Rhetorical Analysis Of Kathleen Kingsbury's 'Service Not Included'

Service Not Included ­ But Arguments Are
In “Service not Included: Restaurant industry serves up injustice to workers”, the author,
Kathleen Kingsbury uses rhetorical techniques to inform her audience of the hardships faced by restaurant workers at a time when “Time­pressed Americans eat out for at least five meals a week, and the average household spent $2,620 on food away from home…”. The author uses the three different classes of rhetorical arguments to persuade persuades her audience to support securing and increasing the hourly wage of workers in the restaurant industry, and uses her understanding The Boston Globe’s target audience to craft a convincing article.
The author of this article, Kathleen Kingsbury, wrote a series of editorials

These, whether obvious or subtle, are intended to make the reader
“feel” sympathetic with the rhetor’s cause. The opening paragraph of the article describes the
“long, deep scars [that] often line their (the workers) forearms…”, (Kingsbury 1) a disturbing image. In this case, the pathos claim is appropriately used to “hook” the reader into the
‘meat­and­potatoes’ of the article that informs the reader of the reality of the conditions restaurant workers are working in.
The main audience of The Boston Globe is mainly highly educated older adults, deduced from statistics that show most readers are homeowners, are ages 45+, and 87% have postgraduate degrees. (Boston Globe 3) It makes sense then why the author used logos and ethos claims more than a few scattered pathos claims: in order to establish her intellectual ability with her audience and earn the respect of the reader. With this in mind, it’s understandable why Kingsbury generally avoids using pathos arguments; arguments that undermine the rhetor’s authority. It is clear that Kingsbury knows her audience, and uses that knowledge to persuade them