Jarrod Cook

Professor Liliana Naydan

English 15, Section 15

29 September 2004

Journal Prompt #7

The three rhetorical examples presented in Penn Statements all focus on the analysis of political issues. These are appropriate choices for an analysis paper because political forms of literature are always rich in rhetorical strategy. This is because they must convince as many readers as possible to side with them on the issue being discussed. The examples these essays discuss all have to deal with foreign relations and often the idea of war. The first and second essays both have a very standard organizational method about them. They focus on one aim at a time, such as pathos, ethos, and logos, and progress from one to the next discussing each one’s use in the piece. The third paper takes a very different approach in its analysis. It compares three different examples and how the techniques can be used to differently in different situations and still achieve the same goal. I really like how this paper presents its material, it was much more interesting to read than the several other examples. The analysis used famous historical examples making it easy for any reader to understand and follow. This paper recognizes that the complete truth is not often used in argumentative rhetoric because the point is not to tell the truth but to win. This is a very interesting viewpoint on the subject; it varies from the other two, which state logos as being a tool to convince readers. The author of this analysis points out how leaving out some facts and evidence can actually be a better tool for convincing the reader.

Natalie Ezdon the writer of the second essay makes a good use of advanced vocabulary throughout the essay. Several words I was forced to look up the meaning to as I read; words such as pejorative, meaning belittling, and enthymeme, meaning not stating the premises or conclusion explicitly. The word enaergia is used in the second to the last paragraph and I was unable to locate a dictionary definition for this word and Microsoft Word has categorized it as a misspelled word. Although this language develops ethos for the author analyzing the paper it also takes away from the papers point for some readers. If it was meant to be read by a broader audience it may be hard for some to derive a point from it due to a misunderstanding of vocabulary. The first essay also seems to be trying to squeeze pathos into the essay without much support of the topic. Leaving pathos out may have allowed him to focus more of his attention on the more prevalent techniques, such as ethos.