Examples Of Deliberative Argument

In arguments there are three major types of classifications, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. An example of a forensic argument would be the article “The Assassination in Israel That Worked” by Roger Cohen for the New York Times. “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering” by Chris Seck for the Stanford Review, and “Crowd Fill Washington For Inauguration” by Carol Morello, Allison Klein, and Donna St. George for the Washington Post are great examples of deliberative and epideictic arguments, respectively. I will examine the article by Chris Seck, specifically for it’s qualifications of a deliberative argument.
In this article, Seck is examining both sides of genetic engineering issue. The article states that Seck is an undergraduate

student at Stanford University at the time he wrote this article. Seck also says that he has followed Sandel’s writings for many years, which lead me to believe that he is well-educated and equipped to discuss the issue of genetic engineering. From the diction and phrasing of this article, it is clear that Seck wrote this article for the purpose of informing. In the article, he takes an unbiased position and discusses both sides of the issue equally. He also refrains from using personal articles such as I and my in this writing. This helps the audience by allowing them to make their own educated decision about the topic. I believe that his target audience is other educated college students such as himself. There are many times in the article when he gives direct quotes from varying sources and then describes what is said in layman’s terms. This shows that he is giving others who may not be as knowledgeable on the subject, such as college students with other majors, a chance to understand this complex topic. Seck does an excellent job targeting his audience and writing a sound and unbiased argument.
After reading and examining this article, I do believe that Seck was able to execute his purpose of informing his audience. The goal of this article was to provide an argument about the opposing sides of genetic engineering. By taking an unbiased position and relating to his audience, Seck was able to accomplish this goal.