The Rhetorical Devices of Argumentative Articles

Picture from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

The single, most country changing event happened back in September 11th 2001, where radical Islamic terrorist attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This attack instilled fear into all Americans, creating panic and chaos in the general public. Amongst the chaos, many people proposed their opinion on how the country needs to respond to these events. The events on September 11th brought terrorism and terrorist organizations to the front of national security, and forced everyone to think about possible solutions. Many people debate the way America has responded to terror and wonder what steps must be taken to secure a safer, better future. Researchers from University of Princeton and Fordham University of Law performed studies to see how to stop the growth of terrorism and what way counteracts terrorist the most. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther, from University of Princeton, propose that policy makers must deal with the dilemma: prevent terrorism through likelihood of attack or prevent blame by limiting terrorist attacks the public finds blameworthy. However Lagos, and Rudy, from Fordham University of Law, support the idea of creating a more definitive definition for the word “terrorism” and call on U.N. powers to aid America’s battle against the terrorist. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use clear language, technical graphs, and small concise paragraphs while Lagos, and Rudy use bullet point lists, historical facts and dates, and past tense to argue for their side of the terrorist debate. Although the articles have similar motives, they both effect how the reader interprets their argument through diction, syntax, and format.

The first article written by McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther uses very clear, analytical language to convey their research in an understanding way. Their research uses many statistics to set up their premises in a logical fashion. The authors detailed how they would conduct their research with multiple studies. Much like a lab report, the authors wrote the procedures in past tense explaining the process of collection information and what they thought would be the most effective way of conducting the experiment. In Study 1, the authors explain who the participants were followed by procedures. They explain that they have questioned one hundred eleven undergrad students on potential terrorist actions. The researchers looked for the students raw reactions and who the students think deserved the blame. To increase the data collected, the researchers split the survey into two types with one survey having a terrorist attack with 50 victims and the other survey having 500 victims. This split shows that the researchers wanted to collect data to see if the number of deaths effects who needs to be held accountable. The researchers conduct more experiments with undergrads students filling out many questionnaires. By thoroughly explaining their process, the authors present transparent research that supports their claim and gains credibility with the reader. Throughout the article, the authors collect data and clearly explain it with common diction so that all types of educated reader can understand the conclusion.

In the other article, Lagos and Rudy use lists to convey facts in simple way to comprehend. Their paper contains long paragraphs with complex concepts in each one. By inserting lists into the paper, it allows the reader to remember key points and facts that will be needed later in the paper. For example, the authors used list to provide a short summary of a human rights article in order to provide new information without taking away from their paper and the argument at hand. By using these list and bulleted off sections, it keeps the reader focused and open to the material at hand. The article is also broken into sections to compliment the reader’s reading experience. The authors of this article also use past tense and “to be” verbs when making a point. Since their research was finished in the past, using past tense to describe the results and conclusions makes logical sense. Their use of “to be” verbs also creates a more passive tense in the paper allowing the readers to easily comprehend the content. Since the paper contains longer paragraphs, the use of past tense and “to be” helps the authors get their point across.

Another rhetorical technique used by McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther is graphs and short paragraphs. Throughout the article, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s use of graph provides a fresh way to interpret the stats without having to deal with too much text. Graphs catch the eye of the reader and cause them to wonder what the graph shows and how it can be applied. The intelligent way the authors displayed their research presents the results to the readers in an easy, comprehendible way. For example, the authors uses bar graphs to construct effective displays of terrorist attacks and how much blame would be assigned for certain types of attack. These bar graphs drive home the important results from their research and bolster their argument with concrete, well thought out evidence. The graphs and charts also provide a change of pace from just reading words, it uses a different part of the brain preventing readers from getting bored or loosing attention. Also McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use short, driving paragraphs to keep the reader interested. These short paragraphs and the use of first person pronouns like “I” and “we,” establish the idea that the reader and the author performed this research together. Like the other article, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use past tense to create when describing their research and conclusion, however the use of first person pronouns creates a more personal connection with their research. Through the use of graphs and first person pronouns, McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther establishes a personal connection with the readers and creates a flowing argument with understandable research.

Unlike McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article, Lagos, and Rudy use many historical facts, dates, and treaty’s to back up their theory to stop terrorism. Both articles have numbers but Lagos, and Rudy’s numbers focus more on historical significance than statistics. Lagos, and Rudy choose to focus more on history because it benefits their argument more by seeking to redefine terrorism and call on the U.N. for military support. Without the historical importance of treaties, their argument lacks any foundation to stand on. Throughout their article, the authors explain how the current state of terror prevention started and the issues with the current system. Building a foundation and history for what has been done to stop terrorism, allows the authors to point out mistakes and methods to improve those mistakes. For example Lagos, and Rudy explain what an “international terrorist” is according to national laws in order to increase the urgency and validity of their paper. Without the current definition and how it became defined explained, the reader may not fully understand the severity of this issue and how the definition hurts terror prevention. The effective use of historic facts supports Lagos, and Rudy’s argument that the international definition of terrorist needs to change as well as how the world responds terrorism.

Both articles target separate audiences while still arguing on a similar topic. In McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article, the authors target an audience that enjoys scientific research and statistics. By doing this, the authors effectively limit their audience to the people who most likely support their argument based on their style of evidence. Statistical analysis and graphs encourage the scientific audience to take this article seriously since it presents new research to the public. On the other hand, Lagos, and Rudy’s article focuses more on the historical audience, appealing to them through historical events, foreign relations, and dates. In doing this, the authors entice historians and politicians to dive into their research. The historical facts and heavy focus on international policy inform people of the political issues surrounding terrorism and their violence. While both articles call for change, each article appeals to a different demographic. Whether its’ with surveys and statistics or history and policies, both groups of researchers know that their research will affect people and change the way the current world deals with terrorism as well as moral issues.

How an author presents their writing through rhetorical devices and style affects who will read the writing and actually take something out of it. In the case of terrorist prevention, McGraw, Todorov, Kenreuther, Lagos, and Rudy use their unique writing style and rhetorical devices to present original research and back up their arguments on how to prevent terrorist attacks. McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther use of short paragraphs and clear language complimented by simple charts presented information in an easy way to comprehend. The quick flow and powerful information backs up their argument, while not getting trapped in meaningless language. Whereas Lagos, and Rudy utilize sections, bullet points, and historical data to verify their argument. The segmented sections and bullet points break up the article into smaller understandable sections that improve the flow of the article. By bulleting lists, the author effectively creates easy to remember facts that the reader will use later in the article. The structured sections allow the reader to quickly recall important information that supports the author’s main argument. The author’s use of historical data and longer paragraphs brings in a different crowd than McGraw, Todorov, and Kenreuther’s article. Since the paragraphs are longer, it allows the authors to go into more detail about what is being done to combat this issue. Through the use of unique rhetorical devices and writing style, McGraw, Todorov, Kenreuther, Lagos, and Rudy effectively argue their points on what would be the most effective way to limit and stop terrorist.

Works Cited

Lagos, Enrique, and Timothy D. Rudy. PREVENTING, PUNISHING, AND ELIMINATING TERRORISM IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE: A POST-9/11 INTER-AMERICAN TREATY. LexisNexis® Academic. Fordham International Law Journal, 2003. Web. 03 Dec. 2015. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=12490&sr=TITLE%28%22Preventing%2C+punishing%2C+and+eliminating+terrorism+in+the+Western+Hemisphere+a+post-9%2F11+inter-American+treaty%22%29+and+date+is+2003>.

McGraw, Peter, A., Alexander Todorov, and Howard Kunreuther. "A Policy Maker’s Dilemma: Preventing Terrorism or Preventing Blame." A Policy Maker's Dilemma: Preventing Terrorism or Preventing Blame. Elsevier, May 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000185>.