When I opened up the New York Times home page today, I searched for an article that I could use to study and then analyze rhetorically. I came upon the perfect article for me to analyze because it is one that I have a definite opinion on, and it would behoove me to learn how to support and negate certain points of an argument that I already possess a strong bias for.
The article is entitled, "Palin's Words Raise Red Flags" and is written by Bob Herbert. I agree completely with this article that shows how unqualified and unprepared Sarah Palin is to be the country's VP as shown in recent interviews; but before I began to analyze, I decided to look at what others had to say to this article on the comment section. This helped me form a solid base of knowledge of the pros and cons of this argument.
Analysis: The argument is an important one, its structure and evidence used is presented effectively, but it does not mention enough support to persuade its main targets.
The purpose of Herbert's argument is to convince the reader that Sarah Palin is not fit to run for VP and should be taken off of the ticket immediately. This claim is a very important one as we get closer and closer to the elections during a difficult time in our country. By persuading readers to challenge Palin's qualifications, that could change the results of the upcoming election completely.
The audience for this argument is all Americans, but the primary target to convince are the Republicans. By persuading Republicans that Palin should not even be considered as the next possible VP, the entire election could change as the Republican party could lose numerous amounts of votes. The article had enough information to confirm that Democrats like me will continue not to support Palin; the argument, however, does not contain enough convincing support to sway the minds of Republicans.
The columnist uses logos in his argument effectively; but he does not use enough to change Republicans' minds. The argument contains two sets of dialogue from an interview with Palin. Palin is questioned about her thoughts regarding foreign affairs with Russia. Herbert places two or three quotes spoken by Palin that show her struggling to answer certain questions, thus showing her as an unqualified candidate. Although the logic is presented well, there is not enough to show that she is completely unprepared. She could have simply been nervous or made a simple mistake and slipped up in her speech momentarily.
The writer, therefore, used some evidence to support his point, but left a lot out. He did show well that Palin does not seem fit for the position of VP of the U.S., as she loses train of thought mid sentence and mutters words about dealing with Russia that just don't make sense. In this article, however, we only are able to view Sarah Palin at this brief moment in time where she spoke only a few words. We see nothing of her actions in the past, her ideas for the future, or other interviews that may have gone better for her. The most difficult targets to persuade, the Republicans that support Palin, will challenge this argument for the facts that have been evaded.
Herbert uses language and style effectively in his argument, as he uses comparisons, quotes, and an attention-grabbing vocabulary. Herbert discusses that when Palin is compared to past leaders such as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford, she does not seem to fit in this list. This causes the reader to picture then what it would be like if Palin were put in the position of these men during the difficult times they faced in office. The writer also uses well selected quotes that really make the reader challenge both the way Palin speaks and presents herself, as well as her thoughts. The words that Herbert uses such as "potential for catastrophe" or "red flags" really get the attention of the reader and have a powerful affect on the reader's point of view.
---------------------------------
This argument is, therefore, convincing to a certain extent, but it does not possess enough evidence to sway the minds of its primary targets, Republicans.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27herbert.html?em
The article is entitled, "Palin's Words Raise Red Flags" and is written by Bob Herbert. I agree completely with this article that shows how unqualified and unprepared Sarah Palin is to be the country's VP as shown in recent interviews; but before I began to analyze, I decided to look at what others had to say to this article on the comment section. This helped me form a solid base of knowledge of the pros and cons of this argument.
Analysis: The argument is an important one, its structure and evidence used is presented effectively, but it does not mention enough support to persuade its main targets.
The purpose of Herbert's argument is to convince the reader that Sarah Palin is not fit to run for VP and should be taken off of the ticket immediately. This claim is a very important one as we get closer and closer to the elections during a difficult time in our country. By persuading readers to challenge Palin's qualifications, that could change the results of the upcoming election completely.
The audience for this argument is all Americans, but the primary target to convince are the Republicans. By persuading Republicans that Palin should not even be considered as the next possible VP, the entire election could change as the Republican party could lose numerous amounts of votes. The article had enough information to confirm that Democrats like me will continue not to support Palin; the argument, however, does not contain enough convincing support to sway the minds of Republicans.
The columnist uses logos in his argument effectively; but he does not use enough to change Republicans' minds. The argument contains two sets of dialogue from an interview with Palin. Palin is questioned about her thoughts regarding foreign affairs with Russia. Herbert places two or three quotes spoken by Palin that show her struggling to answer certain questions, thus showing her as an unqualified candidate. Although the logic is presented well, there is not enough to show that she is completely unprepared. She could have simply been nervous or made a simple mistake and slipped up in her speech momentarily.
The writer, therefore, used some evidence to support his point, but left a lot out. He did show well that Palin does not seem fit for the position of VP of the U.S., as she loses train of thought mid sentence and mutters words about dealing with Russia that just don't make sense. In this article, however, we only are able to view Sarah Palin at this brief moment in time where she spoke only a few words. We see nothing of her actions in the past, her ideas for the future, or other interviews that may have gone better for her. The most difficult targets to persuade, the Republicans that support Palin, will challenge this argument for the facts that have been evaded.
Herbert uses language and style effectively in his argument, as he uses comparisons, quotes, and an attention-grabbing vocabulary. Herbert discusses that when Palin is compared to past leaders such as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford, she does not seem to fit in this list. This causes the reader to picture then what it would be like if Palin were put in the position of these men during the difficult times they faced in office. The writer also uses well selected quotes that really make the reader challenge both the way Palin speaks and presents herself, as well as her thoughts. The words that Herbert uses such as "potential for catastrophe" or "red flags" really get the attention of the reader and have a powerful affect on the reader's point of view.
---------------------------------
This argument is, therefore, convincing to a certain extent, but it does not possess enough evidence to sway the minds of its primary targets, Republicans.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27herbert.html?em
