Rhetorical Analysis: It's The Real Thing '

When you see a solider in his or her uniform, you are proud that they are serving this country to protect our freedom, securing our country, and defending democracy worldwide. The solider can come from different branches of the Military. The one you might be familiar with is the U.S. Army. These soldiers are well respected and prepared to serve our country whenever and wherever needed, combat-ready at all times, and trained to counter any threat, anywhere. In 2007, the United States Army department published a recruitment ad for U.S.

In May of 1998, Kipland Kinkel brought a gun to his school. Over the course of two days this escalated from: being sent home, to murdering his father and mother, to murdering 2 students and wounding 26, earning a lifetime sentence of 111 years and 8 months in prison. In the court case being examined, the presiding judge addresses the original case, defendants ground for appeal, and the justification for the State’s decision to deny the appeal. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the Higher Court’s decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

The first narrative that he creates in his letter in the narrative that the quote “It’s the Real Thing” belongs to Coca-Cola. Herbert employs the use of logos in his rhetoric, stating that because Coca-Cola used it first in advertising, the quote belongs to them. He states, “‘It’s the Real Thing’ was first used in advertising for Coca-Cola over twenty-seven years ago to refer to our product.” In fact, the entire fourth paragraph was just Herbert employing logos to push his narrative. Another narrative that Herbert pushes for is the narrative that companies should not share advertising slogans due to the confusion and mix-up of two different products. In the third paragraph, Herbert employs gloomy and negative diction such as “undesirable”, “confusion”, “dilute”, and “diminish” to try to convince Seaver and Grove Press that sharing slogans is unacceptable and will hurt the success of both companies. By combining these two narratives, Herbert successfully makes a case for Grove Press to stop using the quote, “It’s the real thing” in their

Herbert, a coca cola executive uses appeal to logic and historical context to convince Seaver, the author of the book “Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher” to change their slogan “It's the real thing” used by both companies to advertise their products.Seaver replies with references, hyperbole, and sarcasm to state that they aren't changing the books slogan. They both were trying to appeal to their audience, the people who buy Coca-Cola and the book. Whereas Herbert’s letter addressing the issue of both companies using the same slogan. Seavers response is more persuasive due to its use of rhetorical strategies such as references and sarcasm.The letters were made to persuade the audience the who has the right over the slogan that coca-cola used

Companies desire to keep the originality of their products so they can appeal to their consumers positively. Ira C. Herbert, an executive for the Coca Cola Company, presents himself as a notable person with authority. On March 25, 1970, Herbert wrote a letter to Mr. R. W. Seaver asking him to “stop using the theme or slogan in connection with the book” (line 7). The writer is contemplative throughout his letter in order to clarify the issue that he wants resolved. Herbert speaks for the company when he writes, “We believe you will agree that it is undesirable for our companies to make simultaneous use of It’s the Real Thing” in connection with our respective products”(lines 8-10). In other words, the author suggests the expression

In the conclusion of Herbert's letter he asserts dominance and believes that they will stop using the slogan “It’s the Real Thing” to advertise a book called “Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher.” Herbert asserts dominance by stating that they’re unable to use the slogan because it belongs to them and has been used by Coca-Cola in the past. Herbert assumes that Seaver will stop using the slogan by stating “We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of “It’s the real thing””(lines 26-27). He doesn’t want the slogan to be used for the books advertisement because it could be confusing for customers. The tone that is used in Herbert's letter to Seaver is authoritative and informal. It’s authoritative because

Mrs. Seaver of Grove Press creates a much more convincing and persuasive argument through his compelling rebuttal of Mr. Herbert’s original letter. Although Mr. Herbert’s argument may seem logical in itself, Mr. Seaver mocks the argument and ultimately demonstrates the absurdity and triviality of the initial complaint. At the time the Coca-Cola representative wrote the initial letter, the company did not possess a patent declaring it had any legal rights to the slogan “It’s the Real Thing,” making the slogan fair game for Grove Press to exploit in its advertising. Mr. Seaver’s sarcastic tone, although much less professional than Mr. Herbert’s, also leaves a more lasting sway in the minds of readers. By exactly repeating certain convincing phrases and statements from the Coca-Cola letter, such as “dilute the distinctiveness” and “diminish the effectiveness,” and subsequently integrating them into his own argument, Mr. Seaver undermines their validity in the first

Ira C. Herbert, an executive of the Coca-Cola company, and Richard Seavers, a representative of Grove Press, are the speakers of their own respective letters and they both focus on the motto “It’s the real thing”. Herbert’s purpose is to convince Seavers to stop using the motto “It’s the real thing” and to use a different one and Seavers purpose is to address Herbert’s concerns about the motto and defends his company’s right to keep using the motto. Herbert adopts a friendly tone in order to point out what Seaver was doing, using the same slogan Coca-Cola uses. Seaver adopts a serious tone to guide Herbert what had happened to Herbert and the company of Coca-Cola. Herbert and Seaver use different rhetorical strategies in order to persuade

In the following letters exchanged between the executive vice-president of Coca-Cola and the representative of Grove Press regarding the use of the slogan, “It’s the Real Thing”, each writer states their stance on why they believe they are have the right to use this slogan for their company. Coca-Cola’s executive vice-president, Ira Herbert, writes in a deliberate tone while also incorporating specific dates, and attempting to spark patriotism in his claim. Richard Seaver of Grove Press, justifies his company has done nothing wrong; however, claims that it will do as Coca-Cola ask. By using sarcasm and specific examples, Grove Press achieves their purpose and sequentially demonstrates why they have a more persuasive case over Coca-Cola.

Product advertising campaigns are detected roughly every day and it is due to the competing businesses that currently exist. The ongoing debate of who will obtain the trade-mark “It’s the real thing”, is a hilarious dispute that occurs between the representatives of a beverage and book company. This debate gets to the point where circumstances are sufficed and it is a longing children's tantrum. The letters of two different personalities representing, two diverse industries, portray two sides of an argument, however, Richard Seaver’s reply to Ira C. Herbert is a notably more commanding letter that emphasizes onto its true claim and does so through his distinct use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

From two perspectives, we see a world plagued by the ignoble aspects of human nature. Through one set of eyes we are shown the global ecosystem imitating the opening motions of a mass extinction, through another we see the inevitable and hellish effects of culturalized greed. In both cases we are treated to the observations of an aggrieved observer, but the means by which these observers show us their perspective on the world are by no means identical. Here we will explore the strategies, expressions, argumentations, and appeals of two authors with intertwining stories to tell.

The art of quoting and summarizing an argument is one of the main skills to acquire when it comes to writing a successful piece of work. In the book, They Say I Say the art of inserting quotations is mentioned to be one of the highest mistakes made by writers. Many insert a quote that has no frame of introduction or background information which is considered a “hit and run quote.” Readers need to be able to comprehend not only the writings, but the background information and quotes from another author writing in order to have the whole work cohesive. Dire necessity for the writer is to go back to the initial text and truly understand the background from which they are quoting to make sure their audience understands the quote and why

Nat Turner: Mr. Garrison I do wish I could agree, but few of these men (looking down at Fitzhugh and calhoun) have shown no respect for god.

In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby addresses the problems within America 's criminal justice system. He gives many reasons why imprisonment simply does not work, and suggests that corporal punishment should be used as an alternative. Published in the Boston Globe, a newspaper well known for being liberal, Jacoby provides a conservative view and directs his argument towards those who strongly support imprisonment and view corporal punishment to be highly barbaric and inhumane. However, in order to shed light on our current situation, Jacoby discusses the dangers that we face though our criminal justice system a nd shows concern that imprisonment is doing more harm than good. In effect, Jacoby looks to the past for solutions, and

In response to Geoffrey Shepherd's article “It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Shepard tries to pull us into his claim by using pathos, logos, and ethos. He uses estimates of 500,000 Japanese soldiers died from the atomic bomb. Then Geoffrey begins to state that we had an alternative spot to drop the bombs, the alternate spot we could’ve dropped the bomb would have been Tokyo Bay. It was idle and estimated that less lives would’ve been taken and would showed more of a threat to the Japanese leaders.