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.