Appeal to Ignorance
|
“about 100 years ago”
“Founder, CEO of NPO”
|
Done to prevent the target audience feeling dumb if they can’t
remember specific dates, or simply poor research. Possibly completely
ignoring that Reparations after the War Between the States was a thing.
Reliance on general acceptance of qualification, without giving
attackable specifics. As a minor candidate, no-one will care enough to
research and attack her.
|
Emotional Appeal
|
“Well-rounded work history”
|
“I have no valid training, but look! I’m just like you!”
|
Reverse Bandwagon
|
“Many think that . . . But in reality”
|
Allows reader to agree with her, thereby making them smarter than the
people who are wrong.
|
Appeal to Misleading Authority/Ignorance
|
“General Discharge under Honorable Conditions”
|
This means she was kicked out, but didn’t commit a crime. She FAILED
at the Army. Stating this as a ‘fact to note’ in her qualifications is her
relying on the voters either not reading past “Veteran of the Army”
(incidentally, not how that is phrased by most military vets either) or
seeing “Honorable” and assuming she finished her term as she was
contractually obligated to do, which she did not.
|
Poisoning the Well
|
“Spent only what it brought in”
|
Creates a moral value of thrift, then immediately attacks the failing
of the government to meet said moral value.
|
Slippery Slope
|
“children paying . . . their grandchildren . . . enslaved to the
Government”
|
Used an unfounded, hyperbolic scare tactic to elicit immediate
protective parental responses, intentionally limiting the readers capability
to think logically about following arguments.
|
This blog will be filled with data analysis samples created by students in my COMM 274 class at TLU. You will see a variety of types of rhetorical analysis methods on display here.
Links to rhetorical tools:
Here are links to the rhetorical tools used in this class:
Friday, February 12, 2016
Snooks, Thomas - Political Candidate: Joy Waymire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood analysis. I think her fallacies are making her other claims very weak. This should be really interesting when compared to her Perelman arguments.
ReplyDelete