North Korea Rhetorical Devices

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

a state of war. In this speech, rhetorical devices were used in trying to persuade the public the

In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.

He describes the aura of the situation during the Salem March by saying, “the air was thick with doubt, anticipation, and fear” (Obama). The addition of figurative language engages the audience and keeps them active in the argument. He persuades his audience to support his purpose not only by using rhetorical devices but also using a presentation style that engages the audience.

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

Gail Collins, an American writer known for writing under the opinion pages for the The New York Times, has turned the recent presidential debate, into something comical. In Gail’s most recent articles, “How Could Anyone Vote for Trump”, “The Dark Days of Donald Trump”, “Don’t Take Donald Trump to Dinner”, and “The Debate in One Scary Answer”, her purpose is to show that Donald Trump is not qualified to become the next president of the United States. In these four articles, her audience is the general educated reader that will be voting in the 2016 presidential election. Gail Collins has a recurring pattern of using the rhetorical modes; illustration and description. In addition, she uses the rhetorical strategies; metaphor, dialogue, and contrast

The use of rhetoric is powerful, dangerous, and has the influence to change people’s opinion. So in the article “Art of the Steal: This Is How Trump Lost $916M and Avoided Tax” David Cay Johnston effectively uses rhetoric to suede his viewers towards his opinion. Johnston uses pathos, ethos, logos, tonal shifts, and inductive and deductive reasoning to try to explain to his readers how the presidential candidate ,Donald Trump, lost and made money..The author explains how the use of ethos, the appealing towards ethics, helps shift the audience’s view of Donald Trump. Johnston also uses the emotions of the reader to help his own claim, through the use of pathos. Through the use of logos, the use of logic, the

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the rhetorical appeals on an argument presented by two different authors who have written about the subject of the Military’s Budget. In the article, “Yes, Of Course We Should Cut Military Spending!” by Henry Blodget, He argues that Military Spending should be cut and given to more needed civil programs. Contrary to Henry, the article, “Reckless Cuts to US Military Spending Leaving America Vulnerable.” By Steven Cohen puts forth the argument that Military Budget cuts will leave the US Military unable to carry out their duties and will but this country’s interest at risk. This paper will examine the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos found within each of the articles presented by these authors. In addition, highlights of the author’s similarities and differences in style will be noted here as well.

The length of the sentences slow down the reader, giving the work fluidity that allows the audience to reflect on his proposals and understand their significance. Where shorter sentences indicate energy, the long sentences in the address create a sense of calm and control, which creates a sense of dignity towards the rhetor. The threats he mentions, specifically those of factions, divisiveness, and foreign conflict are still relevant, and the tone lends itself to timelessness and encourages patience. Like the sentences, these threats are enduring, which is emphasized by the syntax. Likewise, the formal diction makes the speech dignified. When advocating for neutrality, Washington, writes that “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations,” (Washington 5). the use of words like “antipathies” and “inveterate” illustrates how entrenched the problems associated with interventionism can become. The words help create a ceremonial atmosphere for the

The entire editorial board at the New York times decided to cooperate on an op-ed piece covered on Donald Trump concerning his post election actions and decisions. The Op-Ed was titled “What President Trump Doesn’t Get About America” and was published on the New York Times on January 20, 2017. The rhetorical situation behind the piece is the after-effects of Mr. Trump's official inauguration which took place on the same date the Op-Ed was published. The author's purpose and intended audience is to inform and persuade the American people that America was and will be fine even with some of the so-called harsh executive decisions of Trump.

Rhetoric is a course in which students are taught the values of persuasion. And yet, behind this course is the utmost power to corrupt the world, changing it into a world of our own policies. This power, even though seldom discussed, has lead to many intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is how people are able to shape the world they live in simply by choosing the right words. Therefore those who would want the world to be a better place must protect this power. If in the wrong hands this power could cause serious damage. Several authors have striven to protect rhetoric and its power. Few agree on the matter of defining rhetoric, but they know that they must protect rhetoric from dark souls. A single definition of rhetoric must maintain a simplistic nature while incorporating every aspect of rhetoric. However, I argue that rhetoric is a means of persuading audiences of a situation and a particular reality through language and personal appeal. In order to prove this definition I will discuss how rhetoric creates a situation, the shaping of a different reality, the audience, the use of language, and the personal appeal. Finally, I will demonstrate the absolute need for rhetoric.

Bush consistently employs several rhetorical strategies in order to establish his credibility throughout his address. The primary way that Bush establishes this credibility is by using his speech to

The article “ A war with North Korea--the American people aren’t ready” by Harry J. Kazianis is rated two for authority and reputation because of Fox new’s reputation for being biased. However they are also a well known news company, and is also known for not giving false information. “Considering the dangers America and its allies face, the Trump Administration needs to do all it can to contain the North Korean threat.” Some may believe they are already doing as much as they can, and this quote is based in the fact that it pushes for people to believe trump is a bad president. I rate this article's source as a one. Fox news is a well known news platform with a variety of trustworthy writers. The author is the director of defense studies.

This is why they build such arguments against Trump. The article uses language itself to argue its point; the writers strategically used words with negative connotations to discreetly give readers a negative impression of Trump. For example, in the second paragraph of the article, the board wrote, “He has spoken, alarmingly, about deploying this weaponry against terrorists and about expanding America’s nuclear capabilities.” The board added the unnecessary word “alarmingly” to give negativity to the entire idea in the sentence. Without the word, the sentence could be used to argue either side of the argument. With its addition, however, the article establishes its side on the topic. The choice of words also creates an emotional appeal in the writing. The words establish a sense of fear over what Trump might do with these weapons. This further establishes the chosen side in the

In the Atlantic Article called the “Obama Doctrine”, the author Jeffery Goldberg says “Obama is gambling that he will be judged well for the things he didn’t do” (Goldberg). I am analyzing my own work, an essay I called “Keeping a Distance” which is an analytical essay that argues the successes of president Obama’s foreign policy. This essay was written in May 2016 for my Honors Comparative and Global Politics course at the Latin School of Chicago. In my essay I strived to persuade Americans that Obama’s Foreign policy was overall very successful. To assist me in my goal, I used Logos and Pathos to gain the trust and emotions of my audience. In my essay “Keeping a Distance” I successfully use Logos and Pathos to persuade my audience so that they would become supporters of my argument.