Rhetoric

33

Utilitarianism in Ron Paul’s Rhetoric Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham developed an ethical framework emphasizing the idea that a morally right action is the action that ultimately yields the most good for all stakeholders (Driver 1). It must be made clear that utilitarianism is a variation of consequentialism, because the right action chosen by the policymakers is assessed based on the consequences produced (Driver 1). In other words, the appropriate application of this particular theoretical framework attempts to create not only the most good, but also to channel the same to the most number of people.

From a political standpoint, the application of utilitarianism urges politicians and the government to develop policies, and implement the same, in order to cause the greatest amount of good in favor of the general public. However, not all politicians share this view. In fact, former Congressman Ron Paul believes that in order to create the most good, the best strategy is to reduce the involvement of big government in the affairs of men (Blakeslee 166).

Ron Paul’s rhetoric calls for the reduction of the federal government’s capability to interfere with the free market, and this is how he indirectly uses the principle of utilitarianism to create the most good.

In the Beginning

Ron Paul admitted that as long as he can remember, he was always fighting against every form of government coercion. He was referring to what ordinary people call the Big Government or a Federal Government that has tremendous power to change policies, and interfere in the lives of the average citizen. Consider for instance how disconcerting it is for someone to discover that he or she is in the crosshairs of America’s Internal Revenue Service.

It is not a laughing matter to be in the hit list of the IRS. This particular government agency has the power to investigate business dealings and the spending habits of people in order to determine if they paid the correct amount of taxes. If the IRS discovers a discrepancy with a person’s reported income, and the goods and services he was able to acquire, this anomaly becomes the starting point of a government sponsored persecution. Ron Paul believes in the idea that an unfettered government wielded too much power, thus it makes the lives of common folks miserable. In the same manner of speaking, the US government has tremendous leverage when it comes to forcing young people to serve under the US Army in times of war.

Ron Paul is uncomfortable with the presence of a Big Government unhindered by the existence of appropriate checks and balances. He is also mortified whenever the federal government creates a policy that focuses only on the short term impact, and creates opportunities and benefits that only favors a select number of influential people and business entities. For example, in the year 1971, the Nixon administration imposed wage and price controls (Paul 48).

Paul saw it as a short-term solution to a more profound economic issue. The congressman remarked that the said policies benefited US-based companies, however, the long-term impact was disheartening to average individuals (Paul 48). The former lawmaker intimated that the imposition of government controls prompted him to run for a congressional seat. He decided to run for office, because he believed in the importance of reducing the role of government in creating an ideal society.

Ron Paul’s desire to curb the power and influence of the Federal Government is not a popular view. Nevertheless, a close inspection of his statements will reveal that the reduction of the Federal Government’s role in the lives of American citizens was his attempt to create the greatest amount of good. In other words, Paul laments the impact of Big Government, because it brings only heartaches and sorrows to the general public. Therefore, the significant reduction of the Federal Government’s ability to control the system brings prosperity and good governance to all people. In this worldview, Ron Paul was able to utilize the principles of utilitarianism.

Reducing the Federal Government’s Power and Clout

Ron Paul’s mindset regarding the role of the Federal Government in society requires greater scrutiny, because it is a radical worldview. However, it must be made clear that this is not a new idea. In fact, the former lawmaker, representing the 22nd district of Texas, acknowledged the fact that he borrowed extensively from the ideas promulgated by an Austrian economist named Ludwig von Mises (Paul 47).

Be that as it may, Ron Paul made the assertion that he already knew the importance of eliminating every form of government coercion, but it was through the theoretical framework developed by Mises that enabled him to explain his ideas in the most comprehensive manner.

Take a closer look at the rationale for opposing the wage controls set by previous administrations, and one can have a better understanding of how Ron Paul used utilitarian principles to create the most good. In the context of wage controls, the Federal Government compels businessmen under the threat of steep penalties to set the wage rate at a certain level. If the wage rate level was set at a value that is disadvantageous to the business establishments, then, the negative consequence is manifested in the form of high unemployment rate.

If the wage rate was pegged at a level that is disadvantageous to the workers, then, the negative consequence of such intervention strategy will be manifested in the form of high dissatisfaction levels in the workplace and high turnover rates within companies. In this particular example, the short term benefit was sought, but it failed to consider the wider impact and long-term consequences of the said government intervention policies.

Ron Paul argued that in a free market system, the employer and the employee understands the mutualistic relationship that they need to foster in order to achieve their respective goals. Employers are aware of the fact that if the wages are set too low, workers are forced to look for employment elsewhere. On the other hand, making unreasonable demands will force business establishments to declare bankruptcies, and it will not take long before workers realize the importance of maintaining a symbiotic relationship between their respective employers.

Ron Paul’s acerbic comments against the expanded role of the Federal Government is not only limited to wage and price controls, he also spoke against Big Government’s penchant to invade foreign countries and to utilize the country’s resources to fund these types of wars. In certain historical context, the former congressman’s remarks can be easily misconstrued as unpatriotic, however, the recent debacle in the Iraq War of 2003 underlined the foolishness of intervening in another country’s political affairs.

A significant number of people are not in agreement with the ideas espoused by the said republican congressman. This assertion is supported by the fact that Paul made two unsuccessful attempts to become the next president of the United States. Nevertheless, the financial crisis that rocked the United States in 2008 and the embarrassing invasion of Iraq in 2003 justified Paul’s views regarding the danger of supporting a powerful national government that focuses only on short term gains.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of war that requires serious justification. The justification for invading a sovereign state was made on the pretense that Iraq manufactured weapons of mass destruction. It was discovered later on that the justification to attack the Iraqis was made on faulty intelligence reports concerning the said weapons. With regards to the financial crisis of 2008, the Obama administration attempted to rectify the problem by bailing out the failed institutions through loans taken from taxpayer’s money. It was discovered later on that the same institutions begging for funds provided huge bonuses to some of its top executives.

Conclusion

Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that espouses the need to focus on creating the most good, and to find ways in sharing it to the most number of people. Utilitarianism is also the mindset to create policies that will make a positive impact in the lives of the majority. It therefore makes sense to create policies that the government will implement in order to bring about prosperity and development for everyone.

Politicians are familiar with this type of strategy, and for several centuries they used the framework of the Federal Government to provide services to the American people. It is also through the current government system that policymakers are able to empower government agencies to intervene for the purpose of creating the most amount of good for the most number of people. However, a rare breed of politicians like Ron Paul does not conform to the same mindset. Ron Paul believes that an effective and efficient application of utilitarian principles is only possible if policymakers are able to reduce the power of the Federal Government.

In his worldview, it is foolish to impose controls and enforce intervention schemes in order to implement short-term solutions to economic and political problems in America. Ron Paul advocates the eradication of any form of hindrance to the maturity of the free market system, and this is how he indirectly uses the principles of utilitarianism to create the most good for the most number of people.

Works Cited

Blakeslee, Nate. “The Swan Song of Ron.” Practicing Texas Politics. Ed. Lyle Brown. San Francisco, CA: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

Driver, Julia. The History of Utilitarianism. 2014. Web.

Paul, Ron. Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. Print.

Read more

26

Salem Cigarettes Ads and Rhetorical Appeals Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Advertisements incorporate the three rhetorical appeals which are logos, pathos, kairos, and ethos. The ethos analyses the moral principles or the ethics of a given statement or display (Jefkins 88). The pathos, on the other hand, appeals to ones emotion or is inclined towards empathy. As for the logos, it appeals to the logic which means that an advertisement should make total sense (Lyons and Magnus 47). Lastly for the kairos, it mainly pertains to establishing whether it is the right time or place that an appeal to timeliness (Ginzburg 93).

This paper analyses how kairos and the other rhetorical appeals are used in an advertisement with the case study being the Salem cigarettes. In the first advert, there is a handsome gentleman holding a pack of cigarettes in his arms. During the 70s and the 80s, a man was perceived to be handsome when he had a cool hairstyle and an unbuttoned shirt and a pair of jeans. The advert is trying to persuade both the male and female of the tender age that it is fashionable to smoke cigarettes. ‘If one can smoke Salem and look handsome and cool why not me?’ that is the question that the seller of this brand intends the audience, or the public to ask after reading the advert. The advert is meant to insinuate that the guy is this cool just because he smokes Salem. The question posed in the advert also is meant to make the audience associate with this guy especially the phrase “enough fresh menthol to keep things interesting”. Since the guy looks cool, it is expected that he always loves to have fun and is more outgoing; therefore, the phrase that the cigarette makes him make things interesting is appealing to all people of his age. This advert is, therefore, depicting what was considered cool in the 70s and 80s by the young men and ladies. In this advert, one can note that the picture is more appealing than the words.

The second advert depicts a young, attractive blonde lady. She is seated smoking a cigarette and looks to be relaxed and full of confidence. Her beauty is breathtaking to everyone looking at the picture and the word “Salem refreshes naturally” just complements her beauty. For everyone who was a lady in the 70s and 80s this was the look admired by all and for all the young lads she was the perfect lady. Again this was the face of Salem, and it had the perfect timing. Having a beautiful blonde face like this lady complements the cigarette since, the seller wants to assume that the cigarette comes with the beauty, or it is the cigarette that is making her look this fabulous. The writings on this advert and the lady are complementing each other, and this advert is using kairos very well. In the 70s and 80s, this cigarette would have sold due to this advert especially to the young ladies and young men.

In the third advert, it depicts three black teenagers with one holding a basketball who look to be relaxing after a workout in the gym or the court. In the 70s and 80s, for the blacks, there was nothing as cool as playing basketball. This was appealing to all the young black lads and was the targeted group by the seller. This shows that the rhetoric used is kairos in this advert. The advert is using the young lads to show that, after a workout, one may use Salem cigarette to refresh. The writing “Salem refreshes naturally” is complementing the photo as the photo is more appealing in this case. The advert is, however, disregarding the logos as there is no logic in smoking cigarettes and playing basketball as it affects the lungs badly and reduces the performance of the athletes. The advert is, however, effective in relaying its message to all those young black lads playing or not playing basketball.

In the fourth advert, we have a young, attractive couple who are smoking. They seem to be enjoying each other’s company fully and also seem to be enjoying the cigarettes. The seller is using the advert to reach out to all the young couples. The young couple was an ideal couple in the 70s and 80s since they are both attractive and are being complimented by the clothes. This advert is appealing and used kairos as this couple was ideal in the times this advert was released.

In the fifth advert, we have a black couple in an environment where they look to be enjoying a cool breeze as depicted by the trees. This advert has the writing “Salem special high porosity paper air softens every puff”. This implies that the advert is based more on the environment rather than on the couple itself. The seller wishes to communicate an enhancement in the product and show that it gives a freshening taste due to the paper. The couple is simple and is meant to enforce the indigenous natural taste. This advert uses pathos as the rhetoric it shows an environment and a feeling that one should feel after smoking. The writing is, therefore, in connection with the illustration given.

Works Cited

Ginzburg, Natalia. The Advertisement, London: Faber and Faber, 1969. Print.

Jefkins, Frank. Advertisement Writing, Plymouth: Macdonald and Evans, 1976. Print.

Lyons, and W. Magnus. Advertisement Control, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex: Thames Bank Pub. Co,1949. Print.

Read more

21

Rhetoric: Social Issues’ Influences on US Children Research Paper

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The article under investigation is prepared by Wakefield, Lee, and Wildeman (2016). It focuses on the critical law-related issues faced by Americans and the way they affect family life. In this way, the authors claim that initially, improper drug regulation led to the increased number of drug offenders. As new policies and regulations are now developed, a lot of people face criminal justice and are sent to jail for their offenses. Of course, such alteration is expected to prevent further violations of law and make cities safer. However, it also has a negative influence on the representatives of the general public. More and more people are arrested, mass incarceration begins, and a lot of citizens become tightly connected with the imprisoned populations. In this way, the integrity of a family becomes negatively affected, which makes children more likely to turn into criminals as they grow up. This issue is very critical for minorities. Thus, in the USA, African Americans are incarcerated oftener than European Americans, and a stereotype of them representing a criminal world exists.

Trying to convey these ideas, the authors (who are practicing professors and researchers in spheres of criminal justice, sociology, policy analysis, and management) cooperated and developed a paper that investigates the connection between crime and family life in the USA deeply. As a result, they managed to reveal interdisciplinary views on important social issues, such as mass imprisonment, inequality, drugs, and their negative influences on children and families. Being published in a peer-reviewed periodical, the article is mainly prepared for professionals who operate in the framework of political and social science. However, its language is simplified for it to be understood by the well-informed and intellectually curious individuals who focus on different spheres. The authors mainly resorted to an academic tone but included some literature approaches to make the text more attractive and interesting. Thus, this paper will argue that even though the article under analysis is authoritative and valid, the arguments developed by its authors are based not only on logical appeals that are vital for social science by also on pathos that affect readers’ emotions and does not belong to the unbiased scholarly world.

In their article, Wakefield, Lee, and Wildeman (2016) supported their argument using scholarly approaches. They revealed the information found in a “few large surveys”, share specific data found in authoritative sources “the imprisonment rate in the United States would still be very high—at least 300 per 100,000, and more likely 400 per 100,000”, and include terms “nonviolent offenders” (Wakefield, Lee, & Wildeman, 2016, pp.13-14). In addition to that, they often provide information regarding the things observed, such as “Megan Comfort describes one inmate ‘realigned’ in California” or “President Obama has called for the diversion of low-level drug offenders from prisons” (Wakefield, Lee, & Wildeman, 2016, p. 14). The article is full of logical appeals of such kind, which proves that it is based on an academic discourse at least partially. The text of the paper does not include analogies and figurative language, which reduced the risk of misunderstanding. In this way, the authors’ argument becomes more valuable from the scientist’s and professionals’ perspectives.

However, it is critical to mention that the article is written using the first person “we”, which is generally considered to be unacceptable for scholarly papers due to the implementation of personal biases. For instance, the authors say “although we know that many more people have contact with the criminal justice system today than historically, we have little conception of how this increase has affected (and will continue to affect) families” (Wakefield, Lee, & Wildeman, 2016, p. 10). In this sentence, the professionals share their own experiences and resort to ethical appeals to support their argument. Such an approach does not allow the readers to be 100% sure that this information is true to life and makes the statement rather weak. However, considering the authors’ experience in the field, the majority of the readers are likely to believe them by word. What is more, such construction makes the targeted audience feel connected to the narrators so that it seems to them that this claim is formulated mutually and is correct. Thus, this approach turns out to be rather effective.

Wakefield, Lee, and Wildeman (2016) also use rhetorical questions, such as “so where are we?” (p. 11). This tool does not support the argument. However, it allows the authors to attract readers’ attention to the next ideas. As the paper is rather long and it is presented as a text with no figures or images that could allow the audience to avoid routine actions, rhetorical question adds some colors to the writing. What is more, further information deals with specific years and numbers, so the readers are more likely to perceive them better after a little distraction from the general text.

All in all, it can be concluded that Wakefield, Lee, and Wildeman (2016) want to make their article available and easy to understand so that various populations can read it. The authors effectively combined academic and more colloquial approaches to share their viewpoints and strengthen the argument. It can be seen that this article blends specific data with narrators’ considerations so that the argument is supported and the paper is rather appealing.

Reference

Wakefield, S., Lee, H., & Wildeman, C. (2016). Tough on crime, tough on families? Criminal justice and family life in America. Annals of AAPSS, 655, 8-21. Web.

Read more

21

Rhetoric: Chief Seattle’s Enviromental Statement Report (Assessment)

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The environmental statement made by Chief Seattle is the disrespect and exploitation of the earth and its resources by the white man. The earth should be perceived not as the horn of plenty that can always share its resources with people but as an entity that requires respect. The sacredness of the earth is forgotten by the white man and exploitation results in damage and waste that lead to contamination and death.

The repetition is used in this speech to emphasize the major themes that Chief Seattle uses to draw the listener’s attention: the sacredness of the earth, the difference between the white man and the Indian, the pricelessness of nature, and the relatedness of all people to each other. Additionally, the repetitions also serve as rhetorical devices that fuel the pathos of the speech, making the idea of buying and acquiring a land pointless. At last, the Chief uses repetition to support the main idea of the statement: the importance of nature and respect for it.

The repeating length of the sentences, the use of the same words and similar phrases make the speech sound like a prayer or a chant. The use of phrases such as “I do not know”, “the Indian does not understand”, “we are connected/brothers” makes the tone of the statement both melancholic and hopeful, with the underlying tone of uncertainty and concern (both for the future of the tribe and the earth). At the same time, short sentences make the statement look like an appeal, possibly to other, future generations.

While the white man’s religion (Christianity) is monotheistic, the religious views in the speech relate to animism, the belief that objects, places, and creatures have spiritual essences. Chief Seattle emphasizes that although they do not understand the deeds of their God they do not want to own him; owning, in this case, means believing that the God approves of the actions the white man takes. Unlike the white man, the Indian understands that each creature, place, and object has a “soul” that should be respected and that connects each living being to another.

It seems that today Chief Seattle would notice that the earth already revenges the white man for his actions using catastrophes and hurricanes to respond to exploitation. He would also emphasize that the white man will eventually suffocate in the waste, as he predicted, and destroy others (animals, other tribes) with him. Chief Seattle would also disapprove of the lack of faith among white people and their inability to believe that God, not the white man, is the master of the earth.

Chief Seattle appeals to the white man to remember that the lack of spirituality can result in a catastrophic death of the world (nature) as we know it. The white man’s belief that he “owns” God results in his disrespectful actions toward the land and water, massive slaughter of animals, and deforestation. Chief Seattle asks the white man to remember that God is the father of this world and might punish the white man for his impudence one day.

The conclusion shows that the world of the white man cannot be seen as living because it is a constant fight for survival (against others or oneself). It is effective in emphasizing that the white man’s actions lead to bloodshed or a battle rather than peaceful existence.

Both Chief Seattle and Stafford (1960) emphasize the turning points (although different) of humanity. The use of the atomic bomb can also be seen as “the end of the living and the beginning of survival”. The lizard that is waiting for history to happen can be imagined on the reservations of Indians, observing the future decades of violence against Native populations (Stafford, 1960). Both the speech and the poem focus on the verge that might lead to humanity’s end.

References

Stafford, W. (1960). At the bomb testing site. Web.

Read more

70

Rhetoric in “12 Angry Men” Film by Sidney Lumet Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Reaching a consensus among several individuals with strong opinions is a challenging task. One example of such a discussion is 12 Angry Men, which depicts a jury discussing a progressively complex case of murder supposedly committed by a teenager. The following essay argues that effective combination of logos and pathos used by Juror 8 allows him to persuade his fellow jurors.

Definitions

First, it is important to identify ethical strategies used by Juror 8 to frame his arguments. The most common strategies, also referred to as modes of persuasion, are ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is a method of persuasion in which the speaker uses their authority and reputation to add credibility to the presented information. Pathos is a method of persuasion that relies on emotions and feelings invoked by the presentation. Finally, logos is the appeal to rationality and critical thinking (Shabo 8). It can be argued that Juror 8 effectively and appropriately applies pathos and logos to convince his fellow jurors.

Use of Pathos

The first instance of an appeal to pathos can be found in the discussion that follows the initial vote. After being reminded by Juror 3 of the crime supposedly committed by the suspect, he responds that the boy is eighteen years old. While Juror 8 does not develop his argument, it is clear that the age of a prosecuted individual necessitates a more careful investigation. He also explains his decision to vote “not guilty” by having difficulties of sending a boy to die by simply raising his hand without talking about it first (Lumet). Such a move allows invoking a similar feeling in the otherwise impartial jury. Finally, he constantly reminds his fellow jurors that the case at hand is a matter “of somebody’s life” (Lumet). The latter is especially important since many of the jurors clearly treat the entire procedure as a nuisance and approach the case without the necessary criticism. Admittedly, the reaction of the jury suggests that this strategy is only marginally successful. Nevertheless, it sets the stage for the subsequent logical argument.

Use of Logos

The vast majority of arguments used by Juror 8 are consistent with the logos mode of persuasion. On several occasions, he challenges the quality of evidence and plausibility of statements made by the witnesses. For instance, in response to a detailed description of the witness testimony recounted by Juror 10, Juror 8 points to the fact that the line of sight was obfuscated by a passing elevated train (Lumet). In the same manner, he points to the fact that some of the information presented as incriminating the boy is insufficient for establishing the personality of a killer (Lumet). Finally, when given an opportunity to present his viewpoint, Juror 8 brings up several important details, all of which are based on a rational approach.

For instance, he suggests that a court-appointed defense counsel may not be sufficiently motivated to make a responsible inquiry. In another example, he makes a convincing case regarding the ownership of a knife found at the crime scene. All of the identified arguments are based on sound reasoning, which requires an equally elaborate response from his opponents. At this point, it should be mentioned that in the latter case, the persuasive effect is amplified by a carefully orchestrated presentation. Instead of objecting to the claim that a knife is unique, Juror 8 quietly draws the knife out of his pocket and sticks it into a table next to the murder weapon. Such behavior is more consistent with pathos rather than logos as it uses the element of surprise to strengthen the emotional response of the audience.

However, it also utilizes the visual element of the presentation – instead of relying on his word, the fellow jurors are able to compare the two items and reach their conclusions. Thus, in this scenario pathos is effectively combined with logos. Next, it is important to point out that at least in one instance, Juror 8 appeals to the Constitution by reminding Juror 2 that the burden of proof is not on the defendant. In this way, he ensures that the rights of the suspect are upheld. In a broader sense, the presumption of innocence referred to by Juror 8 serves as a basis for his stance throughout the argument, which aligns with the concept of reasonable doubt (Hughes and Lavery 265). The character in question systematically challenges each of the arguments put forward by the jury in order to point to inconsistencies, gaps, and weaknesses. Importantly, he does so in a non-confrontational way. It can be said that the success of Juror 8’s approach is largely due to his ability to encourage a critical approach in others.

Non-Confrontational Manner

The non-confrontational manner in which Juror 8 presents his arguments deserves a separate mention. Throughout the course of the discussion, he respectfully acknowledges and addresses all of the points put forward by fellow jurors. However, while it is apparent that he disagrees with most of them, he rarely does so explicitly. Instead, he introduces additional details, creating a situation where the speaker arrives at an independent conclusion. An example of this approach is a scene in which the jury reexamines the testimony involving the elevated train. Juror 8 starts by reconstructing the scene. After each key detail, he asks for the jury’s confirmation to make sure his arguments are consistent with views of others. Every time his position is challenged, he politely asks for the opponent’s take on the subject. Thus, each of the participants of the discussion feels his contribution to the conclusion by the time it is voiced (Herrick 122). At a certain point, he obtains support of other jurors and leads the discussion by asking the questions.

Acknowledgment of Weaknesses

Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that Juror 8 respectfully agrees with many of the points brought up by fellow jurors. In one example, Juror 7 suggests that the attempt to hang the jury will accomplish nothing since the next trial will find the defendant guilty. To this, Juror 8 replies “You’re probably right” (Lumet). As can be seen, he admits the weakness of his position but points to the fact that this outcome is not definitive. In another example, he agrees with Juror 7 that the task at their hands is difficult, respecting his effort. Finally, he honestly admits that he does not know whether the boy is innocent and whether his story is plausible. Importantly, in the former case, he precedes his response with a long pause that indicates doubt. In this way, he explicitly admits the existence of gaps in his reasoning. However, such a move also sets the stage for a more open and honest discussion.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the analysis above, Juror 8 uses a number of techniques to persuade his fellow jurors. Specifically, he appeals to the concept of reasonable doubt by challenging the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses. At the same time, he maintains a non-confrontational stance by acknowledging the opponents’ arguments and evaluating their plausibility. Next, he presents the facts and encourages the fellow jurors to make their conclusions. Finally, he introduces the elements of pathos into his logos-based narrative to establish the sense of trust and honesty necessary for reaching a consensus.

Works Cited

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 6th ed., Routledge, 2018.

Hughes, William, and Jonathan Lavery. Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills. 7th ed., Broadview Press, 2015.

Lumet, Sidney, director. 12 Angry Men. United Artists, 1957.

Shabo, Magedah. Rhetoric, Logic, and Argumentation: A Guide for Student Writers. Prestwick House Inc, 2010.

Read more

97

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death: Rhetoric Appeals in Patrick Henry Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The use of rhetoric appeals to strengthen the message is a common instrument for many orators, and Patrick Henry is no exception to the rule. In his speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” he resorts to all possible means to convince the new government that the war with Great Britain is inevitable (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). In this way, his viewpoint is not entirely of a theoretical nature but a call to action to gain ultimate freedom. Therefore, the consideration of the inclusion of ethos, pathos, and logos in Henry’s argument in the speech will demonstrate the way he attracted the attention of the audience to the presented issue.

The first tool which Henry used to persuade people in the need to fight was related to the attempts to prove the credibility of his thoughts by referencing other reliable sources. Thus, for example, he provided extensive information on the past development of the situation by saying that the British ministry unwillingly received their petition (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). The orator also added that the presence of fleets and armies by their shores did not resemble an attempt to find a peaceful way to negotiate (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). Hence, logos was the principal instrument, which he employed to convince others of the inadequacy of actions of Great Britain by invoking their reaction to American initiatives.

The second method contributing to the good reception of Henry’s speech was pathos, and it was more frequent than the previous technique. As can be seen from the text, the author incorporated it in the very first sentence by referring to the patriotic feelings of his fellow citizens (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). He further included this appeal in the inquiry about any other possible motives that his listeners could ascribe to the actions of the British government rather than deprive them of liberty (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). In this way, Henry emphasized the need to understand their general attitude contrasted to the patriotism of Americans and thereby evoked their emotional response.

The third rhetoric appeal inherent in the speech was ethos, which implied conveying respect to the author’s personality and, therefore, his specific thoughts on the matter. In this way, the upcoming war and its significance for the prosperity of the country were demonstrated through the lens of his personal credibility. For instance, when telling about the actions of American citizens in negotiating with Great Britain, he highlighted his involvement in the decision-making process alongside other leaders (“Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death,” n.d.). Hence, the consideration of his contribution to the political affairs of the country persuaded the listeners in his awareness of the actual problems.

To summarize, Patrick Henry successfully used logos, pathos, and ethos in his speech intended to demonstrate the necessity of war actions against Great Britain. First, he referred to credible sources of information reflecting on the measures taken by the British government in relation to their country. Second, Henry appealed to the patriotic feelings of his fellow citizens to attract their attention to the global problem. Third, the orator presented himself as a person directly involved in negotiations and, therefore, aware of the current situation. Thus, the effectiveness of his attempts to transmit his thoughts on the matter was conditional upon the use of the mentioned rhetoric appeals.

Reference

Patrick Henry – Give me liberty or give me death. (n.d.). The Avalon Project. Web.

Read more

18

Rhetoric in Baldwin’s and Naylor’s Linguistics Articles Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

The reason why individuals who indulge in public discourses commonly deploy the rhetorical devices of an appeal to ethos and pathos is that the skilful deployment of these devices often proves a crucial precondition of wining the audience. This simply could not be otherwise, because whereas, the appeals to pathos cause the members of listening audience to remain emotionally attuned with the line of presented argumentation, their expose to the ethos-based appeals confirms the appropriateness of such their positioning. In this paper, I will aim to explore the validity of the earlier suggestion at length, in regards to the article If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?, by James Baldwin, and the article A Question of Language, by Gloria Naylor.

Analysis of the Articles

Given the fact that in their articles Baldwin and Naylor addressed the selected population of African-Americans, as the potential readers, it does not come as a particular surprise why the deployment of a pathos-based appeal, on the part of both authors, appears being primarily concerned with exploiting the readers’ identity-related emotional anxieties.

For example, while introducing readers to the topic of discussion, Baldwin implies that, in regards to African-Americans, English conventional language has been traditionally utilized as a tool of dehumanization, “Language… is meant to define the other – and, in this case, the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him” (par. 1). By coming up with this particular remark, Baldwin was able to establish himself as a someone who is being deeply sympathetic to the cause of Black liberation – hence, wining trust with the intended audience’s members.

The identity-emphasizing appeal to pathos can also be found at the beginning of Naylor’s article, where she elaborates on her experience of having been exposed to the word ‘nigger’, while at school, “I remember the first time I heard the word nigger… I couldn’t have been more puzzled. I didn’t know what a nigger was, but I knew that whatever it meant, it was something he shouldn’t have called me” (par. 4).

It goes without saying, of course, that by stating this, Naylor presented herself as being no stranger to the experiences of racial stereotyping, known to just about any African-American. In its turn, this allowed author to assure the potential readers that, while coming up with her line of argumentation, she would be doing it from the perspective of racially underprivileged Americans. As a result, Naylor succeeded in winning the intended audience’s sympathies.

In their articles, Baldwin and Naylor also proved themselves being thoroughly aware of how the appropriate deployment of appeals to ethos in written texts can endow readers with the proper perceptional mood. For example, while presenting readers with his view on the significance of language, Baldwin states, “What joins all languages, and all men, is the necessity to confront life, in order, not inconceivably, to outwit death” (par. 3).

This particular Baldwin’s remark was meant to convince readers that, while exploring the legitimacy of his stance on the issue, the author would never cease being observant of the provisions of a ‘common sense’. This is exactly the reason why Baldwin refers to ‘all men’, as such that would be willing to subscribe to his point of view, in this respect – their endowment with the very sense of a common sense would naturally prompt them to do so.

The discursive significance of the earlier mentioned Baldwin’s statement can be well compared to the discursive significance of what Naylor believes to account for the language’s foremost shortcoming, as a communicational medium, “I consider the written word inferior to the spoken, and much of the frustration experienced by novelists is the awareness that whatever we manage to capture in even the most transcendent passages falls far short of the richness of life” (par. 1).

Apparently, by coming up with this remark, Naylor wanted to encourage readers to think that under no circumstances may linguistic dogmas be considered unchangeable. Nevertheless, as opposed to what it is being the case with Baldwin, who went about substantiating the validity of his opinion, as to the role of language, by appealing to the readers’ sense of a ‘common sense’, Naylor choose in favor of referring to the opinion of ‘experts’ (novelists), as being thoroughly consistent with her stance on the issue. In its turn, this was meant to convince readers that the Naylor’s view of language could be indeed considered perfectly sound.

The careful reading of Baldwin and Naylor’s articles also suggests that, apart from having proven themselves thoroughly familiar with how ethos-based and pathos-based rhetorical devices could be successfully applied, both authors also exhibited their ability to fuse these devices together. For example, while explaining the innate reasons why the mainstream view on the role of multicultural education in America does not stand much of a ground, Baldwin states, “The brutal truth is that the bulk of white people in American never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes” (par. 10).

It is quite apparent that the author’s referral to the ‘brutal truth’, as to what accounts for the White people’s actual agenda, was meant to be perceived by readers as such that connotes a self-evident truth. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that even most ‘progressive’ Whites are being endowed with a number of subtly-defined racial prejudices towards the people of color. Yet; whereas, the second part of the earlier quoted statement is being concerned with Baldwin applying the appeal-to-ethos rhetorical device, the statement’s ending is being unmistakably pathos-charged, as it prompts readers to properly identify the camouflaged emanations of the White people’s evilness.

The fact that, just as it appears to be the case with Baldwin, Naylor also showed herself an individual capable of combining ethos-charged and pathos-charged argumentations, within a single written statement, can be illustrated in regards to her following remark, “The people in my grandmother’s living room took a word that whites used to signify ‘worthlessness or degradation (nigger) and rendered it impotent” (par. 13).

Whereas, the beginning of this remark appeals to the readers’ sense of ethos (Naylor refers to ‘people’, as the potential witnesses to the validity of her suggestion), the remark’s ending is being clearly concerned with the author’s strive to convince readers that their emotionally damaging experiences of racial stereotyping do not provide them with an excuse to indulge in bitterness.

Quite on the contrary – Naylor implies that African-Americans are being thoroughly capable of ‘digesting’ racially degrading terms, invented by Whites, in such a manner that these terms in fact cause Blacks very little harm. There can be very little doubt that the members of intended audience would reflect upon this particular suggestion as being emotionally soothing.

Nevertheless, even though that the earlier conducted analysis of how Baldwin and Taylor went about incorporating the concerned rhetorical devices in their articles does reveal both authors being thoroughly aware of the main principles of rhetorical argumentation, the extents of both articles’ argumentative intensity vary significantly. For example, the line of argumentation, deployed throughout the Baldwin article’s entirety, appears to reflect the author’s intention to prompt readers to assess the significance of the discussed subject matter from an essentially close and personal perspective.

On the other hand, the line of Naylor’s rhetorical argumentation (which is being ideologically consistent with that of Baldwin’s), primarily appeals to the readers’ sense of rationale – hence, the lessened extent of this article’s discursive ‘explosiveness’. This is because; whereas, Baldwin considered the deployment of the appeal-to-ethos rhetoric as being supplementary to his strongly defined pathos-based argumentation, Naylor made a point in doing something opposite – relying on specifically ethos-based rhetorical devices, as the mean of convicting readers to subscribe to the article’s conclusions.

Conclusion

The earlier conducted analysis of how Baldwin and Naylor addressed the task of ensuring their articles’ high argumentative value, suggests that both of them did succeed in this particular undertaking. The fact that, when compared with Baldwin’s article, Naylor’s article appears being less emotionally charged, can be explained by the qualitative essence of the subject matter, discussed in this article. Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that both articles represent fine examples of a rhetorical argumentation, while being both: intellectually challenging and emotionally inspiring. I believe that this conclusion fully correlates with the paper’s initial thesis.

Bibliography:

Baldwin, James. “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” The New York Times Books. 1979. Web.

Naylor, Gloria. “A Question of Language.” California State University Northridge. 1986. Web.

Read more

28

The Art of Rhetoric Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The importance of persuasion has long been recognized by many philosophers and political leaders who could pursue different objectives (Hexter 3). In both ancient and modern times, the rhetoric is associated with the ability of a person to convince other people and prompt them to a certain action. It is possible to say that the definition of rhetoric has not evolved considerably. However, there is a significant difference that should not be overlooked.

In particular, ancient orators usually addressed a very limited group of people such as the Roman senators. In contrast, modern people often have to address very wide audiences. Their oral or written messages can be received by millions of people. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about political leaders or social activists. As a rule, they need to find arguments that can be understood and accepted by people who may represent different social, cultural, or religious groups. Therefore, the task to persuade can be much more challenging. Nevertheless, in both cases, the use of rhetoric can be critical for the long-term development of the society.

While discussing the importance of rhetoric in the ancient world, one can mention Cicero’s speeches known as Catiline Orations (Pernot 109). They were aimed at exposing the plot against the government (Pernot 109).

Overall, it is possible to argue that Cicero succeeded in averting the coup d’etat that could threaten the existence of the Roman Republic. More importantly, Cicero was able to convince the senators that they needed to take action against politicians who planned this coup d’etat. Overall, Cicero was able to change the course of the Roman history. To some degree, he shaped the development of the entire ancient world. This is one of the details that can be distinguished.

Additionally, it is possible to mention the speech that Winston Churchill made in 1940. It is known as the Blood, toil, tears and sweat. In particular, the British Prime Minister warned the public about the dangers of the war with the Third Reich. In particular, he noticed that the citizens of the country should be ready for hardships. More importantly, in his opinion, the victory in this war was critical for the survival of Great Britain in the long term. To a great extent, this integrity proved to be beneficial because people could put more trust in Churchill’s decisions and policies. Nowadays, this speech is regarded as a great example of rhetoric. These examples indicate that the skillful use of rhetoric techniques can have profound implications for the society. These are the main arguments that can be advanced.

Aristotle’s views on rhetoric continue to be influential because he identified the key methods that a person could use in order to change the opinion of the audience or persuade these people to do something (Gross and Walzer 197). They continue to be widely applied nowadays. On the whole, in his books, Aristotle argues that rhetoric can be defined as the ability of a person to choose a technique that can best influence the audience (Gross and Walzer 197; Aristotle 6).

Overall, this philosopher implies that rhetoric can be viewed as a skill that every educated person should acquire and develop. One can say that his views profoundly influenced the practices of many educators who could represent different historical periods or cultures.

In his works Aristotle introduces such concepts as ethos, logos and pathos which can be viewed as different methods of appealing to the audience. In particular, a person can appeal to his/her credibility. In other words, the speaker needs to emphasize that he/she is sufficiently qualified to make arguments about a certain topic. Under such circumstances, speakers tend to refer to their expertise in a particular field.

Additionally, people can lay stress on the rational validity of their claims. They try to show that their claims are based on empirical evidence or logic. This approach seems to be the most convincing one because a person does not try to impose unfounded opinions on other people. Finally, an individual can attach importance to the emotions of the audience. Under such circumstances, a person tries to evoke the sympathy of the listeners.

According to Aristotle, an orator should combine these appeals (Gross and Walzer 197). Nevertheless, there are situations when a person can give preference to only one of these methods (Gross and Walzer 197). In this case, much attention should be paid to the setting in which a certain speech is made (Aristotle 6). This is one of the issues that should not be overlooked.

Overall, one can argue that Aristotle’s views continue to be influential, and the main concepts that he outlined in his works are important for analyzing the arguments put forward by other people. Furthermore, the knowledge of these concepts can help a person avoid the risk of being manipulated. Moreover, they are critical for understanding how to create more convincing oral or written messages that should be conveyed to wide audiences. These are the main details that can be singled out.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Rhetoric, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2010. Print.

Hexter, John. “The Rhetoric of History.” History and Theory 6. 1 (1967): 3-13. Print.

Gross, Alan, and Arthur Walzer. Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, New York, SIU Press, 2008. Print.

Pernot, Laurent. Rhetoric in Antiquity, New York: CUA Press, 2005. Print.

Read more

14

Rhetoric: “Cho Seung-Hui’s Killing Rampage” by Tao Lin Essay

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Miller-Cochran & Rodrigo explain that warrants are “ideas, concepts, and beliefs that connect reasons and evidence to the claim” (186). Yagelski & Miller discuss that “facts/statistics, personal experience, authority, and values are the commonly used types of evidence” (92). Lin uses facts, personal experience, and values. He derives statistics used in the argument from personal experience. He does not use authority such as expert judgment.

A strong point

Sympathy expressed by the public towards grieving families and Cho Seung will not avert future killing rampages. Lin argues that sympathy would not “effectively prevent future killing rampages” (par. 2). Sympathy does not affect the source of the problem. Lin explains that the source is found in areas that have been neglected. Lin uses an illustration where someone “signs a note causing someone to tell someone to press the button that launches the rocket” (“Context and Goals” par. 2). Sympathy in this illustration deals with the person that pressed the button. As a result of ignoring the sources of alienation, sympathy is ineffective.

Weak point

Lin makes a weak argument that a person who wants to reduce human suffering must avoid all mainstream media outlets. Lin proposes that one should ignore “all mainstream media, pretty much, any newspaper, and almost every website” (“Perspective” par. 1). When a person ignores all these media outlets, he/she is unlikely to be aware of suffering unless it happens only to them. Someone is unlikely to change what he/she is unaware of.

Logos on the argument

Lin uses an enthymeme on anger. Enthymeme uses a major premise and minor premises to conclude (Yagelski & Miller 84). The major premise generalizes that “anger means wanting to destroy something in concrete reality” (“Anger” par. 1). A minor premise suggests that “pain/suffering does not exist in concrete reality” (“Anger” par. 1). From the statements used by Lin, it can be concluded that “destroying people does not affect the existence of suffering” (“Anger” par. 1). Suffering from anger is an abstraction. It can only be reduced by eliminating intangible causes.

Lin supports his claims with warrants. Miller-Cochran & Rodrigo discuss that warrants are assumptions used to reinforce the credibility of claims (188). Lin argues that death can make him sad only if “it happened to someone whose concrete existence affected his daily life” (“Sympathy” par. 1). He follows the argument that by saying that “Kurt still exists for me as much as he did a month before he died” (“Sympathy” par. 1). This claim warrants that Vonnegut’s death does not affect his daily life.

Lin opposes general public sadness. Lin argues that “an amount of people felt automatically sad when Kurt Vonnegut died” (“Sympathy” par. 2). Lin does not find a connection of their suffering to the deceased. Lin argues that it is “due to the automatic acceptance of a pre-existing sort of guideline or suggestion” (“Sympathy” par. 2). Lin argues that people die every day. There is no difference between Cho’s killing or Vonnegut’s death to make the public mourning. Their sadness does not affect them because they cannot “resurrect Kurt Vonnegut to cure their sadness” (“Sympathy” par. 1). Similarly, it will not reduce future killings.

Lin uses a claim of policy to support his argument on the intolerance of art. A claim of the policy describes what ought to be done. Lin argues that one cannot claim without defining a context or goal that a book or a story is bad or good (“Intolerance of Art” par. 1). It would mean that the person “is the only one who exists and his/her opinion are facts” (“Intolerance of Art” par. 1). Lin argues that someone can “only like or dislike a subject when there is no context or goal” (“Context and Goals” par. 1). Lin discourages statements such as “your facial expression and voice are horrible, you have no talent” (“Intolerance of Art” par. 2). The argument appeals to what is right.

Yagelski and Miller discuss that facts are supposed to be supported with statistical figures (92). Lin argues that some people after watching “a PETA video, feel sad for 10 or 20 minutes” (“Consistency” par. 1). Lin generates the figures out of his experience. Readers who have a similar observation will find his argument more credible. Lin argues that “more than 33 people die each day” (“Perspective” par. 1). He uses this fact to try to show that all deaths are similar. Lin argues that a CEO who “does not increase investments for investors at a satisfying rate will be voted out” (“Perspective” par. 1). It is factual without numerical figures. Firms without high-profit margins are considered poorly run.

Types of appeals used by Lin

Lin uses pity to make his argument believable. An author may use “pity of their readers when they need to inspire an emotion related to their argument” (Yagelski & Miller 97). Lin expresses that he “cried in bed sometimes in college” (“Loneliness” par. 1). He uses this expression to make people understand how Cho Seung might have felt. He feels emotional for one person when he does not feel emotional for the other 33 who also died.

Lin appeals to the readers’ prejudice that the alienated individual has communication problems. Appealing to prejudice takes the form of using common belief (Yagelski & Miller 98). Lin argues that his “eyes might tremor, the voice might stutter, he might not feel in control of his body or face” (“Loneliness” par. 1). He mentions some of the responses associated with people with communication problems. Readers are likely to be attached to his narration as a result of appealing to prejudice.

Lin appeals to tradition using corporate view on profits. Tradition has to be supported with other facts to be credible (Yagelski & Miller 98). Lin recognizes that “media existence depends on viewership size” (“Perspective” par. 1). It is a strong argument because profits depend on the size of viewership. He strengthens his argument by the fact that CEOs are fired if they cannot sustain profits. The tradition becomes credible because it is supported by facts.

Lin uses the moral values that people hold about an outcome of life issues. Lin argues that he “feels capable of accepting whatever may happen to him” (“Sympathy” par. 1). It is a statement that calms the reader. He argues that “people can change things in concrete reality to reduce pain/suffering” (“Sympathy” par. 1). Morality requires people to act humanely to reduce suffering. He dismisses actions that “eliminate, isolate or quarantine anyone you feel is unlike yourself” (“Sympathy” par. 3). Such people ought to be helped rather than alienated. He uses justifiable moral values.

News coverage

The news coverage reports that one of the students “was taped soberly expressing shock and cognizance” (Stanley par. 2). This differs from Lin’s perception of an “automatic acceptance of pre-existing guideline” (“Sympathy” par. 2). Lin argues that people are shocked because they are expected to be shocked about such events.

The news coverage uses expert judgment that categorizes the event as “narcissistic injury” (Stanley par. 3). Lin does not use an authority in his argument. According to the article, other media outlets were referring to the killings as “senseless death-as-usual” (Stanley par. 4). Lin describes the killings as confusion caused by clichés. The reporters claim the killings are senseless. Lin argues that the sadness is senseless.

Lin argues that the media outlets can do anything to increase profits. The report claims that CNN posted a clip on the shootings which “recorded 1.8 million hits in a day” (Stanley par. 6). It leads to Lin’s argument about media outlets’ interest in the size of their audience.

Evaluation of comments

‘Pete’ argues that quantifying emotions only eliminates subjectivity. Lin argues that sympathy should be judged by the effect it has on reducing future killings. Pete argues that sympathy is an involuntary emotion (Lin “Pete” par. 2). It is not guided by choice. Pete uses authority in his argument about sympathy and emotions.

Lin emphasizes the use of quantification rather than media reports. MadisonGlass expresses his view with an expression of the suffering of one person multiplied by thirty. He concludes from this calculation that “mathematically, Cho made the wrong choice” (“MadisoGlass par. 6). MadisonGlass effectively uses opposing viewpoints.

MadisonGlass argues that ignoring all major media outlets is “elevating yourself to the level by which you are the authority” (“reply” par. 3). MadisonGlass recognizes that Lin despises authority. Lin relies mostly on reasoning. Using reasoning only with the support of facts and statistics can sometimes mislead (Miller-Cochran & Rodrigo 187).

‘Steve’ uses a fallacy when he supposes that Cho Seung-Hui was sexually abused (“Steve” par. 3). Lin argues that a story is just an imagination. Steve uses the tradition where people with imaginations of sexual abuse must have been sexually molested. Lin argues that “imagining something, drawing something is not doing something” (“Concrete reality” par. 2). Steve can link the characters in the play to Cho Seung-Hui’s real life.

Works Cited

Lin, Tao. Cho Seung-Hui’s killing rampage. 2007. Web.

Miller-Cochran, Susan & Rochelle Rodrigo. The Wadsworth Guide to Research. Mason: Cengage Learning, 2011.

Stanley, Alessandra. Deadly Rampage and No Loss for Words. 2007. Web.

Yagelski, Robert & Robert Miller. The Informed Argument. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Read more

17

Health Information Privacy Standards: Rhetoric Analysis Essay (Critical Writing)

September 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The following is an analysis of the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” as prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The USDHHS created a set of national standards for the protection of specific health information. The intended audience is the ordinary people who will avail of health services within the United States of America. This document was created to establish protocols on how to handle health information. It is important to strike a balance between the need for confidentiality, and the effective flow of communication to intended recipients.

It is easy to understand the purpose of the document, because the USDHHS provided enough information to explain the importance of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Thus, this document serves to explain the standards created in response to the said law.

The coherent flow of information was assured, when the USDHHS effectively utilized “division and classification”, to break down a complex body of information into manageable pieces. Thus, readers are not overwhelmed by the presentation of huge chunks of data. The USDHHS made sure that the reader is aware of the background of the message.

The “division and classification” of information did not only create a coherent flow, it also enables the user to understand how different topics are interrelated. For example, the USDHHS immediately highlighted the importance of the document. This strategy encourages the user to know more about the issue. It was a deliberate attempt by the author to call the attention of the intended recipient. In other words, the USDHHS made it known, that the document was not written for those who are not affected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

By utilizing the “division and classification” strategy, the USDHHS created effective signposts that guide users on how to navigate a complex web of information compressed in a single document. If the user wants to read the section that talks about privacy rules regarding minors, there is no need to read the whole document all over again. Therefore, it is easier to absorb the information because of the way it was organized.

Effective writing was made evident through the appropriate use of exemplification and description. For example, the document highlights the type of protected information. The USDHHS provided a list of information covered by the said law. It was a specific set of information, such as the inclusion of pertinent health information concerning the individual’s past, present, and future.

Another commendable feature of the document is the appropriate definition of terms used. There is no need to consult a dictionary to understand some of the complicated terms used, because the USDHHS made sure the definition of technical terms is within the said document.

The author was mindful of the 4 characteristics of effective writing. For example, the document was written in a coherent manner, and it was easy to read. The author used precise language. It was also evident that the author used a well-defined voice, and had a clear sense of audience. The author also utilized well-structured and varied sentences.

The author also utilized the principles embedded in rhetorical choices by using definition, exemplification, classification, and division.

With regards to the Measures of Excellence in Writing, the author provided a comprehensive material so that the user can utilize the information effectively. At the same, time the document was an example of excellent writing because of the clarity of the information given.

Finally, the author was able to demonstrate skills that characterized Professional Writing for Social Science Professionals. These skills were made evident when the author created a document that focuses on a particular group of users. At the same time, the author used precise language to compel the readers to respond to the message. Therefore, the author was able to address the issue regarding privacy standards.

It must be pointed out that the document contains certain flaws that need to be rectified in order to accomplish the purpose of its creation. It must be made clear that the purpose of the document is information dissemination. In other words, it is important to inform American citizens about their right to privacy. However, there are numerous problems that impede the flow of information for those who are unable to correctly interpret the essence of the privacy protocols that were created by the USDHHS.

One of the glaring examples of the failure to reach out to the intended audience was the lack of detailed information with regards to appropriate examples. For example, the USDHHS provided a general overview of the types of information covered by the said law. However, detailed examples were not present in the said document. For users who are not highly educated, it is almost impossible to determine the meaning of “past, present, and future” health information.

The best way to rectify this error is to provide a link, or develop another set of documents that will provide more information about the said topic. The link will lead users to a specific website that has more graphical information, because the current document lacks visual aids. Uneducated users may find it difficult to read, and absorb technical terms.

It can be argued that aside from the lack of pertinent information, the document was created not for the consumption of the general public, but for the benefit of lawyers, and highly educated people. An overview of the document will reveal that one of the primary purposes of the document is not just to provide information about privacy protocols, but also to give information that will be useful in legal disputes. As a result of this objective, the document is filled with legal terminologies. There is nothing wrong with using technical terms and legal language. However, the USDHHS must keep in mind that it provides a service, not only to corporate leaders, and hospital managers, but also to ordinary people.

It is important to point out that American citizens are not only those who went to college. The U.S. government is not only for the rich, and the educated members of society. The U.S. Government is also for those who struggle to read and write.

The document is well organized. Thus, it is able to provide a coherent flow of information. However, the mere fact that is a public document means that it is for the consumption of ordinary American citizens. The document is sufficient in form and substance; however, effective communication is hindered in the absence of appropriate language for minorities and other disadvantaged groups. The USDHHS must develop another version of the standard privacy protocols, and it must be written for the sake of the marginalized members of society.

Read more