Analysis Of The Article ' The Body Paragraphs '

943 WordsApr 14, 20174 Pages
After first reviewing the article, it came to the reader’s attention that Neltner was providing the stronger argument. Neltner believed that smarter investments and stricter oversight were the key to providing safe drinking water to the public. When speaking to the reader in the introduction, he used a first person point of view to attract the reader’s attention. For example, the word “we” was used to make the reader feel involved in the subject. A similar method was utilized in the conclusion to remind the reader that they were included in this discussion. In the body paragraphs, the same method was used in a similar way. The writer deviated to third person point of view instead of first. This was intended to cause the argument to…show more content…
He was not clear with his argument. Therefore, his redirect is lacking. Neltner leaves the reader guessing because the concession is incomplete in the text. He does not state what needs to be done to improve the drinking water. The redirect needs to be expressed in a better way to justify federal funding. It is also tied to the concession which makes it come off as an ambiguous phrase. The “why” from the concession is missing because of this. Neltner’s reasoning also comes off as a potential deceptive statistic which makes also makes it an ambiguous phrase. The reader is not sure whether there is a mean, median, or mode because the statement is not in depth making it appear to be deceptive. Of the two men debating this issue, Neltner is the more qualified individual. In this text he uses himself as an expert opinion because he is a qualified individual. This appears to exhibit a strength because he is knowledgeable in the subject. However, that is not the case. He uses himself as the expert opinion, which causes him to not express the value in this value assumption. Despite the fact that he knows what he is talking about, Neltner does not express what doing enough is in this article. He talks about how the government could do more, but he does not express what could be done. Moore’s argument has more weaknesses than strengths. He starts off by using first person point of view in the plural form to transition. But, he does not use them in the
Open Document