7/27/2019 Rhetorical Analysis Redraft

1/3

Natalie Green

September 26, 2013

WRD 103

Rhetorical Analysis

Gun control has been a divisive issue in the United States. After the most recent

events in the Washington Navy Yard, Charles M. Blow uses hyper-negative word choice

to press his argument that congress is cowardly and does not want to face the issue of gun

control. Even though he uses facts and examples Blow really does not have anything to

show that he is credible to be talking about congress and how they feel about gun control.

He highlights common knowledge that anyone could go online and look up and adds

none of his own research, nor does he provide any information as to what in his

background qualifies him to write on the matter. He uses a variety of Ethos, Pathos, and

Logos to present his case however he still falls short of convincing people that he is right.

Blow does not provide his background, he states his opinions, but does not

provide any insight into what makes him qualified to write this article. What does he do

for a living, has he ever worked in congress, has he been personally affected by gun

violence? All of these would have helped make his article more convincing. He does not

prove to be credible but he attempts to prove his credibility by saying he does not

generalize. However he seems to be quite generalizing by stating things like that would

require courage and commitment, qualities that sadly run a deficit in Washington.

Although it may not seem that people in congress want to stand up to gun control he

doesnt know that for sure. They might want to but they may not have the support of the

people they represent. There are other things to focus on in this world and issues are

7/27/2019 Rhetorical Analysis Redraft

2/3

taken one at a time and the time for gun control will come when it does but until then

people need to view it as one small fish in the sea of issues and understand that not

everything gets changed instantly everything happens overtime. Blow brings in statistics

to validate his point and he shows the rhetoric of the other side but while doing so he

shoots it down as being a poor tactic. Trusting the author one hundred percent is difficult

as he has not established a background that would make him believable however he does

make a valid statement and has valid statistics to support his assertion.

Blow does use some Pathos by stating that, from 1973 to 2012 there were more

than four million firearm injuries in America. Hes trying to make the reader feel sorry

and sad about the fact that in those years four million people were injured by firearms.

This is a subject where Pathos could have been used to make a stronger impact. He could

have given examples of specific stories and tried to appeal more to individual emotions

rather than just using this one statistic. However it would be a fine line between using the

examples to get a point across and manipulating emotions. In this case with the one

statement he did not manipulate emotions, although this statistic is sad and surprising it

does not really get to you emotionally because it does not name any victims or share any

stories. Blow barely uses Pathos in the article he focuses more on evidence and statistics.

He does not allow emotions to get in the way in this article he uses evidence and facts to

show that his point is logical and he does not allow emotions to change your opinion he

solely relies on the facts and because of that your emotions cannot change your opinion

because there really isnt much in the article that would appeal to your emotions.

Blow abruptly ends the article saying but that would require courage and

commitment, qualities that sadly run a deficit in Washington. Ending the article this way

7/27/2019 Rhetorical Analysis Redraft

3/3

leaves it incomplete there is no support for why he feels as though they run a deficit and

hes assuming that the readerwill just agree with him regardless. He mentions how

protection has replaced hunting as the No. 1 reason that people own guns. He uses this

as his counter argument as to why people do not agree with gun control however he does

expand on this point and states more facts to support this side of the argument. Overall

Blow does a good job of stating both sides of an argument however he does state his

opinion as well which does make it an attempt to change your opinion. He plays up his

side of the argument and shoots down the other saying that the facts dont neatly line up

with that line of reasoning.

Based on what is stated in the article Blow is not credible to be discussing this

issue. He clearly outlines both sides of an argument which helps to show that he

somewhat knows what he is talking about however all his facts and statistics can be

found online and he does not have anything to make him more credible than the average

person. He just uses these facts to demonstrate both sides and then states that one of them

is right and the other one is not because the facts dont line up. This is his opinion

because to me the facts do line up and I can see the argument on both sides and Im still

unsure as to which one is right and which one is wrong. Blow did not use Pathos to foster

opinions in any way he just used facts and sometimes facts can be conflicting and not

necessarily appeal to one side and it just makes you start thinking more. After reading

this article I see that Blow is blaming congress for all the issues when maybe there are

others to blame but he does not even think of that he just jumps to conclusions. It feels as

though the article has had no affect on me other than to make me think more about the

argument on gun control and want to look further into the subject.