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.”