Rhetorical Analysis Post

            I have decided to analyze the essay “A Government in Thrall to Religion” by Frank R. Zindler.  Although Frank is quite the character, and frankly (ha ha, I’m funny) I don’t like him much, I agree with some of his points.  I think that ignorance is dangerous and I think he is right to be concerned.  A general understanding, or even more important, a lack of misunderstanding, of science is an important quality in a leader in these technologically-abundant times. 

            I think his placement of blame is shoddy, which I will discuss further in my paper.  I also disagree with part of the way he tries to identify with his intended audience.  I think he limits his potential audience on a very important, very universal issue by the way he chooses to portray his argument.

            However, I think he is terribly effective when his intended audience is considered.  He writes well and he intelligently and knowledgably needles Christianity with a few well-placed quips.  He quickly establishes himself and leaves his audience very little question about his beliefs or opinions, which I think is, for the most part, a strength.  He is easily identifiable, but I’m not sure if that makes him more or less of a relatable “rightfully concerned citizen.”

            His logic is sound.  His pathos is inspiring. His ethos leaves somewhat to be desired.   Overall, however, I think this is a well-composed essay, and I look forward to analyzing it.

Response to Faith in America

The purpose of this speech is to gain support for a presidential election.  Specifically by speaking on religion and loyalty.

Ethos:  In this paper, Mitt Romney often refers to history.  He speaks of the founding fathers and their commitment to building a nation under God.  He displays some of the similarities between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other churches, and speaks of the values he learned growing up in the family he did. Doing this, he seeks to establish credibility.  He hopes that showing his respect for the founding fathers will help others respect him (technically an appeal to authority logical fallacy).  He hopes that by showing the similarities between his church and the churches of others, those listening will feel more able to connect with him.  He also hopes to establish himself as a good person based on the values he was taught as a child.

Pathos: Mitt Romney speaks passionately about God, something that many people believe in.  He speaks of how anyone who worships the Almighty is a friend to him.  He speaks of the trouble and hardship our predecessors faced as they struggled to both establish this nation and to maintain it.  There is almost nothing people get more worked up about than their religion.  As Romney appeals to that, he hopes to establish himself as an ally to their passion.  People also tend to feel very strongly about their country.  By referring to our nation’s trials, he hopes to instill a pride and a desire to better the country.

Logos: Mitt Romney clearly outlines how his beliefs will not interfere with his role as president. He broaches topics like keeping God on U.S. currency and in the pledge of allegiance.  He speaks of many of the current challenges that the United States faces. Logically, people want to know that they can trust their president to make the best decisions for them.  Addressing current events also helps people to know that Romney is on top of our country’s problems and prompts them to think about the ways that Romney could help solve those problems.

Op Ed Reflection

            So, first of all, when I first tried to think about a topic for this paper, nothing really came to mind.  So I was actually surprised to discover how easy it was to write three pages on this. 

            I had to really work on not being “whiny.”  Because I was so close to this topic, I wanted to speak in first person all the time.   I had to force myself to be a bit more objective, but I worry that my tone isn’t as . . . steady, maybe? As it could be. 

            I think my paper has quite a lot of pathos.  Maybe too much.  I noticed as I wrote it, and then again as I went back to edit, that my tone got progressively more passionate throughout the paper.  I felt like it sounded almost like I was growing hysterical, which isn’t what I wanted at all.  So I tried to fix that by cutting out some of my first person statements and making it a little less . . . accusing.  I sort of developed an accusing tone in my first draft that I wanted to get rid of.  Hopefully I accomplished that. 

            My paper has either a lot of ethos or very little, depending on the perspective you take.  I’m very close to my topic; I speak with authority there, because I’m an illustration major and people have told me this joke.   But in a way that almost lessens my credibility, because I’m almost too close to the topic.  It diminishes my perceived ability to speak reasonably.  I tried to combat that in my final draft by focusing more on respect in general, rather than respect for art majors, and by including examples of others who I know have been hurt by a lack of respect for their career choices.

            Logically, I feel like my topic is pretty sound.  I don’t feel like it’s too much to ask that we respect each other.  But I felt like my final draft needed some more logos, so I included some statistics on finances and the like.   I don’t feel like logos is my strongest area, but I also don’t feel like it’s weak.

            So, yeah.  I think I need to work on my writing tone a bit more.  I’m not sure how to paper turned out in the end.  I’ll have to give it a few days and then go back and reread it to see what I think.