Rhetorical Analysis

1502 Words4 Pages

In a quote by John Mill, “Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.” Everyone’s life is precious, but at what price? Is it okay to let a murderer to do as they please? Reader, please take a moment and reflect on this issue. The issue will always be a conflict of beliefs and moral standards. The topic Rhetorical appeal are logos, rational appeal to a reader’s capacity for reasoning logically on the basis of evidence; pathos, emotional appeal to the reader’s beliefs and feelings, such as anecdotes or “human interest” stories; and ethos, ethical appeal is the writer’s credibility and their attempt to appear knowledgeable and fair. Mr. Muhlhausen’s logos appeal is strong. He gave numerous facts, statistics from many sources, and he used expert opinions within the economic field to show the effect of the society when capital punishment is used properly. Mr. Muhlhausen’s pathos appeal is lacking, he does not offer an anecdote nor a “human interest” story. His conservative beliefs are reflected in his writing and the position he takes with his claim. Mr. Muhlhausen’s ethos appeal is credible, he acknowledges the opposite side’s concern when it comes to the death penalty. He does mention others have changed their minds on the death penalty, by stating the quality of these discoveries has brought about some legitimate researchers, initially restricted until the very end punishment on good grounds, to reconsider their case. He has maintained a neutral tone and has not used negative words or insults in his article. He has demonstrated an article full of facts to support his claim. He does not follow the line of order with his reasons, and that was a bit

Open Document