A Rhetorical Analysis of: Evil is as Evil Does Essay

PURPOSEThe famous Greek philosopher Aristotle once said, concerning the art of rhetoric, it is the cogency of discovering in ein truth case the available means of persuasion. A fitly eloquent phrase, the definition lends itself to images of momentous lecturinges amongst great crowds and heated debates in which the fluent, sharp language of one person casts a shadow over the clownish diction of another. Leonard Pitts purpose in his clause, Evil is as Evil Does, is to turn over that, The events of September 11 did not happen because we did something wrong. Or because we somehow merit them. Pitts feels actually strongly that we were attacked on September 11 because certain ghostlike extremists shun us. Pitts is writing a heated response to the arguments and comments he has perceive over the past couple of weeks concerning why we were attacked.AUDIENCESince this denomination was in a local professional newspaper for the public, Pitts hearing would consist of hatful in Colum bus, Georgia, regions close around the city, and in Florida because he is a author for the Miami Herald. The audience would consist of mainly middle-aged, middle class volume. Pitts seems to be aiming this article particularly at those who argon trying to empathize and rationalize the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. Pitts seems to feel they need to be win over that evil cannot be rationalized and that the linked States did not do anything to deserve these horrific attacks. He says, although our government has dirtied its hands in foreign affairs we do not drive planeloads of noncombatants into buildings make full with the same. And we dont dance in the street when innocents die. Therefore, he targets those who atomic number 18 trying to rationalize the motives of the terrorists because they argon the people that are the close to directly affected by the article, and the ones that need the most convincing.APPEALSPitts tries to reach his intended audien ce by making appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos. Through come forward the article, he points out the facts of his argument, and past he relates them directly to his topic. Pitts shows ethos by making a logical argument for his own opinions, and attempting to persuade his audience to see his side. He uses logos to invent pathos for the attacks in lay to draw out the emotions of the proof realiseers. For instance, he aggressively attacks those who are trying to figure out what we strength generate done to deserve what happened. Even his voice seems to be filled with yellow bile and condescension. He argues, Despite all(a) of our transgressions, we dont office the murder of those who have neither the capacity nor the intention to harm us.Then, he reiterates that this is what the terrorists did. Pitts also argues that, the claim that there might be some sorting of chaste equivalency between us and them is misguided at best, offensive at worst. Here he relate his argument to p athos by stating that sanatorium no, we did nothing wrong and nothing to deserve these attacks. He claims that these attacks happened because the terrorists hate us. Pitts states that they hate us because our foreign policy has been clogive of Israel. They hate us because we answered drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. They hate us because we are the biggest, the wealthiest, the most influential, and the most powerful. They hate us because we are not them, and, moreover, because they are not us.STYLEThe style of this article is of a basic format. Pitts begins his article with a bold sentence to catch the attention of the reader. Kinneavy states in his book, A Theory on Discourse, that, the distinctive function of the entrance split is to introduce the subject and make clear the end and object of the speech (Kinneavy, 266). He clearly introduces the purpose of his article in the first paragraph. He then transitions into his narrative and proof. He explains what propelled h im to spell out this article and he tax return with his proof as to why America is not at blur for the terrorist attacks. He concludes his article with another bold statement, which says, We are right and they are evil. End of story. This concluding paragraph shows the readers how strongly he feels about his argument. The reader can clearly see after reading this article that Pitts is victimization inductive reasoning to persuade his audience.The article was very easy to read and understand. There were no words that one would stumble over or that were hard to define and the paragraphs flowed and transitioned smoothly. The sentence structure was also varied substantially between long and short sentences.AUTHORITYPitts establishes his authority at the very beginning of the article by including his job title with his name Leonard Pitts, Commentary. the right way away, his audience is aware that he is an educated man because, otherwise, he would not be a writer for such a well-know n newspaper as the Miami Herald. He is also an American, which, at this point, gives him good enough authority to write such an impassioned commentary concerning the recent attacks.Another thing that shows a writer to be credible is how one would define his character. Aristotle listed three aspects that would help with the credibility of a writer. The speaker mustinessiness appear to have a practical knowledge about the reality at spot, he must seem to have the good of the audience at heart, and he must portray himself as a person who would not deceive the audience in the matter at hand (Kinneavy, 238). This is divided into good sense, good will, and good moral character. Pitts shows his good sense by showing his readers that he is well informed about the topic he is writing on. He goes through his article systematically, and reasonably refutes those people with which he does not agree.He shows his good will by explaining that we are better than the terrorists and the country th ey came from because we do not hurt innocent people on purpose or celebrate when they die. With his good will, he is establishing that as a fellow American, he does not, and will not empathize with the terrorists or anybody from the Middle East.Finally, Pitts expresses good moral character by showing his anger over the events mentioned. He also gives examples of the atrocities of the terrorists flying airplanes into buildings filled with innocent people and sanctioning the murder of those who have neither the capacity nor the intention to harm us. He reminds those that are flavor sorry for the terrorists that Americans would never have done the evil things that terrorists do. He is throw out his good moral character by showing that he does not condone the acts of the terrorists.ORGANIZATIONPitts starts his article with a quick and bold statement, allows get one thing straight. He then presents his thesis which states that we did not do anything wrong to deserve these attacks. He then begins to come with up with comments he has heard and e-mails he has received concerning why they believed the United States was attacked. Then he vehemently states that In a word, no. To all of the above, to all the tortured reflection and moral distress no. nuthouse no. After this statement he proceeds to explain why he so adamantly disagrees with the empathetic reactions of the comments he has heard. First, he expresses character that some people might have legitimate reason for displeasure toward this country.He then transitions to state that although we might do things to cause anger in other countries, we do not respond in a violent and evil manner because of this. Pitts explains that when the United States is forced to take phalanx action, we limit it to military targets and that we do not kill innocents on purpose. Pitts then states trying to change ourselves and the way we run this country in order to insure that no one will ever steer a plane into one of our bui ldings again is foolishness. Pitts then ties all these previous ideas in concert in his implications and conclusions section. He does not revisit each argument, but or else says that they hate us and there is nothing about our enemies that deserves to be reward by our moral distress. He concludes his argument by asserting that We are right and they are evil. End of Story.EFFECTIVENESSThis article was a very effective argument. The author made a point by providing facts to support that point, and countering the opposition. The article flowed well, and the diction was not so complex that one could not understand. The passionate voice Pitts uses and the facts he provides clearly express his feelings on the issue at hand. I do agree with Pitts assertion that these attacks were not the severance of America and I also believe we did not deserve these miserable attacks.The acts of the terrorists were cowardly and evil. And in my own opinion, I believe that the attack backfired on them. Although they caused mass chaos and much pain, they also caused a revival of American pride and unity in our nation that has not been seen since World contend II. Pitts article completely convinced me because I believe the same things that he does. We are certainly not a perfect nation and we do not always do the right things, but we do not condone the slaughter of innocent people, and there is no cause that would release such an action.Works Cited1. Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York W.W. Norton & Company, 19802. Introduction To Aristotle. Co-Directors fracture Jackson and Scott Jacobs. San Francisco University. September 28, 2001.