If anyone were to turn on the most recent debates, they would see some sort of unprofessional rhetoric being displayed. Many young children get excited about watching debates for the reason that they will be able to see a fight happen on live television. This is the incorrect way for anyone to see rhetoric. Rhetoric is a professional, humane way to show one's opinions in a safe, academic environment. Many less-known rhetoricians do show the correct way to use rhetoric. The rhetorical tools that Katha Pollitt uses in her essay, “What’s the Matter with Creationism?”, become impactful to convince the reader that what she is saying to be correct without leaving the professional realm of academic writing.
Pollitt has a lack of emotional appeal
…show more content…
in her essay, however this scarcity of pathos works in her favor. The topic of her essay is about the idea of creationism in schools. This subject is very emotionally charged, so the fact that she strays away from emotional appeal to find better rhetorical devices to explain her argument shows a lot of thought and finesse in her writing, to stay as far as she can from using anger and other emotions to fuel her argument. Although she strays away from using emotional appeal, Pollitt tends to maximize her impact with other tools that she utilizes the usage of. She stands her ground in a way that she pushes her argument with professional composure, while still convincing her audience that her side of the argument is correct. Many people when critiquing will constantly attack the other side of the debate, but Pollitt keeps her professional sangfroid intact while supporting her side of the argument.
Those people who argue tend to use many fallacies in their writing to “help” support their points. However, Pollitt stays away from the fallacy of Ad hominem in order to keep her audience convinced that she is an educated woman and not an argumentative person who puts others down to achieve her goal. She keeps her morals and her emotions under control, therefore giving the reader a reason to believe her case because she has the manners to deserve their attention. She supports her argument without being unprofessional in her delivery of the essay. This sort of composure is something that only strengthens her position as a debater and as a …show more content…
writer. The use of quotations from university professors as well as the findings from studies help to build the credibility and realism of Pollitt’s points by supporting the ethos appeal. Pollitt really likes to showcase the achievements of her interviewees using phrases like “Patricia Princehouse, director of the evolutionary biology program at Case Western University..” (36), and “Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University…” (36). Pollitt really likes to throw those credentials in the reader's face, as a way to let the audience know that this information is going to be reliable as well as important to the topic at hand. This was a really powerful way to grab the reader's attention and to help strengthen the credibility of the argument. Along with the incredible credentials of her interviewees, Pollitt uses many statistics from a Gallup poll about creationism. She then bombards the reader with those results to show the reader the credibility of those results on the onset of her argument. Most people will see statistics as a sign of reliability, so Pollitt purposefully uses this to her advantage in strengthening her argument. A combination of those statistics as well as the highly achieved professors do help corroborate her argument. There is a large appeal to logos that makes a logical argument to help strengthen Pollitt’s points. A lot of the logic that Pollitt uses is in the explanation of the data that she gives. She states in one of her explanations, “Needless to say, this remarkable demonstration of educational failure attracts little attention from those who call for improving our schools” (35). Pollitt chooses to add this logical explanation after a series of seemingly unrelated and confusing statistics. This acts like a logical “funnel” to which the information presented can become more cohesive and will help corroborate the argument being presented. When the ambiguous information comes together is when the specific side of a debate starts to makes sense to the reader. Pollitt uses these logical phrases at the end of her main points in order to create a refined, more impactful argument. Pollitt’s argument is strong to the very end, and allows the reader to catch curiosity about the subject.
Katha, in her very last paragraph of the essay says in regards to religious beliefs about Noah, “ If that ‘recurrent flooding’ really gets going, you may wish you’d book a cabin” (37). Pollitt strategically puts this sentence in the conclusion of her paragraph to leave an implicit meaning about her message. She calls out a very drastic and well known religious story and makes it seem rather silly and childish. This is the correct way to devalue the other side of the argument, with credible, relevant information rather than just emotionally attacking the subject. That sort of rhetoric is a way to discount the other side of the argument, which is obviously creationism. By making other side of the argument look less realistic, she strengthens her own argument and makes a bigger impact on the stance of the
reader. Katha Pollitt artistically presents her argument in a way that bolsters her argument without using scathing language. If someone can be this persuasive without being caustic, how come many people still maliciously hurt others to support their argument? This presents rhetoric as a terrible, unessential art form. Rhetoric should be a professional activity that should stay professional. Many world leaders use self-helping data, just like Pollitt did. However, unlike Pollitt, those world leaders will attack other sides in order to make them seem more powerful. This essay proves that persuasion does not have to come from vitriolic comments, but it does come from using rhetorical tools and presenting the argument professionally.
A Rhetorical Analysis of Lockdown by Evans D. Hopkins. According to the Webster Dictionary, rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking or writing effectively. Rhetoric is made up of three separate appeals that can be used individually or collectively in an attempt to persuade a reader. Ethos is the credibility and qualifications of the speaker or author.
In the story, What is Rhetoric by William Covino and David Jolliffe, there are a wide variety of topics discussed that are inextricably interwoven with the concept “rhetoric.” Rhetoric, as defined by the authors, is “the study and practice of shaping content.” Consequently, my first thought was: Ok, this is a rather broad and opaque description; my successive thought, however, was one of astonishment, inasmuch as the authors went on to further elucidated this jargon. In doing so, the authors distilled the most crucial elements of what is rhetoric— the prevalence of discourse community, and how appealing language is often a precursor to persuasion.
Writers use rhetoric to communicate their specific point of view or argument in a speech or text. A reader analyzes the writer’s use of rhetoric to evaluate the effectiveness of the given argument or point of view. In his “Interfaith Prayer Vigil Address,” President Barack Obama argues the need for more restricted gun control by using emotional appeals to compassion and paternalism, collective diction, and structure, which reflect the influence of a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, and its uses the figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It’s designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.
Rhetoric is defined as “the art of effective speaking or writing; language designed to persuade or impress; eloquence, way with words, gift of gab.” We see rhetorical devices being used in our day-to-day life. Sometimes we might not realize that it’s being used and other times it might be obvious. One of the most common example where rhetorics are used is t.v. commercials. Every commercial uses certain rhetorical devices to capture their audience’s attention and leave an impact on them.
First being able to master the subject of the matter we are speaking about. Next having an understanding of the audience we are addressing, and lastly having voice and character throughout our writings. The steps in which he states is necessary to create a valid argument makes sense once broken down, as to why it would be much more persuasive. Looking back on the essays this semester that persuaded me to agree with their stance all had one thing in common; they all had a combination of the three factors Booth speaks of. Booth agrees, feeling the same way when he writes, “The common ingredient that I find in all of the writing I admire-excluding for now novels, plays and poems are something that I shall reluctantly call the rhetorical stance, a stance which depends on discovering and maintaining in any writing situation a proper balance among the three elements”
...o engage in destructive rhetoric are held to task, rhetoric cannot simply be attributed to some state of affairs, while the rhetorician from whose lips the rhetoric emerges is held to no ethical standard. Certainly it is conceivable that rhetoric can have destructive consequences. Rhetoric seems to have played a central role in the deterioration of people’s faith in their systems of government, or the electoral process by which they choose their representatives. A view of rhetoric in which the rhetorician is accountable for the effects of the change they inflict upon the world could lead to less destructive rhetoric and a society which operates on the solid ground of personal responsibility.
"In her Nation column, Pollitt regularly takes on political topics from an unabashedly liberal perspective" (Pollitt, pg. 529). Pollitt argues in her essay,
The question of what is rhetoric and what does it do has been a question since stories were even being recorded. However, now there are multiply different scholars who believe that they understand what rhetoric is and how to use it. For someone to use rhetoric correctly they must first have a definition of rhetoric that either they have made to fit themselves or they find a previous definition that suits them. In order for me to become an improved rhetor and be able to rhetorical discuss and evaluate pieces of literature or speeches like General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell address, I must first define rhetoric in how I understand it. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking aimed to sway your audience in a direction that has been chosen by the rhetor. The way in which a citizen uses rhetoric can change over time. The need to argue the same problem is invalid so the need to use the same rhetorical situations is invalid. You can use rhetoric in a multitude of different areas within our life however; we must choose to use it for good or for evil. In order for rhetoric to still be used in speech today one of two things must be true. There must either be a Truth in life and rhetoric or the more likely choice, that rhetoric changes throughout time and situations. You are not trying to change someone’s mind about something however; you are trying to convince them that you are also correct. I will be using multiple pieces of works that are defining rhetoric to support my definition and finish by evaluating General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Address using my definition of rhetoric.
Clark (2016) suggests that rhetoric isn’t limited to oral communication, but currently has a permanent foothold in written works: magazine or newspaper excerpts, novels, and scientific reports. Not only written
happen? If not, then why should science teachers teach that life evolved over billions of
Rhetoric is the art of effective speaking or writing, and persuasion. Most people use rhetoric numerous of times in their everyday life without their concern or knowing.
Pollitt is using these remarks to make it seem as though the people that believe in evolution are quite obviously false. The problem lies in the fact that, in order to cause a change in the poll and persuade those that don’t believe to change their minds, she needs to appeal to her audience. She is defeating her own purpose by making remarks such as, “If ‘recurrent flooding’ really gets going, you may wish you’d booked a cabin.” (In the replica of Noah’s Ark) Pollitt also says, “…58 percent of Republicans are creationists, although that does explain a lot.” and, “why so many think it (being a good Christian) means refusing to use the brains god gave you.”
Rhetoric, the art of speaking, is vital in everyday life. Whether it is to convince others of one’s worth as Sojourner Truth does in, “Ain’t I a Woman” or to pledge to a larger audience like Martin Luther King Junior in his “I Have a Dream” speech, rhetoric plays a significant role because it is the key that unlocks the door to self-expression. Without it, nobody would be able to convey his/her message or to get any thoughts across. A silent world, lacking communication, would therefore emerge. Trust would not be present as there would not be any words for someone to convince their beloved ones of his/her sincerity. Proper diction and syntax must be employed in order for one to effectively get others to share his/her beliefs, or at least to respect them.
The entirety of “Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction” by Eugenie C. Scott masterfully covers the ongoing controversy surrounding religion and the theory of evolution. It is written in such a way to where any person, no matter how familiar they are with the subject matter, can understand the content offered. Evolution has always been a sensitive topic in the realm of education but has only been made worse due to the involvement of individuals who lack a background in science and misinterpret the vocabulary surrounding it. The novel would have been a good read prior to taking the exam for the sole fact that it would have given me a better understanding of evolution as a whole, as well as have some insight into the history.