Rhetorical Analysis Of Beccaro Vs. Moyo

Rhetorical Analysis: Beccaro vs. Moyo

Economic growth in the United States has been going up and down over the last decade. The estimated growth for the fourth-quarter of 2015 was 1.4%. Economists, Thomas Del Beccaro and Dambisa Moyo, presented their solutions on how to fix and limit the America’s stagnating economy. Beccaro’s article, “The Key to Avoiding Our Looming Class Warfare”, was exceptionally better than Moyo’s speech, “Economic Growth has Stalled. Let’s Fix It”. To analysis why this is statement is true, ethos, pathos, and logos from the rhetorical triangle will be used.

The purpose or logos of Dambisa Moyo’s speech is address how the current capitalism being used in the United States’ government is failing to solve social ills,

Beccaro’s article addressed the average tax paying middle class American, while Moyo’s audience were Americans who mostly like worked in the government. Since I am apart of Beccaro’s audience, I feel angry and interested in this issue involving class unfairness because I am a middle class American. His solution is to create tax reform such as a flat tax, which also attracts other audience members who think this is the key way to solve economic decay. Overall, Beccaro made his audience feel concern and somewhat angry, which he meant to do. As mentioned, Moyo addresses government officials who are more likely able to fix and improve capitalism. This type of audience is engaged imaginatively instead of emotionally. She gives an imaginary example on how parents could earn money for sending their children to school or getting their children inoculated or immunized (Moyo). Also, there are fewer audience members being addressed, which benefits Beccaro’s pathos. Both pieces are simple, direct and barely use any unusual vocabulary or sentence structure. Beccaro did not use any symbols, but Moyo used capitalism spectrum with China on the left state capitalism side and America right market capitalism side. She also used a pyramid to explain framework for taxing. Both did not use personal experience to benefit their