Rhetorical Analysis Of Pander To The Pandas '

1435 Words6 Pages
1. The term 'Why Pander to the pandas' is a rhetorical question making the reader consider why people give the high amount of satisfaction, effort and pleasure to an irrelevant animal. 2. Peter Goers is a journalist from the Sunday Mail South Australia. Therefore, having such an occupation of reporting on current articles he feels entitled to his opinion and feels that he's able to express that with people. 3. Goer thinks that pandas "don't have a right to exist" and has given a downright negative analysis of these animals. Goer clearly thinks that Pandas have no place or existence for the Adelaide zoos as they are said to be "Stupid, useless animals who don't help themselves to survive." Goer has also outlined that Pandas are expensive, strange,…show more content…
Goer includes this saying because it's trying to convey that it becoming to the stage where Pandas are going to effect people. Goer is also trying to persuade that we as a country are putting pandas in front or more important than people, as he said "there more important." 11. - Comparison: Goer used comparison in his article between the poor, homeless, Aboriginal communities and the money on pandas. For example Goer stated "We through money at two pandas but what about the homeless and poor?" This technique makes the audience question and re-consider if pandas should be brought into Adelaide zoo, and how would it be fair on people who are suffering? Goer has also used this technique to alarm workers that the tax that their giving the government is going to be wasted on two "stupid, unless animals" as Goer referred to. - Humour: Throughout the article Goer has used a sarcastic humour which has actually made his points stronger, because Goer has made a perception that bringing pandas in the Adelaide zoo is that ridiculous its humours. For example "Let 'em eat the cake and thank goodness they don't eat bamboo because we need it for the pandas, they're more important." The sarcasm makes the reader convey the point but in such a way that it makes the point stronger because it's hard for the reader to disagree with Goer's
Open Document