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.