Rhetorical Analysis 12: Historical Speech

The speech I chose was Hitler's "Berlin: Proclamation to the German Nation" (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/02-01-33.html.) The argument he's making is that the Marxist government has done nothing to help the German people in fourteen years and his government should be given four years to attempt to fix the country. His audience is the farmers and working class of the German nation, particularly those that were negatively affected by the post-war government.

Though I couldn't find footage of this particular speech, I did watch other speeches of Hitler's, and he is always passionate. He truly believed what he was saying, and it's easy to understand how he convinced others to believe it as well. He uses a great deal of emotion in his words as well. He begins this speech by justifying their part in WWI, saying that they were only "filled with the desire to defend the Fatherland" and to "preserve the freedom, nay, the very existence, of the German people." He then tries to anger the people by talking about "the misery of our people." Hitler explains the situation of the working class by calling them "unemployed," "impoverished," and "starving." Then he lays out his plan for helping the farmers and ending unemployment.

His conclusion appeals to logic. He says, "The Marxist parties and their lackeys have had fourteen years to show us what they can do. The result is a heap of ruins. Now, people of Germany, give us four years, then pass judgement on us." This seems so simple, what is four years after fourteen of misery? After being convinced of how terrible the situation is currently, any change seems to be good change.

The argument is mostly sufficient, though he doesn't give specific examples of what he will do to end unemployment, just that he will do it. The argument is typical, first empathizing with the audience and making them feel better about themselves before uniting them against a common enemy...in this case, the Marxist party. I don't know history well enough to know if the argument is accurate, but I do know that the German nation was doing poorly financially after WWI, so that part is correct. The argument is relevant, because the people were upset about their governement and he was giving an option to replace it.

I believe that this speech was effective. When dealing with a big group like this, drilling them with specific facts would only bore them. The situation required passion, and Hitler delivered beautifully. They wanted to feel united against an enemy, and Hitler fed them Marxism on a silver platter. They wanted to feel that a solution was in the near future, and Hitler promised it to them. I do not mean this as a political statement, but there are many similarities in this speech and the recent election promises. We are also a country that is torn apart financially by a war, and Obama has created an enemy of the Bush administration. His promises worked for us in the same way that Hitler's promises worked for the German people.

Rhetorical analysis 11: Music video

The music video I chose is "Untitled" by Simple Plan. The video is making an argument against drunk driving, and points out that no one is exempt from tragedy. The audience being targeted is teenagers that don't see a problem with drinking and driving.

The video bases most of its argument on emotions. They try to show the overarching effects of drunk driving by not only showing the girl that was hurt but also the way it affects her family. The family is shown doing normal things, like washing dishes and playing video games until the moment of the crash. Then it is the family as well as the girl that are crashing into walls and through glass. It's a poignant image of how a normal night can instantly become a disaster by one person's choice. The song itself is sung from the point of view of the drunk driver, who sincerely regrets his mistake. The final line of the chorus is "How could this happen to me?" which implicates that too many people believe that a drunk driving incident couldn't happen them...and it could. The video does appeal to pathos at the very end of the video, when it lists statistics of teen drunk driving accidents and gives a phone number if you want to get involved in preventing drunk driving.

The argument is sufficient. It shows characters that you can feel empathy for and relate to. It uses normal scenes that are familiar to teenagers and twists them into a tragedy. The argument is typical. It takes an event that seems distant to teens and gives the people involved faces and voices so that they become more real. The argument is also accurate, because these accidents happen all the time and in the same way. Lastly, the argument is revelant, because teen drunk driving is still on the rise and accidents are still killing many teenagers.

Rhetorical Analysis 10: Song

The song I chose is Linkin Park's "Hands Held High." It's available on the right hand of the page.

The argument the song is making is that the war in Iraq isn't any different than any other war, and that the Bush administration doesn't care about the troops or the people of America and have their own agenda. The audience they are targeting is people that like Linkin Park and support the war.

They use logic to make their argument. In referring to the Bush administration, they say, "Like they understand you in the back of the jet/When you can't put gas in your tank." This is intended to make listeners feel resentful and isolated from the government. For the most part, however, they use emotion to get their point across. First, they paint themselves as the lone voice in the wilderness fighting against a great evil. "'Cause I'm sick of being treated like I have before/Like it's stupid standing for what I'm standing for." Then they use repetition to destroy George Bush's authority, first by pointing out how stupid he is ("For a leader so nervous in an obvious way/ Stutterin' and mumblin' for nightly news to replay/ And the rest of the world watchin' at the end of the day/In their living room laughing like 'What did he say?'") and then how dangerous he is ("Meanwhile, the leader just talks away/Stutterin' and mumblin' for nightly news to replay/ And the rest of the world watchin' at the end of the day/ Both scared and angry like 'What did he say?'") Lastly, they use a series of intense images to scare their audience into agreeing with them. "It's ironic, at times like this you pray/ But a bomb blew the mosque up yesterday./ There's bombs in the buses, bikes, roads,/ Inside your market, your shops, your clothes." The chorus is also composed of "Amen" repeated over and over, invoking the image of prayer, as though they are on the side of God.

The argument is not sufficient in that it does not point out any legitimate evidence for what they are saying. However, it is sufficient in that it effectively plays with your emotions. The argument is typical because much political arguments are made mostly of passion and little of facts. The argument is not accurate because it is paranoid. It is relevant because the war in Iraq is a controversial topic today.

I don't believe this argument is efficient. I would put myself as part of the audience that they are working to convince, and the song did not make me withdraw support of the war. It is a moving song, but it actually works against them. Thinking of all the violence overseas convinces me that our troops need to stay there until it is resolved. Attacking Bush the way he does makes me feel sympathetic for Bush and want to support him even more.

Rhetorical analysis 9: Paper A

The argument that I am making is that if the Honor Code rules were based strictly on revelations and church doctrine then students would follow it more willingly and grow spiritually. My audience is the Honor Code committee and the administration.

I appeal to authority by citing a study done during two administrations-one was Wilkinson's, who was strict, and the other administration was Oak's, who stressed personal integrity. The study showed that there were fewer reported incidents of drug use, alcohol use, fornication, and homosexual activity. I also cite a well-respected LDS scholar, Hugh Nibley, as not respecting the idea of judging a student's virtue by their appearance. I also use logic to in my call to action, declaring that any rule that is not required by the church should not be required by this university. I point out that making one's own decisions about what is right or wrong is what leads to spiritual growth, not following a checklist.

My argument is sufficient, because it covers all the main counterarguments that will be made by the audience. It is also typical, because it appeals to studies done about the university and logic that has been backed up by our own religion. The argument is accurate, because the facts that it refers to are true and the conclusions I draw from them are logical. Lastly, it is relevant, because the Honor Code is a source of much discontent among many of the students.

I believe that my argument is efficient. It needs some tightening up and adjustments, but overall it is solid and would hold up against counterarguments.

Rhetorical Analysis 8: Source for Paper B

http://www.whattheyplay.com/media/images/press/vid_today.html

One of the sources for my paper is part of a news report on MSNBC about a website called "What They Play." This website shows parents specific content of video games so they can judge what is appropriate for their children.

The argument that is being made is that parents have tools available to them to help them navigate through the confusing world of video games. The target audience are parents that are not gamers but have children that are, and don't know which video games are appropriate for their children.

In the report, the website owners appeal to their own authority by explaining how they test the games. Each game is played for around 50 hours, or until the testers can find each of the descriptors the ESRB says is in the game. They also appeal to emotion by trying to empathize with the parents' confusion.

The argument is sufficient, because they show the work that they go through for each game so that they can efficiently inform the parents about the specifics of the game. The argument is also typical, because they explain how there is a need for their services and how they work to fulfill them. It is also accurate, because when you go on the website there are all of the resources that they promised. Lastly, the argument is relevant, because parents worrying about what their kids are playing is a problem that is prevalant in today's society.

I believe this argument is efficient, because it doesn't try to focus on what is good or bad in video games in such a small amount of time--instead, it just focuses on what is being done to help parents learn for themselves what they can do.

Rhetorical Anaylsis 7: Movie Trailer

The trailer I chose is from "Moulin Rouge." The argument that they are making is that this movie is dramatic and visually pleasing. It is also shown as being a sexy love story. The audience they're trying to appeal to is women, particularly the kind that like "Oscar type" movies. They may also be trying to appeal to women that are in their 30-40s by playing the songs "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "Roxanne," even though there are more modern songs in the movie. They also showcase Nicole Kidman in almost every scene, which would appeal to her fans, mostly 30-40 year old women. Nicole herself was 34 at the time of the movie.

The argument does appeal to authority by advertising that the director is the same that directed the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet. Mostly it is an appeal to emotion, with dramatic glances, yellings and gunshots.

The argument being made is sufficient to make some people go see the movie. However, I know many were put off by the prostitutes and intimate scenes that are prominently displayed in the trailer, and assumed the entire movie was little more than pornography. For many, though, they saw the love story and cinematography in the trailer and raced to the theater. The argument is typical, mentioning the past movies of the director and spending more time with the biggest name (Nicole Kidman) regardless of the main character (Ewan McGregor). It is mostly accurate, although it downplayed the fact that it's a musical. The argument is relevant, it sticks to what the story is about, showing off some of the best moments of the movie.

I believe that this trailer is effective. It has some problems at the beginning, when it is trying to show off all the different songs portrayed in the movie which is very distracting. But when it stops and just focuses on showing the drama and romance, it is enticing.

Rhetorical Analysis 6: Encounter

I went to the new "Throwdown" gym on State Street for my encounter. In all fairness, I have a feeling that the girl trying to sell me a membership was new and had never signed anyone up before, based on the way the girl at the desk got her to talk to me and her obvious nervousness.

It is difficult to tell what sort of audience she thought she had. The pitch felt more like it was rehearsed for a different audience, such as young men. She extolled the virtues of the MMA classes with an apology in her expression as though she knew I wouldn't like it. Almost as I was leaving, she remembered that they also had Pilates and Yoga classes, which I was more interested in. Basically, it seems that she could tell that I wouldn't be interested in hardcore fighting classes, but she didn't find a way to use that to her advantage until the very end.

Her main argument was that I should join their gym, and especially that I should sign up for a one year contract. Though I had to continually prompt her to find out the information I wanted (hours open, cost per month, classes offered, machines available) she was knowledgable. She did a good job of comparing their gym to others and showing why they were better by using logic. For instance, she pointed out the Gold's Gym doesn't offer classes in how to really fight, their classes are mostly just cardio. Also, with a membership, all of the classes are free and you can take as many as you want whenever you want. And she pointed out that the jiu-jitsu place up the street only taught one form of martial arts, and it was more expensive with fewer classes. She tried to use pathos to pressure me into giving me my information to come to a free class, but I just told her I'd rather not and she dropped it.

If I were looking for a gym, the argument might be sufficient. The pricing and the unlimited classes is appealing. But it was not enough to convince me to join when I'm not interested in a gym. The argument was typical, comparing their good points to the bad points of other gyms. I know parts of the argument were accurate, such as the pricing, but I don't know for sure if Gold's Gym has classes that really teaching fighting or not. The argument was relevant, because she referenced all the things that I would be most interested in if I were looking for a gym.

Overall, the argument was about as effective as it could be considering the salesperson. There was nothing wrong with the argument itself, but the salesperson seemed so uncertain of herself that I wasn't convinced. She needed to be more assertive and confident, and to be able to adapt her memorized script to the individual.

Rhetorical Analysis 4: Souce for Paper A

http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57688



The argument being made in "Honor Code Unifies Students" is exactly what the title implicates. The audience is the students at BYU, since it was printed in the campus newspaper.



The article also attempts an appeal to logos, but the attempt is pitiful. They quote one diverse student that says the honor code agrees with her religion. This doesn’t support the argument that the honor code unifies students, it only means that it doesn’t bother one student of another religion. The one dissenting voice is quickly silenced by the addition that he follows the honor code even if he doesn’t agree with all of it because he agreed to. The rest of the article is simply informative and makes no further stances.

The argument is not even remotely sufficient. There isn’t one good reason for anyone to believe their claim. The arguing is typical by using specific examples of students, but fails in that it doesn’t allow any truly opposing voices to be heard nor by citing the general feelings of the students as a whole. There is no way to know if the argument is accurate, because we never see a single fact or statistic. The argument would be relevant if it could prove what it claims to, because certain aspects of the honor code are often said to be difficult for students to adhere to due to their different backgrounds.

This argument is totally ineffective. Like most BYU articles, it ignores the actual question and just focuses on making BYU look good. It attempts to appear to look like it’s not biased by putting in one slight dissension, but then turns around and says that even if you disagree, you should just keep quiet because you signed it. BYU treats itself as though it is the church, but it is not. While a faithful member would never criticize the church, BYU students should be able to criticize BYU. This article should have tried to find the real story behind the effects that the honor code has on students from other backgrounds, but it instead tries to placate the dissenters by making them sound as though they are bad people for not believing in the “spirit of the law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html

In "Legal Immigration? Anybody?" the author is arguing that it would be good for Congress to pass a visa-recapturing bill this year, yet acknowledging that they won't because despite the best efforts of certain Democrats, Republicans are "sabotaging" them with "ridiculously restrictive amendments." The target audience are people that oppose the idea of visa-recapturing bills because they believe that passing such a bill will result in an onslaught of new immigrants.

Much of the argument is made using pathos. The author chooses his words carefully to victimize the Democrats that toil tirelessly to gain rights for immigrants and make the Republicans appear as vicious immigrant haters. He attempts to invoke feelings of patriotism with line such as "The myth of Ellis Island becomes more mythical."

The more effective argument is made with logos. The author points out that many fear passing a visa-recapturing bill because it will bring in many more immigrants. However, this is not true, because it simply gives out visas to those that the Congress has already approved to people that have been waiting in the U.S. with temporary visas. That makes the bill more about keeping worker rather than gaining them.

The main question that is being asked is "What are the consequences of a visa-recapturing bill on the influx of new immigrant workers?" The claim being made is that a visa-recapturing bill will not bring in new immigrants as much as it will give new visas to highly skilled workers that are already here.

This argument is sufficient in the logic for its argument. It addresses the main questions that his audience may have and points out why it is not valid. The argument is also typical and follows a normal train of thought by looking at specific numbers and what would actually happen if the bill passed. The argument seems to be accurate, using names and numbers and facts. However, it does not cite any of its sources, so we cannot check on it. It is also very relevant, and concerns one of the main problems that is being addressed in the election debates today.

I do believe that the argument is effective. I myself am convinced that if the author has the correct facts that a visa-recapturing bill would be good. However, the author is so incredibly biased that it makes him seem less reliable. He is so clearly biased against Republicans that I can't believe anything he says about them. There is no objectivity in the editorial, which makes me wonder what the other side would say about it. I wonder if he is holding back on certain information that would ruin his logic.

Rhetorical Analysis 3: Art

The argument being made here is that when we look into the mirror, we see problems and distortions that really aren't there. The main audience Picasso is trying to reach is teenage girls, though it may be for all women in general.

For me, this painting is amazingly emotional. The girl has a look on her face that isn't quite sadness...it's more like disappointment. However, she is lovely, with a beautiful skin tone and flowing hair. Her reflection is something out of nightmares. It is twisted, discolored, and misshapen. The girl is by no means perfect, but she certainly isn't as terrible as her reflection. I think Picasso is also appealing to logic in this painting. If this girl can be beautiful in real life and yet be disappointed in her reflection, perhaps we are all beautiful in real life regardless of our reflection.

I think that this argument is suffcient. The expression on her face and the radical difference between the truth and the reflection is enough to convince any audience of his argument. And I think his argument is typical. Everytime anything is argued, in magazines or commercials or whatever, we are expected to relate to the models. Whatever is true for them can be true for us. Picasso employs the same idea here. His argument has also been found to be accurate, most people do have a distorted image of themselves. It is also completely relevant. Every girl in the world could confess to having a similar experience.

Overall, I believe that Picasso's argument works. He reaches into the deepest darkest part of a woman and puts it on display without shame, which is why the girl is naked. He understands the pain that every girl has felt at some time or another with their own reflection. And he manages to comfort and show us that although we are not perfect, we are better than what we see in the mirror, and we are beautiful.

Rhetorical Analysis 2: Commercial

The argument being made is that if you shave with their razor, your skin will be as smooth as a baby. They say that if your skin is as smooth as a baby's, women will want you, the assumption being that women love smooth skin. The audience is men that shave, and perhaps specifically fathers of young children, though I don't think it needs to be that exclusive.

I believe the main way that the argument is being made is through humor. The commercial parodies action heroes like Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Lee using a baby! The whole concept is that of fathers being jealous of the attention their sons are getting from their mothers, which is also humorous. There isn't really any logic or appeals to authority.

There is sufficient humor to make the audience laugh, which is probably winning half the battle, knowing men. However, there are no facts or studies, or anything at all really to back up what they are saying. Their reasoning is about as typical as men's reasoning ever is when it comes to attracting women. They all want a woman to snuggle up to them like that, and it makes sense that a razor could make them attractive in that way. It is accurate in that they know the best way to persuade their audience--action parodies, humor, and the promise of beautiful women. I don't know that it is relevant to the argument, but it is relevant to the audience.

This argument is effective because it works well for its audience. It makes men laugh, and it gives them promises of being kissed all over by hot women. What more could they ask for?

Rhetorical Analysis 1: Advertisment

The argument that is being made in this advertisment is that by using the Thermador Masterpiece kitchen, your cooking experience will be so much easier that you will be inspired to work on huge projects. This ad is from a magazine called "The Nest," which is specifically geared towards newlywed young women around 20-35 years old.

Though they never cite a source for some of their claims, they do try to appeal to authority by saying that the oven is "state-of-the-art" and features "the largest capacity on the market." They call the cooktops "powerful" and claim that the ventilation "clears the air." There is no proof for this, there are no comparisons with other brands, there is no way to know how the studies were done, or even what a word like "powerful" really means.

Their biggest appeal is to emotions. At the bottom of the ad, it reads "Thermador: An American Icon." This makes you think of a Stepford wife type of experience, which is exactly what the picture provides, as well as giving you a sense of patriotism. The picture is intriguing because it features so many different types of desserts, and yet is clean and organized which any cook would tell you it never can be. In this way, it is appealing to those that hate the mess that always builds up in the kitchen. The picture is also designed to make it look impossibly easy. So easy, in fact, that the model is working on all these projects is wearing a nice dress with her hair done perfectly and is even wearing high heels. She is also smiling, tossing up what looks like crepes and pulling out six cakes. Everything suggests ease and relaxation.

In their appeal to logic, they basically make three claims: First, that the "powerful cooktops featuring advanced Star burners fire the imagination." Though it's a nice pun, this doesn't actually make any sense. Imagination is not associated with powerful cooktops. If you're not creative with a weak cooktop, there is no reason why you would be creative with a powerful one. Second, that "sleek ventilation with electronic controls clears the air and clarifies possibilities." I can think of many reasons why I would want ventilation that clears the air, but clarifiying possibilities is not one of them. Perhaps it is a little easier to think if I'm not using a cookie sheet to wave smoke away from the smoke detector, but other than that, I don't see where they are going with this argument. The last is the most convincing. "Spacious, state-of-the-art wall ovens featuring the largest capacity on the market accommodates the most daring ventures." This does make sense. If the oven really is larger than others, then it will be easier to do more with them, which would accommodate daring ventures such as large dinner parties and such.

I do think this ad is effective, however. Although there are major problems with the logic and the appeal to authority, the emotion is so strong that I think it would work. Because this is geared toward newlywed young women, they will be paying more attention to the fact that this is what they have thought their kitchen would look like someday. We can scream women's rights as much as we want, but I think deep down, most women would want to be able to easily make a huge batch of chocolate desserts while looking beautiful and having fun. Also, because they are newlyweds, they probably are still in the honeymoon phase, and believe that life can be like this. I believe that they would look around at their dingy basement apartment kitchen and think, "If I had a kitchen like that, I would be able to make the things she's making, and I would get inspired to make things more often." I think that when these women go out to remodel or replace parts of their kitchen, they'll see "Thermador: An American Icon" and remember the hopeful feeling they had. They may vaguely remember the claims that it made, forgetting that there was no basis. Though this ad is not perfect, I believe that it does accomplish what it intends to, and does a good job of it.