Rhetorical Analysis of a Speech [ 5 pages double spaced; needed in 17 hours ]

Ok, I want you to pay attention with this, there going to be a lot of instructions, and the professor is tough. 

Ill upload two files for you, first the instructions which shows you effectively how to build the paper, second file is a grade A sample you can use that also. 

 

Very important thing: these instructions are for my previous paper which was Rhetorical Analysis of an Article, however the professor told us it’s ok to use the same instructions and everything to write this time on a Speech. 

 

Simply, this paper is basically is to analyze how the speaker on this speech used three major things (logos which means numerical facts and logical words, Ethos which means what make that speaker credible, Pathos all of the things that the speaker said/showed that made us emotional all the way from happy and proud to sad and depressed) and most importantly you need to show how the audience was moved by these three things. Use quotes and examples from the speech

 

Here is the link of the speech

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/48815597#48815597

 

Oh yeah, this was the professor question 

Here are your speech options for your second rhetorical analysis. The full rough draft is due Monday June 10 for peer editing. The final version is due Tuesday, June 11. Those without full rough drafts Monday will be penalized a full letter grade. Follow the instructions assignment sheet for rhetorical analysis 1, adding only a sprinkle of how physical delivery (voice inflection, facial expression, posture, etc.) contributed to the overall effect of the speech. 

 

I guess this sums it all, please do your best to avoid any revisions or lateness. I have another one more such paper. If this is a good one I’ll give you the next Rhetorical paper next week. 

 

Thank you

HU143 ESSAY 1 ASSIGNMENT

(I know this is long.
Don’t panic
. It’s just a very detailed list of how to do this that will help you.)

In about five double-spaced pages, provide a detailed analysis of the one of the essays listed below: In your analysis, you will examine how effectively the author employs the three rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos), and any other means, to persuade his/her audience.

· “Profiting from a Child’s Illiteracy”

· “Dying of the Light”

· “The Real World Effects of Budget Cuts

· “Going Cheney on Climate”

· “We’re all Guilty of Dehumanizing the enemy”

· “The Gall of it All”

· “Equal Opportunity: Our National Myth”

An outline of this essay is due at the start of class on Wednesday, May 22. A rough draft of this essay is due at the start of class (for peer editing) on Thursday, May 23. The final version is due at the start of class on Tuesday, May 28. You should submit a hard copy in class and upload an electronic copy onto Safe Assign on Blackboard

Goals

Your goal in this essay is to analyze the author’s rhetorical strategies with an eye towards the audience for whom this argument was originally made. Your challenge, then, is NOT to respond personally to the argument, agreeing or disagreeing with any part of it (regardless of whether you consider yourself part of that original audience). It is also NOT to simply summarize the article like a book report. Instead, focus on the ways in which the author tries to persuade his/her audience and the likely audience reaction, based on our study of the components of rhetoric.

This means you’ll want to:

· Describe generally the argument this writer is making

· Describe the audience(s) this writer is likely addressing

· Identify the rhetorical strategies the author employs (as he appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos) and describe how these strategies function in the argument by examining closely a handful of representative examples

· Analyze how effectively the author employs these strategies considering his/her audience

·
Discuss how this audience likely might variously respond to the writer’s argument and some of his rhetorical strategies

Method

There are various ways to compose and organized a rhetorical analysis. I will provide a basic outline that works well for most students, but do not feel compelled to mimic the order. You should, however, be sure to include all the elements cited in the outline.

FIRST PARAGRAPH – Introduction

Your introduction should include the following components.

·
A creative introduction to the topic of the article you’re analyzing.
Introduce your analysis in a way that will capture a reader’s attention. Get to the heart of the topic being discussed, starting in general terms and then being more specific. One way to do this is to put it in a contemporary or current context, or connect it – even if it is old news – to a similar issue in today’s world. We’ll look at some examples to illustrate this better.

· A succinct articulation of the main argument the writer is making.

· The name of the article, writer, publication, and publication date. This must be punctuated according to the style we discuss and outline in class. Just follow the model.

· A brief overview of how you will assess the effectiveness of the writer’s persuasion. Here you will signal whether you feel the rhetoric is effective or not (avoid the first person, however) and why. This is more of an overview that needn’t be too specific. The specifics will come later in the essay.

PARAGRAPHS 2 and 3 – Audience/Ethos

· Audience. It’s likely you have already mentioned the publication in which the article appears. Now tell me a little about the audience of this newspaper and the audience the author is trying to reach.

· Author’s background – Ethos part 1. Tell me a little about the author’s background. Does his/her background make him more or credible with specific audiences? Why?

· Ethos Part 2. How does the author establish his/her ethos through his writing? Does he/she show solidarity with the readers? Does he/she show virtue by establishing that he/she likely shares all or some of the readers’ values? Disinterest? Practical wisdom? Does the writer seem like an authority or expert? Possess good moral character? Does the writer manage to make a point without offending those likely to disagree? Use specific examples here (quotes) and explain how the reader is likely to feel about this writer based on the example/quote?

· Counter-argument/concession. How does the author address those likely to disagree? Does he acknowledge an opposing argument? Show respect toward the opposition. How does this impact ethos?

PARAGRAPHS 4 and 5 – Pathos/Logos

These paragraphs are interchangeable. Decide what you think flows best or makes more sense with your particular article. Start with a topic sentence generally assessing the evidence and emotional appeal, and answer the following questions.

· How does the writer use emotional appeal? Find two or three specific examples, quote them, cite the specific emotions involved, and explain
why (or why not)
the audience is likely to respond in this emotional way. Remember that this is not the author being emotional, but the emotional reaction the audience is likely to have. Does he/she use storytelling, one of the strongest emotional appeals? What is generating this emotion?
Analyze this. Why is the audience emotionally moved by this statement?

· What evidence (logos) and reasons do the writer cite to support his/her argument. Specific examples? Data? Quote from experts? Find two or three specific examples, quote or paraphrase them, and explain why the audience is likely to accept this (or not) as evidence supporting the argument.
Analyze this.
Does the writer utilize a particularly effective logical argument (artistic appeal) that is likely to influence the reader? Does it make sense? Is it clever? How/why is this line of argument effective?

· There will likely be some areas where you believe a certain portion of the audience (not the majority, usually) will dispute certain parts of the argument. If you think of something like this, include it and say why. And if possible, explain how the writer attempts to overcome this potential hole or dispute in the argument.

PARAGRAPHS 6 – CONCLUSION

Try not to simply rehash what you’ve said previously. Put your general spin on the rhetoric, and how – if effective — it might lead people to ACT, make a choice, or take a side.

Here are some additional prompts to help with ethos and pathos. You needn’t cover all of this; use what is most relevant to your particular article.

Ethos

· Do the writer’s credentials (relevant experience, job title, place of work, place of training, awards, previous positions, etc.) make his/her claims more (or less) believable?

· Does the writer show respect for his readers or talk down to them?

· Does the writer seem arrogant or approachable? Caring or insensitive?

· Does the writer ignore or demean the opinions of others, or is he careful to consider alternate viewpoints and treat opponents with respect?

· Does the writer exaggerate, not do his homework, use evidence in ways that are misleading; or does he seem well informed, fair-minded, and willing to deal with evidence from all sides?

· Does the writer seem sloppy and disorganized, or does he seem careful and meticulous?

· Does the writer display proper decorum relative to the audience? Practical wisdom? Indifference?

Pathos

· Does the writer evoke emotions (sympathy, outrage, anger, delight, pride, awe, shame, horror, etc.) in his audience that are likely to help (or hurt) his case?

· Does the writer evoke sensations (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling) that make his writing and language vivid and cause readers to experience things imaginatively? Or does he just appeal to readers’ heads and leave the rest of them feeling dull?

· Does the writer appeal to values (freedom, justice, tolerance, patriotism, faith, equality, etc.) that his audience shares? And does he do so in a way that will help or hurt his case?

· Does the writer employ storytelling to evoke emotions?

Writing Style: Saying Things Effectively

Your most important stylistic concern should be with crafting strong paragraphs. A strong paragraph is unified, focusing a reader’s attention on one main idea. It is coherent, indicating which thoughts go together logically. A powerful paragraph is also well-developed, supplying ample details and explanations to make each point come to life.

So, make sure you begin each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly states the paragraph’s main idea; then make sure all your supporting sentences cluster around that main idea without detours. Refer to the instructions above and the review power point for content requirements. If you find yourself well off-track from your topic sentence, it’s probably time for a paragraph break (and perhaps some more work on that paragraph).

Make sure also to use strong transition words and phrases to connect ideas and sentences. These words and phrases –- which include such terms as “however,” “furthermore,” “on the other hand,” “additionally,” “therefore,” etc. –- help guide your reader through your writing while also signaling important shifts, contrasts, comparisons, qualifications, etc. in your analysis or argument. Do not use lazy, directional transitions such as “the first example,” “the second quote,” “the fourth paragraph.”

Also, be sure to provide enough -– but not too many -– details and examples to make your points clear, mostly through quotes and paraphrases from the text.

And finally, beyond coherent paragraphs, your paper should adhere to the conventions of academic writing you mastered (I hope) in COM 122 and other college writing courses you might have taken. So, revise and edit your work; and don’t forget to proofread your work carefully to catch errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and mechanics. Visit the writing center if this has been a problem in the past. And, of course, you can always come to me for help.

Your paper should be in Times New Roman font, with 12 point character size. For this paper, because you are using only one source and because that source is only a couple pages long, do not worry about parenthetical citations and a Works Cited page.

How I Grade the Rhetorical Analysis (What I’m Looking for, What I Expect)

Combined, the below areas constitute (roughly) the four major sets of criteria with which I will evaluate the content your rhetorical analysis essays. And while each set corresponds (roughly) to 25% of your essay, it is important to note that there is overlap among the criteria. That is to say, one set necessarily informs and affects the other. So, for example, if your analysis is unclear, then you will also likely demonstrate less effectively your understanding of course content. And if you try to analyze too much in too little detail you will likely compromise both the breadth and depth of your analysis.

In short, then, we are generally looking for (1) balance and thoroughness, (2) detail and insight, (3) clarity and organization, and (4) a working and clear understanding of course content. More specifically, however, we are looking for the following.

Breadth of analysis (criteria set 1):

Have you adequately examined each of the three major rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos)? Is your analysis of these three appeals proportional, that is, balanced throughout your essay? Have you discussed and analyzed just enough of your selected essay so as to provide your readers with a good sense of its author’s general argument, general rhetorical strategies, and some specific examples of those rhetorical strategies? Have you provided more analysis than summarization of the argument? Have you provided just enough description and analysis of the argument for your readers to gain a clear sense of what that argument was about, what its author’s position was, what general rhetorical strategies he/she employed, what few examples from the argument best represent each of those major rhetorical strategies, and (most importantly) how his original audience might likely have responded to those strategies?

Depth of analysis (criteria set 2):

Have you analyzed each appeal in sufficient detail? Have you focused your analysis on a limited set of key examples of each rhetorical appeal? Have you analyzed each example in detail, explaining where and how it operates in the argument and how the original audience might likely respond to the strategy? Have you contextualized and framed your examples with introductory and concluding commentary and analysis? Have you provided your readers informative and interesting insights and observations about the argument, its author’s rhetorical strategies, and the audience’s likely responses to those various strategies?

Clarity of analysis (criteria set 3):

Have you helped guide your readers through your analysis? Have you provided an effective introduction that both contextualizes (that is, familiarizes your readers with) the subject at hand and previews what your analysis will entail? Have you structured your essay in a way so as to guide your reader from one section, paragraph, and rhetorical feature to another? Have you organized each paragraph in a way so as to focus on a limited, coherently related set of ideas/rhetorical strategies? Have you provided effective topic sentences for each paragraph to help guide your reader through and among paragraphs? Have you stated each sentence clearly and directly enough so as to guide your reader through your paragraphs and ideas. Have you edited your paper, rewriting sentences and reshaping paragraphs to improve upon your essay’s clarity, style, and tone? Have you proofread your essay to correct typographical errors, check for omissions, verify details, and eliminate inconsistencies?

Demonstration of knowledge (criteria set 4):

Have you demonstrated effectively your understanding of course content – that is, the specific and various rhetorical strategies/concepts discussed in class? Have you examined effectively and clearly how the writer employs these strategies in his argument? Have you used our rhetorical terms accurately and clearly? Have you sufficiently signaled your use of these terms by referring to them explicitly (or sometimes perhaps effectively implying them) in your essay? And have you avoided defining explicitly these strategies/concepts to your readers who we will assume are familiar with them.

Writing Style: This essay will also be graded for writing style. The three areas I consider significant are sentence structure (void of run-on sentences and comma splices), clarity, and proper incorporation of quotes. If you have one or two issues related to these, it will minimally impact your grade. If they are numerous and/or habitual, the essay will not be passing regardless of the quality of the content.

Other items to remember

· Write in present tense

· Do not write in the first person

· Refer to “reader” and “audience.” You can use these interchangeably so that you’re not using the same word too often.

· If you get stuck, go back to your prompts and keep writing. You can always rearrange later.

· Follow the model. If you’re doing the same things, you’re on the right track.

· Integrate quotes properly. See the examples we discussed in class.

· Refer to the author by first and last name only once (first reference). From then on, use only last name.

· Spell names correctly. Misspelling someone’s name is a major error.

· Visit the writing center, if necessary. Remember to bring copy of assignment.

· Have a friend proofread.

· Look through the notes for key terms related to pathos, logos, and ethos. It won’t only give you terms to use, but likely will spark ideas.

· Come see me for help, but don’t simply come in and say you’re having problems. Try and specify those problems so I can better assist you.

· Put quote marks around the title of the article you’re addressing.

Here’s a sample rhetorical analysis from the Friedman article. Since all texts are framed differently and argued differently, there is no such thing as a “one size fits all” model for writing a rhetorical analysis. Therefore, from an organization standpoint, it would not be advisable to form a specific outline for your essays based on this one.

However, all of the basic elements required in your essay are present here somewhere, and executed in ways you can model your own after. In other words, use the techniques, style and content as a model, but not necessarily the organization.

Rhetorical analysis of Thomas Friedman article “9-11 is over.”

From a technical standpoint, the terrorists of 9-11 took thousands of American lives, destroyed buildings and gave the country a devastating wakeup call that it is not immune to terrorist attacks on its home soil. But according to acclaimed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the damages inflicted on 9-11 run much deeper. And with a new presidential election on the horizon, Friedman believes it is imperative that America elect an individual who will not dwell on the past of 9-11, but become the “President of 9-12,” a leader who will restore this country to the warmer, welcoming, gold standard it once was. In his Sept. 30, 2007 column entitled “9-11 is over,” Friedman describes a post 9-11 America that has essentially lost its groove by becoming synonymous with fighting terrorism and distancing itself from the values that made this country great. He makes a persuasive and compelling case for change, using a variety of credible evidence to suggest that America is falling behind other countries in business, education, technology and human rights, in part because of policies obsessed with the War on Terror. Friedman stops short of assigning blame, a decision that could help bolster his credibility among readers who might feel America’s preoccupation with fighting terrorism is appropriate. His admission that he, too, was guilty of the mindset that threw America “off-balance,” adds further credibility to his argument, which elicits in the reader a range of emotion from anger to regret to optimism. Altering another’s political beliefs is not an easy task, especially in this era of divisive politics in America. However, Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist whose columns appear nationally, might well steer some voters away from a candidate locked into the 9-11 mentality, such as Rudy Giuliani, in favor of one touting “9-12,” a more suitable middle ground between vigilance against terrorism and restoring the values that made America the country it once was, and can be once again. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Creative opening that puts article in context; also names author and publication (in italics). Comment by Master, Steven J.: After first reference, use author’s last name for the remainder of the essay. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Precisely articulates author’s pain point/purpose or argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Date and title of article (in quote marks) Comment by Master, Steven J.: Signals that you will assess the rhetoric as effective, in part because it is supported by strong evidence (logos) Comment by Master, Steven J.: References ethos, pointing out that he was guilty of this mindset, too. Comment by Master, Steven J.: References that the article has emotional appeal (pathos). Comment by Master, Steven J.: References background (ethos) that makes him credible. Comment by Master, Steven J.: The student further signals that rhetoric is effective by bluntly stating that the column might impact Presidential voting.

Friedman’s piece originally appeared in the New York Times, a liberal-leaning newspaper yet still one of the most respected and widely circulated in the world. Friedman is a syndicated columnist, meaning this column likely appeared in other newspapers across the country. This would give him a large, diverse audience representing the voting public he is clearly trying to persuade. A reader will notice the author’s prompt efforts to position himself as part of his audience through his use of the word “we” near the outset of the article. The effort appears genuine and could help rehabilitate any ethos Friedman might have surrendered (especially among loyal Republicans) by starting his essay with an Onion newspaper satire critical of President Bush and presidential hopeful Giuliani, New York’s 9-11 mayor. The satire, which shows Giuliani announcing his candidacy to replace Bush as the “President of 9-11,” serves to illustrate Friedman’s primary claim, that America is obsessed with 9-11. “Like all good satire,” Friedman writes, “the story made me laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true – how much, since 9-11, we’ve become ‘The United States of Fighting Terrorism.’ … We don’t need another President of 9-11. We need a President of 9-12.” Comment by Master, Steven J.: Publication/audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Ethos. Showing how this is important because the opening reference to satire might offend Bush supporters. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Made me laugh and cry. Ethos. Showing author’s values, that he cares about image and American freedom. Cares about the topic. It is important to him, because it’s a big part of who we are as a nation.

Despite his esteemed reputation as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Friedman walks a tight-rope in this essay, even among those Democrats and Independents likely to support his argument. Given the emotions and tragedy associated with 9-11, it’s tricky business to imply it must be put in the past, and even trickier to boldly state that “9-11 has made us stupid.” Relating American “stupidity” and 9-11 seems to beg for harsh audience response. Yet Friedman deftly maneuvers through this rhetorical minefield through his use of concession and displays of virtue, practical wisdom and compassion. He concedes that our enemies are more dangerous than we thought (practical wisdom), emotionally acknowledges 9-11 victims (pathos), and admits that he, too, was initially part of the “United States of Fighting Terrorism” mindset. “I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day,” he writes. “But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.” This concession is likely to resonate with some readers, who experienced the same reaction, and might soften the reaction among those readers inclined to believe our priorities aren’t quite as “out of balance” as Friedman indicates. The audience might also respect the decorum Friedman shows by “honoring and weeping for” the 9-11 victims. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Establishes what a delicate, tricky topic this is to address, and how he must deftly maintain his ethos even after a provocative comment like “9-11 has made us stupid.” Comment by Master, Steven J.: He manages by using elements of ethos and …. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Concession. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Example of author establishing ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: ANALYSIS of ethos. Explains how/why this line will resonate with readers and help his ethos.

So what is wrong in America, exactly? Much, says Friedman. Using both specific examples and statistical data, he indicates that America’s obsession with fighting terrorism has negatively impacted America’s economy, infrastructure, reputation as a human rights leader and position as the “gold standard” in the business world. Not all of his supporting examples are guaranteed to persuade his audience. Readers are likely to question the relationship he draws between the War on Terror and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis or the shabby condition of New York’s LaGuardia Airport. However, the sum of Friedman ‘s evidence is more impressive than its individual parts, much like the small pieces of circumstantial evidence that lead to an obvious conclusion in a legal trial. Friedman offers compelling statistical and anecdotal evidence to support his claim that America’s stature in the world is slipping in various areas. Quoting Travel Industry Association president Roger Dow, he writes that America is the only country in the world attracting fewer visitors and business travelers on a per-year basis. He cites a travel industry study that attributes the losses to an entry process that has created a “climate of fear and frustration” that is turning away visitors and “hurting America’s image abroad.” A reader will smartly surmise from this quote that post 9-11 policies are damaging out economy, especially in population centers that depend heavily on tourism. In addition, he points out that Microsoft recently opened its newest plant in Canada because of American restrictions on importing quality computer software engineers from abroad. This fact will especially disgust the many readers who have seen their jobs shipped overseas, not to mention hamstrung business leaders who feel limited in their ability to pursue international talent. The author also writes about his visit to the China Clean Car Conference, where the Chinese were touting their 2008 cars that will meet European Union emission standards. “We used to be the Gold Standard,” Friedman writes. “We aren’t anymore.” That is also true in the area of human rights, Friedman argues. He refers to Guantanamo Bay as the “anti Statue of Liberty,” a place where the world thinks we send visitors who don’t give right answers at immigration. It’s fair to question how this example will resonate with mainstream America, as many conservatives and some progressives feel Guantanamo Bay, and all that allegedly occurs there, is an appropriate holding spot for suspected terrorists. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Signals this paragraph will be related to logos. A broad overview sets up the more specific logos examples that will come later. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student acknowledges there will be some in audience not likely to connect all of the facts in the article to the overall argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student counters that concession by saying that most will, with a broad explanation of why. The specifics to come …. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Logos. Expert testimony and evidence of a problem. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how this logos example will resonate with the audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Logos. Fact that supports his argument, Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how this logos will resonate with the audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More logos to support argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student analysis that many support Gitmo, and might not take well to this particular point.

The majority of these examples, despite the fact that some lack a concrete link to the post 9-11 policy, are likely to have a dramatic emotional effect on much of Friedman’s audience – a case where the logos (facts) are powerful enough to create an emotional response. The facts and their implications appeal to a shared value of pride, patriotism and humanity, and elicit such feelings as frustration, surprise, even anger, emotions sure to touch even the most hawkish readers. No American wants to believe we are falling behind in important areas such as business, technology and human rights, National polls would seem to indicate this is a receptive audience, given the apparent desire for change among most Americans. But despite the cold facts relayed in this article, overall reaction isn’t likely to be dominated by gloom and doom, due in large part to Friedman’s effective arrangement and touch of humor. His use of the upcoming election as the thematic centerpiece ensures the argument remain deliberative – an argument of choice – rather than a debate over values or a forensic argument looking to attach blame to the impact of past policy decisions. This makes the audience feel it has some control to change these policies and reverse these negative trends. Friedman’s decision to open the article with reference to a satirical essay brings a needed element of lightness to a heavy subject. And his humorous touches (“give me your tired, your poor, your fingerprints”) bring some needed comic relief while also bolstering Friedman’s ethos. Like most successful arguments dealing with choice, Friedman consistently keeps this argument focused on the future – of election a President of 9-12. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Transition to pathos, with acknowledgment that the logos is strong and is likely to influence the audience emotionally as well. This is logos and pathos working together. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how and why the evidence presented will resonate with the audience emotionally, based on values. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Pathos. Not everything is gloom and doom. Also uplifting, in part due to writer’s humor and arrangement. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Pathos. Making the article about an deliberative argument means audience will feel good that they have the power to change, Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how the humor and deliberative construct keeps mood positive (more pathos).

Just who is that candidate? Friedman doesn’t say, which is his last – and perhaps most effective – touch of ethos. Nothing messes up a citizen’s credibility like trying to tell someone else exactly how to vote. However, Friedman gives clues throughout the essay that he truly cares about this issue, such as his admission that he both “laughed and cried” over the satirical piece he cites in the Onion, and his passionate urging that “we need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy.” Once again, the author uses “we” and “us” to establish his solidarity with readers, to show that the readers’ problems are also his problems and that he shares the readers’ values and aspirations. Nonetheless, his argument will not convince everyone. There are those readers who will argue the War on Terror must remain America’s preoccupation, that Friedman’s concerns over perceived shortcomings in tourism, infrastructure, economic might and human rights are either misguided, or simply a necessary casualty of a more important cause. And, yes, some will believe electing a “President of 9-12” is simply Friedman code for electing a Democrat, though he wisely does not mention one Democrat in his article. Instead, he appears to seek a middle ground to which the majority of readers are naturally drawn – an effective and time-honored appeal to ethos. He argues we can have security at home AND the “old America,” and that electing a “President of 9-12” is the first step toward that vitally important goal. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Conclusion … but still analyzing with reference to ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Acknowledgment there will be doubters, critics and naysayers of this touchy argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More analysis of how he combats those doubters, with closing line that again signals the effectiveness of the argument.