In an article written by the Denver Post, it explores the current prohibition of felons associating themselves with, or working in Colorado public schools. The argument being made is that even if someone should have a very minor drug charge on their record, which is automatically a felony, should they still be banished from all things that are Colorado public schools. I found their argument very compelling for multiple reasons. These columns often blind me because if these people are qualified enough to write for a newspaper, then it must be compelling, well written, and overall amazing. So, it’s hard for me to not enjoy and write good things about these columns.
I think the author does a great job citing examples, using metaphors, and reeling the reader in the beginning of the piece. The author does a great job in invoking the three terms, logos, pathos and ethos and using them to his advantage. The author clearly feels strongly about this topic and wants to change the readers mind and make them feel the way he does, which is always a great quality in writing: the ability to change the readers mind and get them to buy into what you are making an argument for. In this article, the author takes the topic to heart, and it is clear that this piece isn’t just an objective, which is always a good thing because the reader can tell that the author cares, which overall makes the authors diction, tone, and general point of view much stronger and more compelling. All of this has to do with the appeal to ethos in this piece. The author just does a great job of being persuasive and concise. One reason why the author is so persuasive is because of their status. When dealing with writing he/she is held in a very high regard. The author certainly persuaded me when I read this. This is a topic that I had never really read anything about or thought about it, so coming from an unbiased perspective can really show you how affective the author is in proving his point.
The author has given this piece character; he has given it a face. The author’s usage of pathos in this piece is evident. The author appeals to the reader by trying to relate things to them. When I read the article, I immediately sided with the author because I know people who are in jail, and they are good people. The stand the author is taking is one that is sticking up for people who have had petty charges and have to suffer their whole lives for them. The author believes in second chances, he/she believes in change and the ability to turn your self around. Basically, if this bill was passed, then someone with a minor drug charge couldn’t even be a custodian. The way the author really pulls me in is in the beginning. He begins by siding with the other side while being very vague about what he’s talking about. As the author delves deeper into the topic, you start to sense that he/she has flipped around, and convinced you of the opposite. The way they did this was by appealing to my emotions. The author was talking about how minor drugs charges ten or twenty years ago should not decide someone’s fate, I can definitely relate to that. I can’t relate to it personally, but I know there are good people who have made mistakes.
The author does just as good of a job associating logos in this piece as he/she does the other two terms. The author backs up their claims with facts, things that can be proven which overall strengthen the argument. The author talks about the House Bill 1121, which is what would prohibit felons working in public schools. This article isn’t something that would have to do with a lot of numbers; the convincing has to be done in terms of morality. The author makes you understand and identify with people who have made mistakes. “At the very least, legislators should consider making an old drug conviction- one that happened ten or twenty years ago- to be a condition that could prohibit employment, not shall prohibit employment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment