The Editorial Board of The New York Times article Trump Kills Immigration Compromise is an ineffective and unsound argument. The article is centered around the Senate's debate on immigration and the Democrats and Republicans proposals for immigration laws. This creates kairos because this is a current debate and makes the argument relevant, but there is a lack of conciliatory language which is paired with the absence of evidence. This makes it so there is no warrant to support their claim that Donald Trump does not care about fixing our immigration problem as longs as he can use it for his political gain. Also, this impacts the logos and ethos and generates an ineffective and unsound argument. In addition, they use negative imagery that …show more content…
“Unfortunately, Mr. Trump is not interested in resolving a difficult problem if he can exploit it for political gain” This statement is delivered without any evidence or warrant build their logos. In addition, there is a lack of conciliatory language that impacts the tone and makes it seems like it is a fact while is actually a judgment they made. This impacts the logos and ethos and generates an ineffective and unsound argument. There is also a play on pathos in this statement created from the diction choice of “difficult problem” and “exploit”. Both of these emphasize mood but have a negative impact on pathos because they have a negative …show more content…
“The president himself at one point expressed sympathy for the young immigrants and said he might make a deal with Democrats to protect them” However, earlier in the argument they already stated that the president did not care if immigration was fixed as long as “he can exploit it for political gain.” But, here they state he “expressed sympathy for the young immigrants” which is the opposite of what they stated previously. This creates a conflicting conditions fallacy that causes the reader's mind to wander aimlessly in a cloud of confusion wondering how they came to be there. This sabotages their logos and ethos for the reader because they are contradicting themselves and not following a clear logical way of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The purpose is to show that Trump is very clueless as a president and does not understand the full extent of his actions. Maureen Dowd uses many rhetorical devices that help develops her argument. In the article, she uses rhetorical questions such as “So Trump is even using the rhetoric of
David Brooks utilizes the rhetorical devices of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to build his argument that disrespecting American values is counterproductive. First, Brooks uses the Rhetorical device of Pathos to appeal to the emotions of the reader. He says that “Over the centuries, this civic religion fired a fervent desire for change”(Par. 6). Brooks uses the word “fervent” in his writing, because it appeals to the emotions of the reader, It expresses the extent of the desire for change. This is known as pathos.
This particular political cartoon appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos in a way that makes the message comical. This political cartoon is from the San Diego Union Tribune, and would be considered more liberal than conservative. The ethical appeal in this particular cartoon is shown by the two characters analyzing Donald Trump. He has a Bald Eagle comb over which suggests that he is indeed ‘serious’ about the election and for being only american in this country.
Presidential election brings a lot of attention to candidates running for the office and public is listening and watching every move they are making. Public is also analyzing their thought process. News and media is analyzing their moves and trying to break it down for public. This year’s presidential election is nothing less and candidates have been under fire. San Jose Editorial group is also breaking down stands of this year’s candidates.
As these statistics serve as evidence, they help validate the logic behind Bruni’s wish to educate the reader on the reality of Trump and Cruz. In this reality, a significant number of voters approve of Cruz, despite members of his own party disapproving. Thus, Bruni uses evidence to show that most Republicans themselves appose Cruz, and then statistics to prove the frightening fact that this doesn’t matter to certain voters, while simultaneously appealing to ethos by establishing
As Gonzales states with all of his evidence from DACA is that this is a good choice for America and that this is a wake up call to the Supreme Court, legal citizens, and the president that we need this immigration reform. It only just benefits immigrants in America but everyone in the U.S positively. The article targeted audience is legal citizens in America and the Supreme Court, in the article paragraph one sentence one Gonzales states that “No one has to wonder about the enormous consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to let stand a lower-court ruling blocking President Obama’s plan to protect from deportation millions of undocumented immigrants who are parents of citizens or permanent residents.” This sentence I feel that Gonzales main target is the Supreme Court but also all the legal citizens. In the sentence his tone feels disgusted that the lower-court declined Obama’s plan, his plan was to protect immigrants from deportation and to live in America free as a legal citizen.
Typically, when people think of the “F” word, they think of only one cuss word. In the article by Firoozeh Dumas, it does not deal with the a cuss word, it deals with the American society stereotyping different cultures in America today. Dumas uses several techniques to hook the readers and keep them reading and interested. Throughout the article, Dumas pairs together her style and how she builds ethos in the reader’s eyes. This creates a good way to convey the argument, however it lacks certain strengths.
At a time when immigration laws are becoming a nation wide debate and have been for years, Trump works to convince his audience that stronger immigration laws should be placed. He does so by first describing the neighboring country of Mexico as “they are not our friend, believe me” ("Full Text: Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid."). From the very beginning, this line installs fear into the audience. It leads the audience to feel insecure in their own home country creating an uneasy tone. He then further sparks that fear by saying that “they’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.
President Trump’s State of the Union address discusses many of the United State’s most disputed topics, such as immigration. Though the address possesses its supporters, it also contains critics. The Washington Examiner titles its headline, “Trump won on immigration... the media ignored it” by Eddie Scarry, a supporter of President Trump’s State of the Union address. This article first discusses how President Trump communicates a story of a family who lost their two daughters because an illegal immigrant murdered them.
The essay is composed of two part, the first part which starts with a brief familiarization about culture expressed within the group writing the essay and the different tasks tackled by each group member. Then the second part goes into ethos, pathos and logos all forms of Rhetoric uses to convince the audience of one’s credibility or capability of something, in this case the right to Presidency. This essay discusses the use of each of these appeals within the candidates running for the 2016 candidacy. With the use of these appeals come fallacies which are also discussed within the essay. Also discussed is our take on the candidates, who we found most convincing or least qualified for the job which they are trying to convince us they deserve.
“Go back to your country. You're stealing our jobs. Build a wall.” In the modern political realm, such divisive language has become the norm and the platform of many leading politicians. In response, the immigration process has become increasingly selective, to the point that many Americans would not be able to pass the citizenship test.
Although, Ojito described her commitment to staying objective she failed towards her conclusion in Hunting Season by providing her own personal opinion and stating "what I think I do know is that Jeffrey Connor didn't set out to kill anybody that night" (Ojito, 2014, p. 223). However, Ojito provided sufficient information leads the reader to make his/her own personal interpretation including the note Jeff wrote at the end of the police report that stated, "killed by me" and the stab wound described as a "twist in the knife when it entered the body." Thus, ultimately, concluding that Jeff lacked "mens rea" when he committed the offense, appears to be bias and the final opinion should be left up to the reader. Another area, not discussed in more detail included the statement Mayor Pontrieri used as a scapegoat throughout Hunting Season. He said, immigration was above his pay range because it’s a federal issue.
Donald Trump and his ideology are similar of that to Adolf Hitler in relation to Muslims in America. Trump wants all Muslims to wear compulsory identification as Hitler wanted with the Jews of Germany. Trump, much like Hitler, presents his arguments with passion and he manipulates Pathos into his speeches that the audience is blinded to his racist morals. Donald Trump however tends to disregard the theory of Logos in his speeches as it does not play to his strengths. I believe that Pathos is perhaps the most important and influential of the three theories as I think that it helps persuade the audience more powerfully to get behind their beliefs and actions.