Summary- This editorial was about the recent protests against Wall Street. It explains what these protestors are fighting against, the inequality of taxpayers and the top 1% of Americans in our economy. The writer's opinion is that these protestors are right on with their fight, and that the Wall Street financiers were not always much wealthier than the rest of Americans and should not be this wealthy. He thinks of it as unjust, because recently taxpayers have had to bail out the financial industry.
Source/Author- This editorial was printed in the New York Times on October 29. It was written by Eduardo Porter. I would consider this editorial very credible because it was published in a well read newspaper. It was also credible because he included factual reports and charts to back up his argument.
Context- The context of this article is the richest 10% percent of Americans, and their affect of the rest of Americans. The exigence was the recent protests which have occurred across the country against Wall Street
Purpose- The purpose was to convince a reader whom may doubt the purpose of the Wall Street protest that they are completely purposeful. I think that Porter accomplished this because he included many facts to back up his argument to prove to anyone who would disagree.
Audience- Readers of the New York Times.
Rhetorical Elements- This editorial included majorly appeals to logos. While the author could have written this article emotionally, complaining about how unfair it is that a small proportion of Americans are richer than most Americans (including himself), he uses factual arguments. He includes Wall Street's affect on America as a whole, and backs up his opinion with data and past events. It made his argument much more affective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/wall-street-protesters-hit-the-bulls-eye.html?_r=1&ref=editorials
No comments:
Post a Comment