Divorce and Negativity

Karl Zinsmeister's article "Divorce's Toll on Children" begins with a very strong statistic, "Since 1972, more than a million youngsters have been involved in a divorce each year." (par.1) He automatically starts off by assuming that the readers of his article are more educated than the 'youngsters' he refers to.

Like Madeline stated in her analysis of this article, the author does use quite a bit of overstatement to get his point across. He tries to convince the reader of the idea that children are emotionally affected when their parents are divorced. It is "more common" for children to be more greatly hurt by a divorce than other stressful events. He also talks about how divoced family interaction is "particularly likely" to happen. Using words and phrases such as these alarm the reader and continue to convince them that divorce is truly a negative experience for all of those involved.

In the next part of the article, Zinsmeister uses a somewhat serious and very earnest tone to get his points across. He ways, "children's view of divorce...is a disaster." (par.9) He talks about how to many children, the only thing more difficult to deal with is the death of a loved one. To many kids, divorce could be related to the death of a family, seeing that after divorce it is generally hard to keep strong family ties. Children want to grow up in a 'normal' family home, with both a mother and father. by addressing these things, the author is using his more serious tone to express the severity of teh issue. By using quotations from credible sources, he is able to address the topic with much more authority and believability.

Madeline also stated in her analysis that the author was completely one-sided regarding the issue of divorce. The author only wants to talk about the horrendous and terrible things that divorce can do to a family. While his credible facts completely back up his argument, it is important to be open minded to the other side as well.

The anger he shows towards the issue makes one believe he has had some sort of close encounter with divorce, or divorce related situations. The passion he puts into addressing the effects it has on children make the reader aware of what exactly it can do. Girls are more likely to develop habits like "substance abuse, running away and early sexual activity." (par.30) On the other hand, boys are more likely to become "depressed and angry." (par.30) This makes the reader become emotionally afraid for all children in divorced familites.

The author projects all of his emotions and attitudes through the way and order he expresses his ideas. He makes himself clear through ethos, logos and pathos. He expresses emotion through statements regarding family. He also uses imagery to present the issue in a negative way. It is very effective because he makes the reader want to become more informed about the issue, and also helps him to use his serious tone effectively. He gives reasons and statistics showing that divorce truly does harm families, and makes himself and his words more legitimate by using very well known sources. Karl Zinsmeister succeeded in creating a negative image of divorce by using language tools throughout the entire article.

Why Smoke?

There are many activities that people participate in that are damaging to themselves and those around them. I read the article, “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints, and Healing” by Paul Paryski, MA. He divides the article into three sections: Introduction, Results, and Conclusion. He uses these three categories to organize his facts about the negative effects of smoking on the human body.

He starts off by stating that, “There are roughly 50 million smokers in the United States in spite of a great deal of publicity about the negative effects of smoking on health.” (par.1) By beginning such an article with such a statement, he draws the reader to already reconsider the logic of choosing to smoke. He continues to address how cigarette smoking is becoming rapidly more popular in other countries as well as the United States. He states that they “can least afford either the cost of cigarettes or the cost of their negative effect on health.” (par.1) This is saying that many countries prefer to take part in cigarette smoking, not noting how it effects their health. Also, most struggling countries have so many other health issues to take care of that the effects of smoking might get pushed aside.

The next few paragraphs in the Introduction section talk about the effects that smoking has on health that are hardly ever addressed to the public or by doctors. He says, “The effects of smoking on the musculoskeletal system (bones, joints, muscles) have not been the subject of much publicity, and it has not been given the same attention as other smoking related diseases.” (I.e. cancer) (par.3) The article continues with facts about studies showing that smoking can be directly related to healing. By using information from scientists and other doctors, he makes his claim full of clarity. It makes his supportive evidence more effective.
The author starts off the Results part of the article by stating a statistic. He says, “Of 82 studies, 44 strongly suggest that smoking had a very serious negative impact on the musculoskeletal system.” (par.7) He then lists a few of the 500 different poisonous gases that are released into the lungs during early smoking. Most of them listed are common, yet harmful gases. He continues to talk about the analysis of a study regarding the effect of those harmful chemical and gases. All of the things listed are all horrifyingly painful and would be terrible to live with.

He then concludes by simply stating, “It should be remembered that annually over 500,000 deaths in the United States and millions throughout the world, are caused by smoking.” (par.11)

Not only does this article give reason for why smoking is incredibly harmful, but it gives facts and statistics to support the argument. The author also cites a credible and authoritative source (a book written by and orthopedic surgeon) to back up his facts. If people would read this article, their logic and thoughts towards smoking would be changed. If the reader was not a smoker, they would just be assured more that smoking is something that is extremely harmful to everyone. If the reader was a smoker, the facts and ideas stated in the article would influence him to rethink his reasons for why he smokes and thus causing his logic to change. Not only does the author prove once again that smoking is harmful, but that it has hidden damages that it causes. Many people think that the only thing that smoking does is cause cancer and shorten lives, however, there are many things that occur in the human body that many are not aware of. The author opens their eyes to the many other life threatening problems smoking can cause. Smoking not only can damage and eventually kill you, but can also hurt those around you.

Paryski, Paul. "The Negative Effects of Smoking on bones, Joints and Healing." Health and Age.com. N.p, 18 June 2009.Web. 25 September 2009.

The musculoskeletal effects of smoking. SE. Porter, EN. Hanley Jr, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2001, vol.9, pp.9--17.

A Man of God

May You Have Courage

If a BYU student stood up one day in the Wilkinson Center and began preaching against the doctrine of the Church, people would be astounded. First of all, nobody would listen, because what credibility does this person have? They are just an ordinary student with no particular significance. Also, they are preaching to the wrong audience. They are trying to convince to members of the Church, who made the conscious decision to attend Brigham Young University, a private-LDS college, that the Church is proclaiming false doctrine. Obviously, they do not understand who they are addressing. Along with this, they are not credible. Therefore, this person’s proclamation would not be effective because their ethos, or credibility, is not sufficient.

In order to gain the respect of others, one must act how they want to be treated. If one wants to be trusted, they must prove they are trustworthy. If somebody else wants to stand as a faithful Latter-day Saint, they must prove through their actions that they live the standards and stand up for what they believe. Their credibility and honor stand out to others and they become believable. One such man with a great ethos is the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Thomas S. Monson.

Whenever President Monson addresses a group of people, they listen attentively as if what he has to say will change their lives forever. Why does he have such power? In his recent address in April 2009, President Monson spoke to the young women of the church. He begins, “My dear young sisters, what a glorious sight you are” (par. 1). He addresses the women in a respectful and dignified manner. He talks with elegance and poise, truly speaking as the servant of the Lord. In our day, manners become rarer with each encounter. People degrade each other and speak negatively about others. President Monson expresses his love for the young women of the church, and they recognize his honesty and sincerity.

Other powerful attributes which enhance President Monson’s ethos is his intelligence and humility. He relies on the Savior’s teaching and life to portray the only perfect example. He quotes him to support his claim that we should love everybody; “’By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another’” (par. 12). President Monson turns to the Savior because he recognizes that he is only a man, and in order to become perfected in Christ, we must turn to him and his teachings in all things. Therefore, his credibility increases as he admits he must rely on the Savior, just as all of us must.

President Monson does not falter or justify the Church’s teachings. He boldly states, “The commandments of our Heavenly Father are not negotiable” (par. 24)! He sticks up for the truth and presents his authority as the spokesperson of our Heavenly Father. This power of inspiration truly comes as he addresses what the daughters of God on the earth need to hear. Our world is full of hatred, viciousness, technological and virtuous problems. The purpose of his address was to show to women that they need to stand for courage in this day. He uses great examples, modern and scriptural, to appeal to women of how to be faithful and courageous. You know he loves you as he says, “My earnest prayer is that you will have courage…as you do so,…your life will be filled with love and peace and joy” (par. 55). He clearly demonstrates his concern for all the young women of the church through his love for the Savior and our Heavenly Father.

President Monson is a miraculous man. There is no question of his authority as he addresses and presents himself. His credibility, kindness, generosity, humility, and love for the Savior stand out and all people recognize the person he is.

"a date that will live in infamy"

FDR's speech after the attack on Pearl Harbor

On December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a speech to the vice president, the speaker of the House, members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives, and to the American people. The attack on the Hawaiian islands was a shock to everyone, especially because the Japanese had appeared to be cooperating previously. Roosevelt uses ethos to appeal to his audience by his formality, his position, and his concise reasoning which all lead the U.S. to declare war.

The reasoning Roosevelt uses is simple and builds his credibility because he knows what he's talking about. He explains that “the United States was at peace with [Japan] and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific” (par. 2). This is backed up with proof in the next paragraph about the U.S. receiving a letter from Japan an hour after the attack that contained no threats of war. Roosevelt continues to clarify the situation as he discusses the immediate effects of the attack. Also discussed are the other attacks Japan made in the same day. The specific names and places and details all work together to build his credibility.

Along these lines, Roosevelt speaks with clarity and formality to build the ethos of his argument for declaring war. He address the important leaders in the government in an official way. As he speaks, he uses formal language to reinforce his position and the fact that he knows what he's doing. FDR doesn't sugar-coat anything or beat around the bush. He just states things how they are. An example of this is when he says “The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost” (par. 5). He keeps the speech focused and just shares the reality of the situation. This formality establishes his credibility and makes him sound like someone who should be listened to.

However, Roosevelt already had ethos on his side because of his rank. At the time, he was president of the United States of America. This is a very high position and people usually listen to the president. He also is “commander in chief of the Army and Navy” and specifically uses this to remind the audience of his status and place (par. 8). However, Roosevelt doesn't place himself too far about the regular people of America. He uses phrases like “our whole nation” and “no matter how long it may take us” and “we will gain the inevitable triumph” to include himself in the whole of America (par. 8, 9, 12). This keeps him credible but also doesn't distance him from the audience too much.

All of these tactics help build the ethos of his speech. Roosevelt presents himself as a credible person with moral character who should be paid attention to. The formality, clarity, and clear reasoning, along with his position as president of the United States, establish him to be the person he is and gives him great influence. It would be difficult to not declare war after a person like Roosevelt presents such a solid argument.

If Kids Stay in School...

When President Obama announced his plans to speak to schoolchildren across the United States, many parents, especially those of the "Right-Wing," became very upset. Believing the President intended to brainwash their children with his "socialist policies," some parents chose to remove their children from school for the day, allowing their fears of socialism to dominate rationality. In his political cartoon, Bill Schorr illustrates the logical fallacies used by opponents to Obama's speech, errors in reasoning that reveal the irrationalities of their opinions.

Using three different panels in his political cartoon, Bill Schorr shows how logical fallacies can arise when logical syllogisms are used incorrectly. As defined by Aristotle, logical syllogisms are a form of logic in which Statement A equals Statement B, Statement B equals Statement C, with a conclusion that Statement A must equal Statement C. With each of the panels representing a statement, an easy conclusion is drawn between panels A and B; that is, if children go to school, they will be educated voters. Likewise, panels B and C can also be seen to correlate, although through a hasty generalization. Using Aristotle's logic, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must also equal C. In this case, Obama's opponents, as parodied by Schorr, utilize a failed logical syllogism. Children attending school are not indicative of the eventual political power of the Republican Party: there are too many outside variables influencing not only the choices of voters, but the type of education children earn as well. In this manner, a logical fallacy is created, an unfounded syllogism stemming from the irrationality of overly concerned parents.

As mentioned above, a hasty generalization is also made between panels B and C, resulting in a logical fallacy. Jumping to the conclusion that educated voters will lead to the demise of the Republican Party is a false notion. As seen throughout history, educated voters belong to both major political parties in about equal numbers, resulting in the continual change in power within American politics. Simply believing that educated voters are preventing the Republican Party from returning to power is also a denial of other, more conclusive factors that affect the choices of voters, educated and casual supporters alike. This conclusion, made by members of the GOP and other individuals, needs more evidence before the platform of the Republican Party is dismantled by hopeless party leaders.

Another logical fallacy also occurs in the oversimplification of the concerns surrounding President Obama's speech. As illustrated above, the GOP is afraid of losing all power; however, not only do they misattribute this fear to Obama's speech, but they also define their fear by a single issue. Rather than identifying the many causes of the Democratic Party's current control of law-making in the federal government, Republican parents who pulled their children out of school are using the President's pep talk as an easy explanation for grievances concerning their political party. Oversimplifying the reasons for an event may be easier to explain to a general audience, but such explanations do not strengthen an argument, especially when extreme measures, such as keeping children home from school, are taken.

Though limited in its scope in addressing the concerns of antagonists to President Obama's speech, Bill Schorr's political cartoon provides a clear illustration of faulty logical reasoning. Arising in many aspects of the arguments given by parents and members of the GOP alike, logical fallacies show the irrationality of the hype concerning the President's supposed brainwashing pep talk. Socialist or not, better logical reasoning is needed before keeping children home from school in order to prevent them from hearing a speech by the President of the United States.

Schorr, Bill. "Cagle Cartoons." Cartoon. Daryl Cagle's Poltical Cartoon Index. msnbc.com, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

The Power of A Ban

One article can be emotionally appealing to many different types of people. I read the article the “Anatomy of a Ban”, written by Alina Hoffman and Ann Friedman. This article compares two proposed abortion bans and compares the language that is presented in both of them. The law in South Dakota was not nearly as strongly worded as the one (H.B.1) proposed in Georgia. By reading the texts compared, it makes it clear that the anti-abortionists in Georgia are much more emotionally attached to the issue.
Pathos is more about getting the reader to experience a single emotion. The legislation that will be proposed by Georgia not only makes a much bolder statement, it is a much more effectively worded document. In the article, the Georgia proposal quotes the Roe v. Wade document, making their argument very credible and believable. It quotes, “man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [to the question of when life begins] (par.5).” The emotion portrayed in this statement shows that the writers of the document do think that knowledge is present, but that it cannot be the determining factor in all decisions.
The article then moves on to talk about if women should be prosecuted for having abortions. South Dakota talked about how they should not be bothered for their personal decisions. However; Georgia went into detail about how women “should be convicted of felony and punished” for the killing of a human fetus (par.9). They present their argument in such a forceful way that makes me believe that this issue is very important to them. Reading the article makes me question if this issue is as important to me as it is to them. Feelings are aroused through the strength of their words, and the position that they are taking on this ongoing issue.
Many reasons are given as to why the anti-abortionists feel that abortion should be banned. Not only do they give reasons as to why it should be illegal, but also ways that legalized abortion has damaged communities and homes in our country. They state facts that make the reader know that what they say is credible, and they also arouse an emotion of fear as they present the harmful damages that abortions can cause families.
The writers of H.B.1 also reach out to another crowd when they reference to Susan B. Anthony. As one of the greatest women in American history, her words about any issue are going to be greatly respected, regardless of the subject. She called abortion “child murder (par.12).” Due to the face that she cared so much about the rights and safety of other people, her statements are very credible. The bill also states that “legalized abortion has had a profound detrimental effect on the health and well-being of citizens of this state as well as the health of the community (par.12).” This poses a threat against citizens of the country and can invoke fear in the hearts of the readers and get them to start to side with their thoughts. The writers of the bill use pathos to get readers to become emotionally attached to the issue. Those reading it start to see the emotion put into the argument and from the fury of the arguers, they begin to feel some of the same fury towards the issue of legalization of abortion.
H.B.1 lays out the ideas of the anti-abortionists very strongly and quite explicitly. However; it is not inappropriate in any way. It is very radical, and many people do not expect it to pass due to its’ extreme nature. The article is bursting with passion and anger as the wishes of the groups are vividly expressed. They start to make one wonder about their moral beliefs by presenting a credible and valid argument with strong and powerful emotion.



Hoffman, Alina and Friedman, Ann. "Anatomy of a Ban." The American Prospect, 22 January 2007. Web. 23 Sep. 2009.

Human Effects on the Environment

The correct language used in an article has a strong affect on how people respond to the author’s argument. One must know their audience and how to approach them in a dignified and respectful manner, as well as saying what they believe and want to convince the readers of. In Perspectives of the Environment, Jutka Terris writes an article titled, “Unwelcome (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife”. Many emotions can be stirred with this article and the type of language she uses will be analyzed.

In order to successfully reach out to an audience, you must know how they think and react to certain situations. Terris reaches out to those who are eco-friendly, care about the environment, and especially those who care about animal conservation. But what about the readers who do not agree with animal conservation? If they were to read this article, would they be convinced through Terri’s argument to become conservationists? The first thing a reader notices is the title. It catches their attention and makes them curious. This title, “Unwelcome (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife”, is unique and may catch the attention of readers, perhaps not in a good way. Nobody likes to hear that humans are unwelcome. As a society, power has become the norm and anything depriving somebody of that power is assumed to be bad. Thus, when this author states that people are unwelcome, the suggestion that animals are more important and more powerful comes to mind. This may increase the number of people who read the article, just out of anger, or there are those who readily agree with Terris. Thus, the phrasing of this title affects certain audiences in different ways.

The language an author uses is very important. Terris enhances the effect of human expansion on animals by using imagery. Such an example follows, “In just the last few decades, rapidly growing human settlements have consumed large amounts of land in our country, while wildlife habitats have shrunk, fragmented, or disappeared altogether” (Terris, 45). The words “consumed”, “shrunk”, “fragmented”, and “disappeared” all create a negative connotation. This connotation allows readers to recognize how our own development in rural and urban communities destroys the habitats of animals. It also allows readers to imagine what is occurring and people can literally see how their own growth affects not only themselves, but the animals around them. Terris reaches out to the emotion of people, or pathos, assuming that by creating a visualization of the destruction of animal habitats, people will want to change how they live and change society. Therefore, the use of imagery allows readers to understand and relate emotionally to the author’s argument.

Another writing tactic to entice readers is overstatement, or hyperbole. The use of exaggeration makes readers think a situation is worse or better than it actually may be. Terris enhances her argument by using overstatements like when stating, “In Southern California, another booming area, the coastal sage ecosystem is unraveling. Sprawling developments has wiped out…this landscape…and, as a result, the region has experienced a dramatic loss of native species” (Terris, 47). By using “wiped out” and “dramatic loss” an exaggeration causes readers to think that all species living in Southern California are annihilated and cannot live there. Terris does not specify what has exactly happened to unravel the ecosystem, creating an overstatement and a generalization. Readers should question where this information comes from and how reliable the source is. Thus, when overstatements and generalizations are used, readers should be wary and inquire of the credibility of the author and their ethos.

The language used affects readers in certain ways. Language catches their attention and encourages them to read further to understand what argument is being presented. Other types of language will distract readers and leave them uninterested. In Terris’ article, she tries to connect with readers emotionally through imagery and overstatements. Her generalizations can reach many types of audiences, but ultimately she reaches out to those who desire to help the ecosystem and animal habitats. Thus, her use of language affects her argument and supports how people should be wary of the effect they have on the ecosystem.

FASTSKIN: PRO Advertising

For people all around the world, the Olympics are a greatly anticipated event. With millions of eyes glued to television screens, hours are spent watching prime-time television, allowing viewers to be exploited by commercial advertisers. Products used in actual Olympic events grow in popularity: companies such as Speedo use successful athletes to promote their merchandise. In one such commercial, Speedo advertises the FASTSKIN FS-PRO competition suit using the athletic success of champion swimmer, Michael Phelps.

Though only thirty seconds long, Speedo, in their 2007 commercial featuring Michael Phelps, manages to send a clear message to viewers. Using energetic music that increases in intensity until the end of the video clip, the advertisement excites viewers not only aurally, but visually as well: the sight of an American flag on Phelps’ swim cap promotes patriotism, the show of Phelps’ muscular physique gives the ad a sexual appeal, and the use of the color red, a symbol of authority, represents Phelps’ domineering athletic success. Each of these examples subtly increases Phelps’ credibility as a representative for Speedo, giving consumers greater incentive to purchase a FASTSKIN suit.

Speedo further establishes ethos, a sense of credibility for their product, by presenting a brief résumé of Phelps’ accomplishments in the swimming pool. Periodically flashing text across the screen, Speedo lists Phelps’ achievements, immediately identifying him as one of the world’s greatest athletes. Citing his credentials in descending order, beginning with the 13th FINA World Championships 2007, to his 7 Olympic Gold Medals and 5 World Records, anyone who doesn’t know the identity of Michael Phelps can now be assured of his swimming prowess.* By listing Phelps’ accomplishments, Speedo seemingly says, “Michael is a winner. He wears our suit,” thus encouraging consumers that, in order to be winners like Michael, one must wear a FASTSKIN suit. In this manner, viewers come to believe and trust that Speedo’s product must be the best if Michael Phelps wears it.

In using Michael Phelps to endorse the FASTSKIN FS-PRO competition suit, however, Speedo presents a flawed argument with the fallacy of false authority. Phelps’ athletic ability in the swimming pool has nothing to do with the suit he wears. Granted, some swimming suits, depending on the material from which they are made, decrease water resistance and increase speed; however, wearing a fast suit does not guarantee becoming an Olympic Medalist. Furthermore, Phelps’ does not have any authority to officially endorse the FASTSKIN suit. While an expert in textiles can explain the reasoning behind the advantages of wearing a FASTSKIN suit as opposed to a polyester-spandex blend, Michael Phelps does not have a college degree, let alone education in chemical engineering or textiles. Because of Phelps’ false authority, consumers must keep in mind that swimming suits are only as fast as the person who wears them.

Sans music, flashing lights, and the Olympic Medalist, Michael Phelps, Speedo’s advertisement for the competition swimming suit, FASTSKIN FS-PRO, lacks credibility and appeal to convince consumers to purchase their product. Upon referencing Michael Phelps swimming achievements, however, Speedo gains authority and influence in the eyes of customers. Marketing the FASTSKIN suit with Michael Phelps’ endorsement, Speedo is indeed successful, selling their swimwear to viewers of the Olympics throughout the world.

*Note: This advertisement is dated. Phelps’ achievements-to-date include 14 Olympic Gold Medals, 6 World Records, and a 13th FINA World Championships 2009.

Michael Phelps Speedo Commercial. YouTube. YouTube, 2007. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Divorce's Toll on Children

Karl Zinsmeister - Divorce's Toll on Children

In Karl Zinsmeiseter's article "Divorce's Toll on Children", he explains why divorce is such a horrible event for the children involved. He claims that young children involved in divorces become "passive watchers", "dependent, demanding, unaffectionate, and disobedient". Zinmeister uses specific language tools to discuss the negative effects of divorce on the children including tone, specific statistics, and overstatement.

Throughout the entire article, the author uses overstatement as a tool to pursuade the audience of the long-term negative effects for children created by divorce. He uses phrases like "very rare" and "most often" to accentuate the gravity of a situation. The interesting thing is that he uses this terms so often that it loses its effect. Zinmeister uses overstatements in order to persuade the readers that divorce is such a horrible experience for the children.

For example, he says that "fully 15 percent of all teenagers living with divorced mothers have been booted from school at least temporarily". He uses the words "fully", "all", and "booted" which makes the reader feel like this is a big deal (157). However, we could rewrite it to say that 15 percent of teenagers living with divorced mothers have had in-school suspensions. It'd be interesting to look up the percentage of all teenagers who have been booted from school and compare. The argument Zinmeister presents is very one-sided.

However, even though they only come from his side of the argument, Zinmeister uses specific statistics to build ethos. He tries to build credibility with different studies sponsored by reliable institutions and people such as the University of Pittsburgh, National Survey of Children, and University of Hawaii psychiatrist John McDermott. The direct quotes from these sources and people actually experienced with divorce. It's hard to disagree when he quotes psychologist John Guibubaldi, past president of the National Association of School Psychologists and says "the weight of the evidence has become overwhelming on the side that [the adjustments kids make] aren't [healthy] (154). Another example of pure fact being presented is when he says "indeed, Gallup youth surveys in the early 1990s show that three out of four teenagers age 13 to 17 think 'it is too easy for people in this country to get divorced'" (153). All of these examples show how he builds credibility by using specific examples and numbers to prove his point.

Tone is the most important language tool used in the article. Word choice is crucial and Zinmeister makes sure to choose words and phrases to lead his readers a certain direction. His words have certain connotations and feelings attatched. For example, he calls divorce a "marital rupture" and that the children "feel torn in two" (152, 153). The imagery in these phrases describes divorce as a breakage or as something destructive. He also uses words like "youngster", "only", "all", "surprisingly large", and "overwhelming" in order to exagerate or draw attention to something. The word "youngster" makes the children seem really young and innocent. This, in turn, causes the reader to be sympathetic to the plight of children with divorced families.

Because Zinmeister is able to use language tools so effectively, he's able to convince his readers that divorce does create long-term negative effects for children. He builds pathos, logos, and ethos by using overstatement, word choice, tone, statistics, and imagery. All of this works together to create a solid argument that divorce is definitely not a good thing for the children involved.

Feline Delinquency

As is known by all birdwatchers, feline delinquency is a serious problem, threatening to end the hobby of bird-loving enthusiasts. Attempting to control the nature of cats, however, is a great folly, as recognized by Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Using satiric language in order to express his disapproval for the so-called “Cat Bill” passed by the Illinois State Legislature in 1949, Governor Stevenson appropriately vetoes the bill in a humorous and witty manner.

The tone of Stevenson’s address to the Illinois State Legislature is one that is both professional as well as sarcastic. Immediately he begins by addressing the Illinois State Senate as “honorable;” furthermore, he ends his letter signing his name following “respectfully” (par. 1, 8). By beginning and ending with a respectful tone, Stevenson is able to rise above the frivolity of his legislature by acting in a professional manner. Stevenson is also sensible and pragmatic as he addresses concerns from the “Cat Bill.” For example, he addresses the nature of both cats and their owners, stating, “To escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the cat, and to permit it to venture forth for exercise unattended into a night of new dangers is against the nature of the owner” (par. 5). By considering the negative effects of this bill upon the citizens of his state, as well as the illogical and unreasonable requirements stemming from this legislation, Stevenson, although sardonically deriding the irrationality of limiting the natural freedoms of cats, is able to effectively address his reasons for vetoing the “Cat Bill.”

Stevenson’s word choice, or diction, is also especially appropriate as he negates the legislative action taken by the Illinois State Senate. Using words with negative connotations, such as “impose,” “imprison,” and “capture,” it is evident Stevenson is keeping the concerns of his audience in mind by appealing to the needs of both the citizens of Illinois as well as their representatives (par. 3). Such words indicate not only the unrealistic nature of the bill, but also aid in persuading the legislature that this bill, although not always discussed in a “serious vein,” would impact the lives of citizens in a negative manner (par. 4). Stevenson also lists some of the useful qualities of cats, describing them as “perform[ing] a useful service” especially in “combating rodents” (par. 5). Through diction which creates a positive image for cats, Stevenson is able to further convince his legislature that cats, although at times carnivorous, are not necessarily an evil to society.

Along with Stevenson’s appropriate choice of words, the figurative language used in his address, especially that of imagery, strengthens his argument against the “Cat Bill.” By describing the bill as an excuse for “small game hunt by zealous citizens,” Stevenson portrays the proponents of the “Cat Bill” as camouflage wearing citizens creating “discord, recrimination, and enmity” (par. 6). Stevenson also invokes the image of a cat on a leash, a sight that is unnatural for both cats and their human counterparts. Finally, Stevenson uses a simile to describe the classic food-chain problem of cat versus bird, saying it is “as old as time” (par. 6). By comparing the cat versus bird dilemma to time’s infinite age, Stevenson reveals the perpetual nature of fighting against animals’ basic survival instincts, raising such issues as “dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm” (par. 6).

By using rhetorical tools and techniques in support of his opinion, Stevenson provides convincing and logical reasoning in order to veto the infamous “Cat Bill.” Although satiric in nature, Stevenson’s address sensibly ensured the freedoms of cats in Illinois through his presentation of an effective and persuasive argument. Though a seemingly trivial issue, Governor Stevenson, in vetoing the “Cat Bill” prevented other serious social issues from plaguing the state of Illinois: feline delinquents crowding the state’s prison system.

Stevenson, Adlai. Veto Messages of Adlai E. Stevenson, Governor of Illinois, on Senate and House Bills Passed by the 66th General Assembly of Illinois. 23 Apr. 1949. Address.

The Title of Liberty

What classifies a true hero? Perhaps one may say that a hero is somebody who uses super powers to prevail against evil, but a true hero is one who portrays courage as they stand for truth and righteousness. In our history, many men and women act in courage, but one particular man changed the lives of many as he stood up for what he believed in during a time of evil. This man was Captain Moroni. While wickedness prevailed, Moroni took a stand and delivered his "Title of Liberty" speech at the right time, with the right people, at the right place.

In 73 B.C. a wicked man named Amalickiah desired to be king of the Nephites. The people were “led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, [and] if they would support him and establish him to be their king…he would make them rulers over the people” (Alma 46:5). Therefore, the people began to be desirous of his cunning and wicked ways, and the land of Zarahemla became a wicked land. When Captain Moroni heard of the wickedness of the people and of Amalickiah, he knew he must act. He tore a piece of his coat and wrote, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12), on it. With this message fastened to a pole, he went unto the people and waved the banner as he proclaimed, “Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant and they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them” (Alma 46:20).

Through his proclaim, Moroni affectively touched the lives of the right people, by being at the right place, at the right time. Thus, a moment of kairos was established. Amalickiah wished for the people of Zarahemla to follow his reign and to become a selfish and wicked people. He lured them into his attractive ideas of becoming rulers of the people and many began following him. His selfish ideals only benefited him, yet the Nephites believed his lies. If Moroni had not acted at the time he had, the Nephites would have succumb to Amalickiah. They would be a wicked people, and the righteous would dissipate. Therefore, Moroni gave his “Title of Liberty” speech at the opportune moment.

Moroni was “chief commander of the armies of the Nephites” (Alma 46:11) during the days Helaman preached to the people. Helaman was in the process of establishing churches across the land when the people began to lose sight of the Lord and become wicked. This occurrence was prevalent in the land of Zarahemla, where Moroni was. He saw the wickedness prevailing and gave his speech to a land where “brethren were gathered together against their brethren” (Alma 46:1). He knew he must touch the lives of the people of Zarahemla and influence their hearts to turn to the Lord once again; otherwise any righteousness would be destroyed. Thus, Moroni spoke at the right place at the right time.

Although wickedness was beginning to prosper, few righteous people remained. If Moroni had not addressed this particular group of people at the time he did and the place he did, these righteous people may have fallen and joined the wicked. After Moroni had proclaimed to the people, “the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God” (Alma 46:21). They were ready to act and support Moroni in his righteous endeavors. They did not agree with Amalickiah and were waiting for something to happen for their neighbors, friends, and family to be reminded of the Lord. It was the opportune moment and because he spoke at the right place, at the right time to the right people, “they began to have peace again in the land” (Alma 46:37).

The definition of kairo is to act at the right place, to the right people, at the right time. Moroni acted fearlessly in a time when wickedness prevailed. He stood and acted on the Lord’s side, proclaiming to the people of Zarahemla to stand with him in righteousness and serve the Lord. The timing of his proclamation to the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla was perfect. So perfect, that it changed the wicked effects of Amalickiah and peace prospered once again in the land. Through his “Title of Liberty” proclamation, Moroni acted as a true hero and a perfect example of kairo was established.

Influence of Time

Words can have such great power and influence in the lives of humans. There have been many speeches given by authoritative figures in American history that could have been directly related to kairos. Kairos means the right time, at the right place, with the right people. I read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech. Back in the early 1950's and 1960's, segregation was nothing but common amongst American citizens. People were accustomed to those of other ethnicities being below them and not allowing them to have the same rights as those 'true Americans'. Martin Luther King became aware of these issues at a very early age. He grew up in a very religious family and became a pastor at just the age of 25. Martin Luther gathered facts and began to find people that supported him, both of the African American race, and that of others as well.


Segregation and unequal treatment had been going on for years before Martin Luther King Jr. became involved in the issues. African Americans had been treated unfairly by other citizens as well as government authorities (i.e. police officers). There had been many cases of children being harassed for drinking out of a 'whites only' drinking fountain. Rosa Parks had gotten arrested for not moving from her seat for a white citizen. People were aware of the issue, whether they wanted to be or not. When Martin delivered his speech on August 28, 1963, people were ready to hear what he said. People were ready to have a leader step up and take charge to change the views of those who weren't being fair. Martin Luther King delivered his speech with impeccable timing, and those who were there recieved it with all of the power that he delievered it with. He said, "One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition." (par.3) He addressed the true fact that African American's progress towards equality had hardly moved over hundreds of years. Everyone knew that it was time to make a change, and by giving it when he did, he woke up many Americans as to the horrific treatment that was occuring in this country.

Martin Luther King Jr. chose a prime place to deliver his memorable speech. Delivering it in Washington D.C. showed numerous things about him, and also affected his speech. By giving it in such a monumental place in the country, many people were exposed to what he was saying. It showed that he had courage and that he was willing to fully back up the issue at hand. He chose a place that was a neutral zone. It would have been much less effective if he were to have given it in Alabama, because of the heavier concentration of African Americans. Washington D.C. at that time had an ample amount of many different races, thus making it much more effective. By having his speech in D.C, he made many people think that he had faith in the issue. Having it in such an important location showed that he had confidence in the issue of segregation being solved. Many people became inspired to help push for the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment because of his speech.


Going along with that, hundreds of thousands of Americans attended the speech. Not only were the vast majority of them supporters, but there were many protestors there as well. The protestors were there to try to boycott the speech, but regardless, they were there to hear what he had to say. Supporters came from all across the country to hear this monumental speech, and it was broadcasted on many television and radio stations. Many people, even not in attendance, were affected by the power with which he delivered the speech. Many people became actively involved in the issues after his speech because of how he aroused emotions in American citizens. Martin Luther related to the people by talking about his dreams and his wishes to make America the best country it can be. He persuades the citizens because they are able to feel the sincerity of his words.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech was directly related to kairos. The timing of his speech during these difficult times helped to make it more effective. He delivered it to many different races of Americans, making it a monumental speech. He got many people aware of, and involved in the issues at hand. Delivering it Washington D.C. gave the speech the edge that it needed. It showed that he was a true leader and that he genuinely cared about treatment of all citizens. His courageousness proved him to be one of the most influential leaders that would ever live. Due to his speech and the dedication to the issue at hand, segregation became illegal and African Americans were given fair treatment.


American Rhetoric Top 100 American Speeches. 2001-2009. American Rhetoric. 18 September
2009 <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm>.

RA Post #1 "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

FDR's Inaugural Speech

March 4, 1933

The Great Depression was triggered in the United States by the stock market crash of October 29, 1929, also known as Black Tuesday. After the crash, profits plunged, prices dropped, and income fell. In the United States, unemployment rose to 25 percent. The nation was hungry for physical and emotional sustenance and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's election came at just the right time. Roosevelt delivered his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933 to a "stricken nation" in need of reassurance and heavy dose of morale booster (par. 22). Kairos is definitely an important part of this speech as he talks to the right people (the Americans in the 1930's) at the right place (inaugural speech) at the right time (during the Depression). In his speech, Roosevelt reaches out to the people of the United States at the perfect time in order to call the nation to action.

Roosevelt is using the opportunity of his inauguration well to talk to the right people. The Americans of the 1930's needed to have their spirits lifted and needed someone to lead them to change. His rhetoric is perfect for his audience. He talks about how "happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort" (par. 8). The 25 percent of Americans without jobs and everyone else who was getting less pay would have liked to hear that happiness doesn't come from having money. He goes on to invoke friendly feelings of teamwork when he speaks of "the American spirit of the pioneer" and the "policy of the good neighbor" (par. 16, 17). Roosevelt's speech was for all Americans who were listening all together. The people of the United States needed to work together in order to pull out of the Depression.

Roosevelt not only talks to the right people but he does it in the right place. Every person in the United States was aware of the changes in presidential office. In the 1932 election, Roosevelt won by a landslide with Hoover carrying only six states and less than 40 percent of the popular vote. People were obviously interested to hear what he had to say and therefore either listen to or read his speech. If one wants the people to hear something, a speech, specifically an inaugural speech, is an excellent way. He's able to give specific ideas for restoration and change. Roosevelt discusses "the putting of first things first", "lines of attack", and then "interdepence on each other" while showing the steps of how he plans on putting the country back together (par. 15, 14,18). What better place than the inauguration to address the people on how the "nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper" (par. 1)?

The final piece to making the kairos situation perfect is using rheotric at the right time. Roosevelt begins his speech by sympathizing with the people and discussing their "common difficulties" (par. 3). He doesn't try to sugar coat the situation but instead says that "only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment" (par. 4). At the time of his inauguration, the country was in a sad state. Many were unemployed, people were going hungry, and despair was around every corner. Roosevelt came into office at a tough time, in the midst of an incredibly large financial crisis. The timing was just right for him to come in and lift the country.

After sympathizing and including himself as an American, and after giving encouragement, Roosevelt builds up to a call to action. He says "this Nation is asking for action, and action now" (par. 10). This need for action is supported by the fact that the tasks ahead "can never be helped by merely talking about it" and Roosevelt says "we must act, we must act quickly" (par.12). The kairos of the situation, the right people at the right place at the right time, works so well for him that he is able to instill a fresh vision in the American people. The people were able to press forward to strengthen each other and the country, fortified by the fact that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (par. 2).

Stale Beer

For some people, old news is good news. Issues of the past never seem to die. Though the general public has moved on to formulate opinions on new, more relevant community concerns, there are some who attempt to drum up support for subjects that have long since been forgotten by the majority of citizens. Such is the case with JoAnn Hamilton and the Bountiful City liquor license laws.

Bountiful, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Utah, is a community that traces its roots to the Mormon pioneers, an influence still seen in many of the city’s family-centered ordinances. One such regulation included a liquor law forbidding the distribution of alcohol within 600 feet of a public building. Considered a non-issue by most citizens, this liquor law remained uncontested until El Matador, a popular, local restaurant, received a building permit to construct a new location 412 feet away from the local library. It was not until three weeks before the restaurant’s completion that the owner, Artoosh Hasration, was told serving alcohol in his restaurant violated city law. Appealing to Mayor Joe Johnson and the Bountiful City Council, Hasration sparked a debate concerning dated liquor laws and family values. Many citizens, including Hamilton, a national advocate for children and families, petitioned the city to uphold traditional morals.

Faced with enraged citizens or allowing business to come to the city, Mayor Johnson and City Council members finally voted on 11 December 2007, changing the city ordinance and allowing El Matador to obtain a liquor license. Although public discussion occurred in numerous city council meetings, through the local newspaper, “The Davis County Clipper,” and in other, appropriate civic settings, the decision of the city effectively ended debate. As seen in her 16 July 2009 letter to the editor, some citizens, including Hamilton, have not laid the issue to rest.

Now, almost two years later, Hamilton is still concerned about the city’s decision, upset at the “nastiness, manipulative behavior” of the mayor and city council (par. 15). Granted, her trepidation concerning the proceedings of the mayor and the city council may be valid; however, using her own form of mudslinging techniques, Hamilton’s complaints against Mayor Johnson using two-year old dirt is not an effective form of persuasion. The El Matador liquor license debate has long since passed the critical moment for decision-making. In fact, this period of kairos, the opportune moment for persuasion and argumentation, occurred in December 2007, before the Bountiful City Council granted El Matador a beer license. Hamilton, although justly concerned for the community’s well-being, is seemingly too late in her debate: although she can “see the issue going nationwide,” the rest of the community has since moved on (par. 14). The issue of beer near the library has since disintegrated.

Ironically, through criticizing Mayor Johnson for his role in the El Matador liquor issue, Hamilton has opened her own can of worms, and, as a result, harming the campaign of her family-friendly candidate, Jeff Novak. Subsequent editorials responding to her claims against the incumbent have drummed up extensive support for Mayor Johnson, who, in the recent mayoral primaries, won 67 percent of the vote, with Jeff Novak, Hamilton’s candidate, receiving only 24 percent of the vote. In attempting to discredit Bountiful’s current mayor, Hamilton appears to have given him November’s election.

Hamilton’s editorial reveals the importance of kairos, the presentation of an argument in the correct manner at the most opportune time. Though her concern for the community is commendable, Hamilton illustrates that issues of the past are best left alone, especially when the prime moment for argumentation has long since ended. Old news, therefore, is never good news, when attempting to persuade a forward-looking audience.

Hamilton, JoAnn. Letter. Davis County Clipper 16 July 2009. Web. 17 Sep. 2009.