Nicholas Kristof, a Harvard graduate who continued his education at Oxford University, has lived in and traveled to many parts of the world, allowing him have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the issues that arise as well as the conformities of cultures around the world. He settled as a columnist of the New York Times in 1984, mainly writing about economics and politics. Winning two Pulitzer Prizes, Kristof has continued his writing, but opening it up to more than just politics. He focuses on other issues such as drug problems and climate change and more in between. Although columnist Nicholas Kristof includes convincing, logical arguments through his use of facts from many reliable resources of research, his audience may impugn what he has to say because of his biased, one-sided opinions that deny the other viewpoint. Kristof assumes his audience is as well-rounded as he is, agreeing with everything he says. Majority of his columns expect his readers to have some type of background knowledge of the topic he writes …show more content…
He doesn’t approach his topics objectively, and often doesn’t leave space for wiggle room of other opinions because he is very adamant on his stances. What Kristof doesn’t ever offer is a rebuttal against his opinions. In an interview with North Korean officials, Kristof snapped, “I asked how how North Koreans could possibly boast about their spending on a young man when he was in a coma only because of them” (“Inside North Korea”). Frankly, he doesn’t care who he is expressing his frustration to. Kristof believes he is right and doesn’t take in consideration what North Korea believes is true. Generally, he will provide evidence only backing his opinions. He does this to make his readers believe that there is only one side to the arguments he presents. He most likely is educated on the topic of discussion before accumulating an opinion so
Eugene V. Debs, the United State’s most influential union leader and avid socialist gives light to many issues including presidency, systems of society, and most importantly the unemployed in his speech “The Issue”. Debs was imprisoned in the 1890s for illegally encouraging a railroad strike, he also was sentenced to 10 years for his discouragement to the United States’ involvement in World War I. Debs has been a remarkable figure in the socialist party and had influenced so many. In Eugene Debs’ speech, Debs’ uses rhetorical appeal to relate to and convince his audience of the “issues” in the United
“The Onion’s” mock press release on the MagnaSoles satirical article effectively attacks the rhetorical devices, ethos and logos, used by companies to demonstrate how far advertisers will go to convince people to buy their products. It does this by using manipulative, “scientific-sounding" terminology, comparisons, fabrication, and hyperboles.
In 102 Minutes, Chapter 7, authors Dwyer and Flynn use ethos, logos, and pathos to appeal to the readers’ consciences, minds and hearts regarding what happened to the people inside the Twin Towers on 9/11. Of particular interest are the following uses of the three appeals.
Jared Diamond makes a great and compelling argument about how inequality across the entire globe originated. The main components that were agreeing with this argument were guns germs and steel. Guns meaning the advancement in weaponry, military warfare and military sophistication. Germs meaning the harmful disease and other foul illness that wiped out humans throughout History. Then the third and final point steel, which was about the advancement in societies and the complex sophistication with their technology, which lead to building great architecture and devices that were completely impactful.
Graff takes a logical approach to defending his opinion on the age old battle of “street smarts versus book smarts” in the article “Hidden Intellectualism”. Through several historical and personal examples, he strongly delivers an argument that schools have been discounting students who may not think academically. In reality the students who can relate articles from sources like Vouge and Sports Illustrated to life may be the ones who will truly be successful. Throughout his writing, he uses many devices to sway the audience’s opinions in the direction of his. Through Graff’s rhetorical writing strategies, he opens reader’s eyes to the fact that any subject can be intellectual when observed “through academic eyes”.
Steven Pinker opens his essay with scenes from the movie Tootsie to show his argument that people work around what they really mean when talking to others, yet we all want the full truth and also a fake truth when speaking to someone even if all we say is the fake truth when speaking to others. The scene from the movie at the beginning of the essays allows readers a chance to see humor, but also have a glimpse at what we as people do every day when we speak with someone. We all are guilty of saying one thing we want but not truly wanting it when the time comes. If Pinker would have just started his essay with the third paragraph that included his main argument, the point would not have been as clear and easy to understand as it was with the movie scene reference. The movie scene added real life relativity to the essay, and allowed readers to see what Pinker’s argument meant without having to think about a situation where his argument is
... understandable to a wide audience, inviting citizens from all walks of life and levels of education to be engaged. But his arguments are, without a doubt, simplifications and he doesn't even bring up arguments that challenge his own, let alone take them seriously.
Renowned economist, Steven D. Levitt, and well-known journalist, Stephen J. Dubner, in their collaboration of the book, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, write in a mostly inoffensive style about extremely controversial topics. Levitt’s and Dubner’s purpose is to inform readers of frequently disputed topics from a purely economic standpoint. They use second person to directly speak to their readers, an impartial tone to show an unusual perspective, and contrast to provide both sides of an argument.
a positive one. I enjoyed his book and I respected him as a person as well as a speaker. Homer
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
keeps the reader interested in his topic. He addresses the opposition quite well which adds a large
is his own personal opinion on how and why certain people are hired. His mediocre
...alm, in a sense that he was not trying to force you to think one way or the other, unlike Klinkenborg, where he had used a much more assertive and aggressive tone in his writing although both articles made it clear that it was up to the reader to make the decision on whether or not the idea was a conventional one or not.
Opinionator. NY Times. 15 March 2012. Web. 29 April 2014.
...the stuff he says is just for fun, a lot of parents thought he was a negative influence on his kids and felt he should be banned from radios.