Essay 2: Rhetorical Analysis Choose one of the assigned articles and read it thoroughly, making sure you have an accurate understanding of the author’s argument. Then, considering the audience and purpose, decide if you feel the author’s argument is effective. You will then write an essay in which you claim that the article is effective or not, and provide a careful analysis of key rhetorical strategies to support your claim. Tips: · Review the Rhetorical Appeals module in the textbook · Mark up the article thoroughly and check with me or your classmates to make sure you understand it thoroughly and are identifying specific strategies or flaws in the argument accurately—a misinterpretation of the article will undermine your analysis. · I recommend that you avoid using the words logos¸ pathos, and ethos. Since these are categories of strategies, focusing on these terms—or organizing an essay around them—often results in essays that are too vague in discussing specific strategies or that have paragraphs that overlap with each other (since the boundaries between the three appeals are not always clear-cut). · Make sure your entire argument is focused. Do not write an essay that addresses strengths and weaknesses equally—instead, choose a side to focus on. It is appropriate, however, to briefly acknowledge why you think the author made certain choices or to acknowledge specific strengths. · Do NOT try to analyze every strength or weakness you see in the article. Your essay should not sound like a list of strategies you noticed. Instead, select the most important strategies that support your argument and focus on a detailed analysis of those. · Decide on a specific rationale for the organization of your ideas. Do not discuss each point in the order in which it appears in the article unless the order is also a key feature of your analysis. · Try to include multiple examples from the text to support each of your points. · Your commentary should include these things: o Identify the specific rhetorical feature that you see in the example o Explain why it makes the argument effective · If you already had strong opinions on the issue of gun violence in America and would be unlikely to change your mind on them, be intentional about putting aside your personal opinions on the subject as much as possible so that your analysis is not clouded by personal bias on the topic. · Remember that this essay is NOT about you agreeing with or disagreeing with the argument. It is your analysis of the rhetorical strategies that make the argument effective/ineffective. Ideally, I should not be able to tell what your opinion on the topic is. · Be careful when critiquing an issue in the article. You should indicate that you understand why the author made certain choices. Otherwise, you run the risk of sounding like you’re critiquing something simply because you do not understand it. o E.g. Given the fact that Steiner’s general audience is aware of yet mostly uninterested in the issue, it makes sense that he would try to provoke the audience in order to get them engaged. However, he overdoes it when his tone crosses the line and becomes judgmental of readers. Requirements for your final draft to be eligible for 70% or higher: · Your Introduction should provide some context for the article: what is the issue that the article addresses, why was this article written, what type of article is it, what publication was it published in, and what is the central argument that the article makes? · Your Introduction should provide an accurate summary of the article. · At least 750 words · Correct MLA style throughout · Use specific examples from the article (in the form of quotes, paraphrases, and/or summaries) to support every point you make. When you refer to a short passage or analyze language/tone, quotes are preferable instead of paraphrases. *ARTICLE FOR REFERENCE* Gun Control Readings for Rhetorical Analysis Article 1: “Gun Research Needs More Firepower” Scientific American. Aug2019, Vol. 321 Issue 2, p8-8. A new bill promises millions of dollars for lifesaving studies, and scientists should use it wisely 1. When bullets fired from a passing car sliced through the St. Louis night one Sunday in June, they hit two children, killing three-year-old Kennedi Powell and seriously wounding another little girl, age six. Police in the Missouri city were not immediately able to identify or find the shooter, and Powell joined the grim ranks of the 36,000 people killed by guns every year in the U.S., on average. An additional 100,000 are injured. 2. That adds up to 136,000 Americans harmed or killed annually by gun violence. Worse, the death side of this sad ledger is growing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an upward trend that began in 2015. While mass shootings in Sutherland Springs, Tex., or Parkland, Fla., dominate headlines, people such as the St. Louis children, cut down singly or by twos or threes, make up the bulk of the victims. Guns are a clear and present danger in this country, where there are about 393 million civilian-owned firearms—more than enough to put one in the hands of every man, woman and child and amounting to the highest rate of gun ownership in the world by far. 3. The tremendous toll makes gun violence a huge public health problem. Yet unlike other pressing health threats, Americans have few ideas about the most effective prevention strategies because there has been almost no large-scale research on the issue. 4. All that could change this year. In an appropriations bill this spring, the U.S. House of Representatives included $50 million to be used for such studies by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health—the first time in decades that this kind of support has been given. If the U.S. Senate concurs and the bill becomes law, researchers need to jump at this opportunity. 5. Congress created the research gap in the first place, so it is right for Congress to fix it. In 1996, after a series of studies linked gun ownership to increased violence and crime and prompted an antiresearch campaign from the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), legislators inserted language into the cdc’s budget bill that said no money could be used to “promote gun control.” Congress also zeroed out the agency’s budget for firearms research. The message was clear, and federally supported science in this area ground to a halt. 6. Since then, dozens of small-scale studies have been carried out—research comparing the effects of licensing laws in one county or state to laws in another, for instance. But none has had the power of large investigations that look at the effects of various kinds of interventions across the entire country and that involve tens of thousands of people. This is the kind of science that showed us the safety and health advantages of using seat belts, quitting smoking and reducing air pollution. 7. Experts have identified many areas where our firearms ignorance is killing us, gaps that scientists should now move to fill. 8. For one, we cannot answer basic questions about people who commit gun violence—the percentage of them who legally possessed the guns they used, for example, or how those firearms were acquired. Studies of possession and acquisition patterns would give us a sober assessment of whether existing permitting, licensing or background-check laws are actually being used to disarm dangerous people—including those who intend to harm themselves through suicide. 9. We also need information on the best ways to stop underground gun markets, where weapons are often sold to people who cannot obtain them from a licensed gun shop. The way to get a solid answer is through research that traces guns in a large number of cities with regulations of varying strictness. There is also a crying need to evaluate violence-prevention policies and programs based on data about individuals who participate in large randomized controlled trials—the scientific gold standard for determining causes and effects. 10. None of this research infringes on Second Amendment rights to firearm ownership. It does, however, promote other, unalienable rights set out in our Declaration of Independence—”Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—and helps to stop them from being taken away at gunpoint. Article 2: “The Rush to Restrict Gun Rights” By: Charles C. W. Cooke National Review, 00280038, 8/26/2019, Vol. 71, Issue 15 Proponents of doing so disregard both the Constitution and the available evidence 1. THESE are the times that try our Constitution. 2. The recent mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, could almost have been contrived in a laboratory as a means by which to test Americans’ commitment to the Bill of Rights. The killer, a young white-supremacist man who believed stupidly that he was striking a blow against “cultural and ethnic replacement,” was a poster to the website 8chan—a site that, in any other country, would likely have been prosecuted and shut down by now. To carry out his attack, he used an AK-47, a semi-automatic rifle that, in any other country, would not have been available for purchase, and would have been difficult to come by secondhand, or even to steal. In explanation of his attack, he left a manifesto that, in most other countries, would have been removed from circulation by the chief censor moments after its release. For the sort of people who say, as an insult, “America is the only country in the world in which … ,” the incident and its aftermath served as indictments not only of the shooter and his abhorrent, villainous ideology, but of the United States as a whole. 3. Those people are wrong. They were wrong before this abomination, and they are wrong after it. Now, as ever, the quality of a free society is measured by how that society protects its liberties when they have been abused, not by how well it celebrates them when they are under no strain. What happened in El Paso was an unconscionable disgrace, and, when we have finished reflecting upon it, we should exert great effort in considering how we might prevent its like from happening again. But if we turn against our key strengths in the process, we will achieve a Pyrrhic victory at best, and, at worst, end up dismantling our inheritance for a mess of pottage. 4. Perhaps the two most dangerous words in all of politics are “Do something!” They are also, alas, among the most common. Less than a day had passed before Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) demanded that Senator Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) convene an emergency session of the Senate in order to pass the House of Representatives’ “universal background check” bill and, as if on cue, a host of his Democratic colleagues had joined him in implying that failure to comply would leave the dissenters with “blood on their hands.” One can only ask … why? The shooter in El Paso did not obtain his firearm without a background check. On the contrary: He passed such a check, as the perpetrators of mass attacks almost invariably do. Why, exactly, would we seek to ensure that a crime such as this does not happen again by passing a law that does not so much as intersect with it? 5. And why, for that matter, would we rush to do anything else besides? Last year, the RAND Corporation—hardly a font of unbridled Patrick Henry-esque libertarianism—conducted a survey of the relevant academic research and failed to find a single gun-control policy that has been proven to reduce mass shootings in the United States. “We found no qualifying studies,” its report concluded bluntly, “showing that any of the 13 policies we investigated decreased mass shootings.” In a free country such as America, one would need to discuss the propriety of taking drastic action even if that action were guaranteed to work; the Second Amendment and its 44 state-level equivalents were passed for good reason, and remain relevant to this day. But given that no such evidence obtains, the question for the “Do something!” crowd bears repeating a little louder: Why? 6. What about the odious, radical, hortatory language that the perpetrator swam in? Surely that should be restricted, given the circumstances? No, no, no. If it is to come, the solution to the rising tide of white-supremacist violence in the United States will not be the product of a sea change in our thinking about individual liberty or of an embrace of European-style “hate speech” legislation, but of sustained government action that, while aggressive, assiduously respects the First Amendment’s circumscriptions. The temptation to remove the websites on which white supremacists and other worthless types congregate is comprehensible, but, under both existing statute and contemporary free-speech jurisprudence, such action would be illegal in America unless and until those websites can be shown to have been explicitly designed to facilitate criminal acts. 8chan, while ugly, does not fit that narrow bill—and it should not be made to fit that narrow bill. Yes, the site is a hotbed of bigotry, hatred, and nascent violence. But for the government to conflate the bad choices that its users are making with the intentions of its owners would be to set a dangerous precedent that would rebound for years to come. 8chan’s stated purpose, remember, is as a designated free-speech zone, not as a tool for racketeers or a directory for hitmen, and its single house rule is “Do not post, request, or link to any content illegal in the United States of America. Do not create boards with the sole purpose of posting or spreading such content.” In consequence, it is undoubtedly protected by both the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act, the latter of which renders users, not platforms, liable for violations of the law. Were the government to step in and attempt to seize it, or to drag 8chan’s owners into court, one can only wonder who would be next. 7. A far better course of action is to leave the government to do what only it can do—to infiltrate, surveil, monitor, assess credible risks, and then move if the impetus is there—and to allow the American citizenry to do the rest, simply by choosing with whom they wish to associate. Under the existing structure of the Internet, there is no wholesale way to prevent the 8chans and the Stormfronts from setting up websites and from communicating online—and, again, there should not be. But there is ample room for America’s tech businesses to decline to provide them with tech support, to decline to help them scale up, and to decline to help protect them. A good analogy here might be with the owner of a printing press. Suppose that a white supremacist writes a Hitler-praising pamphlet that he hopes to distribute en masse and, upon realizing that his inkjet printer is not up to the task, asks a local printer to make 500,000 copies. The owner of the press would, of course, be within his rights to refuse to provide help—and he should. “No,” he might say. “Go home and do it yourself.” Were Cloudflare, Amazon Web Services, and a few others to take a similar approach, the welcome mat would be pulled from underneath some of the worst actors within our ranks. And all without cramping a solitary piece of the American order. 8. Whenever the United States faces a crisis or a tragedy, it is invariably suggested in the press that the country needs a more streamlined political system that is capable of transmuting the transient whims of the majority into concrete action in a matter of days. This view is a dangerous one, and it ought to be resisted at all costs, for when a nation sets up a direct pipeline between its emotions and its laws, it does not keep its liberty for long. There is much that we can—and should—do in order to respond to changing circumstances. We must recognize that there are certain corners of the Internet that are anything but harmless or “ironic”; we must accept that evil ideologies such as white supremacy represent a physical as well as a spiritual problem in America; and we must avoid complacency, even as we defend our elementary rights. But defend them we must. Even—no, especially—when our grief points us in another direction.
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.
- Plagiarism free papers
- Timely delivery
- Any deadline
- Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
- Subject-relevant academic writer
- Adherence to paper instructions
- Ability to tackle bulk assignments
- Reasonable prices
- 24/7 Customer Support
- Get superb grades consistently