Rhetorical Analysis Of Pen America's Letter

501 Words2 Pages

There is a great battle between the FBI and Apple, one of the most valuable company in the world. It is the fight between national security and privacy. Compromise is not an option; decryption code must either be developed or remain undeveloped. In an attempt to convince Attorney General Lynch to support Apple, Pen America created letter, explaining the consequences iPhone users may have to face if the FBI wins the case. The letter to Attorney General contains many rhetorical strategies, the dominant devices being Juxtaposition and inductive reasoning. Before discussing about Pen America’s letter, the cause of the conflict must be explained thoroughly in order to better understand the situation. Following the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI …show more content…

The letter is largely dependent upon juxtaposition and inductive reasoning. In the beginning of the letter, the writers state that they “recognize the need to ensure strong protections for national security,” suggesting that the FBI has a legitimate reason to request Apple for technical support (Pen America). Right after, however, they claim that “what the FBI is asking Apple to do would erode the vital U.S. values of free expansion and privacy,” showing their disapproval towards the agency (Pen America). Throughout the letter, juxtaposition appears regularly, first stating authors’ recognition of the FBI’s legitimacy, then proclaiming the consequence that would come due to the victory of the agency. Besides juxtaposition, inductive reasoning can also be found within the letter. The letter claims that if the decryption code is created, the government would be able to abuse the authority they’re given, and “upset a long-held balance” and that “hundreds of millions of people… better keep that in mind [that their messages and any other digital creations are no longer secured]” (Pen America). The letter explains the consequence using inductive reasoning in order to argue that such a large portion of the privacy can not be sacrificed to further enhance

Open Document