Thoreau more persuasive to his audience, one the most important and most well-executed parts of this writing was Thoreau's kairos. Kairos is the key combination of both rhetorical timing and the medium of the argument. Without it, an entire argument can sometimes lose its persuasiveness altogether. As far as timing goes, Thoreau could not have chosen a better time to publish ideas challenging the nation's government because at this time, not one, but two controversial ideas were being supported by that government: slavery and the Mexican-American War (1,3). Thoreau saw that moods and circumstances were changing in America, so he recognized and seized the persuadable moment. Many Americans across the country did not agree with either of these things, so by publishing Civil Disobedience during this era, Thoreau used these events to make people want to act (1). He was able to change their willingness, the key and the main goal when getting an audience to act.
However, kairos was not the only tool that Henry David Thoreau employed to increase the willingness of his audience; he also used a pathetic trick to play on their feelings and emotions. In rhetoric, anger, patriotism, and emulation are often regarded as the three most powerful feelings when it comes to bringing action, so it was no accident that Thoreau consistently used all three of these feelings throughout his essay. However, his most skillful utilization was his usage of anger. While it's not hard to upset an audience in general, it can be difficult to get them upset about the specific thing you want them to be upset about, yet Thoreau did this with ease. One trick he consistently used to evoke anger throughout his work was belittlement, as clearly seen in the following quote, "The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies... they put them on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs" (3). Thoreau does an incredible job of making the government out as a Leviathan that does not care about the American people in the least bit, especially through his recurring metaphor of men as “machines” in the eyes of the government (3,6). He mixes this type of belittlement with feelings of patriotism, which he achieves by urging the American people to revolt and establish the nation as one of moral righteousness (14-15). Take that and add emulation, which he accomplishes by being an example of a just man and encouraging them to follow, and it becomes very clear how he was able to persuade Americans into making the decision to take charge and act.
170 years ago, Henry David Thoreau challenged the American population to get up and do something about the injustices going on in the nation (1). Civil Disobedience was call to action against the government, encouraging the people to follow their consciences and "be man first, and subjects afterward" (2). Such a bold and widespread invitation could not have been nearly as effective without the help of the numerous rhetorical devices which Thoreau employed in his work. Most effective were his framing of issues in the present tense, the incredible execution of kairos, and his careful use of emotion to evoke action. These tools were the true strength behind his words that packed a punch to regular people across the nation, proclaiming Thoreau a master of rhetoric and an American legend.
Work Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Edited by Sameer Parekh, 2004. Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71-h/71-h.htm.
Chelsea Total
ReplyDeleteMrs. Messineo
AP English Language and Composition
1 August, 2019
Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection
“Some difficulties are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered,” remarked the brilliantly established naturalist referred to as Darwin—Charles Darwin (Chapter VI). Darwin was a real man of the 1800s, as he was always yearning for knowledge and clawing for more leverage. He knew just how to gain relevancy and credibility, which was ultimately through addressing the flaws in his own theory of natural selection. Two chapters—Chapter VI (“Difficulties of the Theory) and Chapter VII (Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection) will be spotlighted as Mr. Darwin makes his attempted to provide credibility to his own persuasion. Within the grounds of the previously mentioned quote, one can easily make a generalized deduction that Charles Darwin touches upon how shedding light on the holes that poke through his theory is a difficult task that can leave him frazzled. However, he counters his own doubts by laying out a far more encouraging stance by stating “but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory” (Chapter VI). Darwin is simply clearing the air and reassuring his audience that the difficulties one may discover whilst reading his theory are not a detrimental portion that threatens to dismantle his entire claim. In the “Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Darwin tackles a couple of these imperfections, specifically acknowledging and expanding upon two primary questions, in his theory of natural selection in an effort to ultimately persuade those of his era and beyond of the credibility that is laced across his research and findings.
He is utilizing a mode of persuasion known as logos, which is an argument used to convince the targeted audience, in this case Darwin’s colleagues, by employing reason or logic—his research. For example, one might say that people who consume chocolate are about seventy-two percent happier than those who don’t, so more people should eat sweets on the daily (13 Thank You For Arguing). Someone used their skills in observation to take note of the fact that sweets, chocolate in particular, seem to influence the overall satisfaction of a person and was able to successfully reach a conclusion that more people should eat such sweets because of those findings (13 Thank You For Arguing) Charles Darwin did the same thing. He spent five weeks on the Galápagos Islands observing all the island’s rich assortment of wildlife. He took special care to notice the differences in beak sizes of the various finch species that he saw (Chapter II).
These differences suggested that the birds he was watching seemed to develop a theory that these servers species of finch were varies from island to island, which inspired his theory of natural selection. So to take this discussion all the way back to the example of dopamine levels and eating chocolate, Charles Darwin made his own spin on the logos mode of persuasion. Quite a number of finch species vary from island to island on the Galapagos, therefore they must have undergone a change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over serves generations.
ReplyDeleteCharles Darwin is a naturalist; he is someone who was classified as a geologist and as a biologist (Chapter VI). This is relevant information because it not only provides him with the backings to be believed as someone who understands what he is talking about, but it also explains his usage of terminology that often times can be a struggle for some to understand. However, it is especially evident in his writing that the selection and arrangement of words in his writing and speaking—his diction— is one that portrays intelligence and an expanding knowledge of his field. This is really critical when he is attempting to back up his claims and dismantle counter-arguments because his choice of words, or his diction, frequently separates good writing from bad writing. For example, a sixteen-year-old biology student or an experienced carpenter is typically not going to write as eloquently as Charles Darwin because he or she is not as experienced on the topic or, rather simply, they are not as educated on the subject. The diction used by either of these two basically would never measure up and, therefore, not many—if any— scientific colleagues would be enamored enough to believe an argument as outlandish as Darwin’s was at the time.
Darwin goes from his deductive conclusions that, to put it simply, “people are going to disagree with me mostly because of their religious bias and close-minded ideals, therefore I must supply them with satisfactory persuasions that will end till my point,” to a serious of miniature inductive conclusions that are reached on the same premise as the seductive ones, except that the inductive conclusions are much more specific (Chapter VI). Two major questions were wrestled and pinned down throughout Chapter VI. The first being “If species have gradually descended from other species, why do clearly defined, separate species exist, instead of numerous intermediate forms of species?”. Darwin cites the research and observations of two of his colleagues— Alph. De Candolle and E. Forbes— in order to find a relatable ground for he and his intended audience. In this instance, Darwin seems to be using a form of the ethical appeal of persuasion. This is referred to as the ethos mode of persuasion, as it is intended to convince an audience of the author’s character or credibility (in this case, it is credibility). Darwin utilizes the fact that these two geologists each have ideas that are accepted by the rest of their cool hues, so Darwin must have a chance at persuading them as well. This is because both of these geologists connect with his argument that neutral territory between a pair of representative species is generally narrow in comparison with the territory genuine to each.
Darwin found answer to both of those main questions through his own observations and also from looking back and analyzing his colleagues’ research. In the case of the first question, Darwin pints out that natural selection needs intermediate varieties of species to become extinct. He goes even further by stating a secondary answer underneath this primary answer—he answers the why through induction. Induction is defined as reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from particular instances or facts. Due to the fact of natural selection urging species to become flawlessly adapted to their environments, some environments lean more towards others, this allowing species to diverge based on their separate environments. He also argues that intermediate environments are so small geologically that intermediate species inhabiting those areas would not be capable of reproducing well enough to carry on their genetic legacy to the next generation (Chapter VI). The second question inquired “could natural selection honestly produce highly complicated organs, such as an eye, from species lacking anything remotely comparable to such complex organs?”. Despite not being as confident in his response to the second question as he was in his first, Darwin does provide an answer. He addresses the fact that it is hard to explain how brand new structures are woven into existence when a species descends from another that lacks there of (Chapter VI). Apparently scientists are not able to see a transparent, undeniable line or organ modification due to gaps in the development of structures.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter VI, Charles Darwin accentuates the uncertainty in scientific theorizing that is inherent and modeling that permit theories to have access to survival regardless of these uncertainties. He shows the strength of inductive reasoning by acknowledging the gaps present in his theory of natural selection (Chapter VI). Darwin accepts the fact that he merely cannot answer some questions, for instance, how a bat develops its rubber-like, veiny wings as a mammal. All though this might appear to be a big issue, Darwin eliminates doubt by weaving principles of modification that can be applied to the development of other species, even if he can’t flat-out explain and prove that the principles are valid for these certain species (Chapter VI).
Within the contents of Chapter VII (Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection), Darwin builds on his previous discussion of natural selection but plops in a new dimension, which is the power of mental characteristics (otherwise known as instincts) to shape the survival and continuation of a species (Chapter VII). He discussed the heredity of instinct, switching focus from the election of physical characteristics to the acquirement of mental characteristics.
Charles Darwin instills in his reader’s memory that the beneficial advantages picked up from instincts also become a piece of the puzzle that is natural selection’s molding of species (Chapter VII). He admits that habit may play an unknown role in the development of variation, however he supplies an example of hereditary characteristic that would be impossible to be carved out by habit or choice. This example was the birthing of sterile worker ants. In this moment, Darwin is free from objectivity—free from his own biases of the natural world and is able to make clear, conscious points and admit that, although his theory may be flawed in some aspects, he is certainly capable of defending himself and his revolutionary ideas (Chapter VII).
ReplyDeleteDarwin utilized a large handful of varied intranets in the toolbox of persuasion. He used a language—figurative language— in which figures of speech are put to use in order to make the argument persuasive, impactful, and effective. Many of his colleagues had an expansion of biases centered around the religious beliefs of Christianity at the time (Chapter VII). Creationism was the widely used method of teaching the people of the time period the manners of life. Now what is amazing about Charles Darwin is that he himself was a Christian and certainly believed in God, however, he didn’t allow his personal beliefs to become obstacles in his scientific understanding and his ability to remain objective. Darwin, by defending his own theory with inductive reasoning, attacks natural theologians who consider the complex structure of each species the working of God resting them independently. In the end, Charles Darwin argues the point of natural selection providing the indispensable explanations for the development of species. As a little cherry on top, Darwin also gives a nod to the brilliance of creation, thus he leaves space for God in his theory of natural selection (Chapter VII). His tone was intelligent and compelling as he argued in the future-tense, always suggesting new ways for natural selection to work. He argued deliberately. It was all a matter of choice (2 Thank You For Arguing). Darwin could have been angry about his colleagues being hesitant to accept his ideas, but instead he left out anger completely from these chapters, which only made him that much more persuasive (9 Thank You For Arguing). He emulated himself to spark his credibility, which only highlighted his pure purpose of introducing a fresh, intimidating idea.
Work Cited
Darwin, Charles. “On the Origin of a Species by Means of Natural Selection.”. On the Origin of Species. J. Murray, 1859. Date of Access- July 12, 2019. Print.
In John Hersey’s Article Hiroshima, he focuses on the lives of six individuals and the challenges they all faced. By using ethos and pathos the author successfully lets the reader connect to the six people. The story follows each of the survivors through many days and concludes at how their lives turned out.
ReplyDeleteThe article started out by describing the survivors normal everyday routine, moments before the explosion. Pathos is used to help set the scene of the day and to help the reader sympathize and relate to the innocent people. It is easy to put yourself in their place because the story describes them doing things that are apart of everyone’s normal day. The people are interacting with each other, they are going to work, and trying to help one another. The people had been warned that their city could be the next to be the victim of bombing. Reading about the tasks the people had to complete paint a clear image in your mind. That image makes it very easy to relate to the stress that everyone was feeling. They had no way of knowing when the destruction would hit, but they tried to prepare as much as they could.
The reader can also relate to the survivors decision to not let the horrible event take their life but to grow stronger and help more people. A horrible event like a bombing can do more than damage your body, it can damage your soul. In the article it describes how some of the survivors were not always mentally strong. The priests in the city never put their needs before others because they knew that many people needed help to stay strong.
Hersey introduces each of the survivors by describing their personalities and the things they were doing before the bomb hit. Many times the citizens of Hiroshima were warned of an airstrike and each time they would do as instructed. After being warned several times everyone was exhausted and it was difficult for them to keep motivated. Somehow deep within themselves they found the strength, even after the bombing, to try and get to safety. With most of the odds not in their favor the survivors came together to help the community. Everyone used the skills that they knew to help one another. The character of the survivors never really changed, it grew stronger. Each person was faced with obstacles that would determine whether they lived or died. Everyone was constantly struggling mentally and physically to get themselves safe.
Since this was the first time an atomic bomb had been used no one knew the after effects. The sickness that affected the survivors was a horrible thing to go through after the bombing. No one knew what it was or how to cure it. It tested the will of everyone who suffered through it.
Once the survivors started to get healthier they started to question they logic of the bomb and of America. They hated that their own people were put through this suffering and pain. The priests of Hiroshima compared the use of the bomb to poisonous gas and thought that it was very wrong to use it on civilians. Others in Japan understood the American’s use of the bomb. They saw the civilians and the military as one and knew that the bomb was used to stop the blood shed.
Some Japanese thought that those who supported the war should not complain when the war affected the nonmilitary people.
Hiroshima by John Hersey was a different perspective shown on the bombing of Hiroshima. The people of the city came together and fought to save themselves.
Hersey, John. “Hiroshima.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 16 Nov. 2018, www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima.
Mary Cerroni
ReplyDeleteMrs. Messineo
AP English Language and Composition
1 August 2019
Angela’s Ashes
This story is a story of emotions, hardships, and overcoming them. The author understood how to relate this to the audience. Knowing how to relate these feelings is a common and good way to make an audience want to continue reading, because they seem to understand the characters, even if those reading have never understood what the characters are going through.
The story begins with a bit of a glimpse into the past. It describes what the father and mother previously went through and how their family got where they are now. The past view of hardships and difficulties is a good way to begin the story so the readers understand not only the feelings and senses of the narrator, but also those of the other members of the family. This adds to the personal feel of the story.
The emotions in this story are made very clear. The author uses the present tense, which affects the reader in a different way. Is makes it seem as though they are there with them. The emotions and feelings are much better understood by who is reading it. Angela is narrating the story, and it makes her seem closer to the reader. A sort of person relationship is developed, making the reader feel the things the narrator is feeling. The story this way becomes more intimate. The way the author portrays the sentiment of Angela and her fellow characters is shown clearly and can be experienced through the words to the readers.
This writing style is effective for more reasons than just the emotional and sensitive feel of the readers. It also more clearly describes the story. The audience can more easily understand what the actual plot is about through the eyes of the role in the book. It is made more clear what is objective going on, such as who is doing or saying what. A clear story makes for a better read.