Jake Haman
Amy Bolaski
English 100September 8, 2013
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
In the article “The Case for Doing Nothing in Syria” the author Matthew Yeglasias bases his case around a phrase he hears when he was in a meeting in Washington. This phrase was that Obama had “no good options” in Syria. He posts this article on Wednesday 28 2013, in Slate, which is an argument-driven online magazine; it covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. The author uses the logical appeal throughout his article on the phrase “no good options.” He immediately attempts to get his audience on his side by letting them know he was in a meeting with “a whole bunch of important people” in Washington when he hears this phrase. Matthew Yeglasias does a good job using inartistic proof throughout his article by using facts, data and statistics. These include; the President’s National Security Strategy, Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and a chart showing how military intervention on the side of rebel groups has increased the number of civilian deaths. The author’s goal in this article is to reach the American populace, to use common sense by the facts and data he has laid out. If there are “no good options” in Syria, then leave it alone and move onto another problem where there are good options.
1 comment:
Jake,
You say, “bases his case”, but you haven’t yet clarified his case, so readers won’t quite follow this.
Watch verb tenses: you write, “bases his case around a phrase he hears when he was in a meeting in Washington.” . . . This phrase was . . . He posts this article . . .”
(Should be “phrase he heard”; and “this phrase is” – if it’s a phrase, it still exists, even if uttered in the past)) etc. Should be “he posted this article”, and so forth.)
When you write, “argument-driven”, do you mean “opinion-based”?
This doesn’t make sense: “The author uses the logical appeal throughout his article on the phrase “no good options.” How does one use an appeal ON a phrase? Clarify.
“He immediately attempts to get his audience on his side by letting them know he was in a meeting with “a whole bunch of important people” in Washington when he hears this phrase.” This suggests he simultaneously hears a phrase while attempting to reach his audience; this doesn’t work in a logical sequence of time. Everything’s fine until “when he . . .” First part of the sentence works well.
I like that you separate “fact” from “statistics” as they aren’t equivalent. Good job. “Data”, however, is vague and could fall into either of these categories.
The final sentence appears to be part of the thesis. I’m not sure I’m following this correctly: if there aren’t good options in Syria, the solution is to just . . . find a new problem? And who, exactly, is supposed to be doing the “leaving alone” and finding these options?
Post a Comment