Indledning
Angela Blair, a Texan published author and pro-gun advocate, wrote an article in 2009 on the subject of gun control.
She believes in “laws with teeth” instead of increased gun control. She uses the fact that people kill people and not guns as one of her main arguments against American anti-gun advocates.
Angela Blair also votes in favour of the death penalty and goes to great lengths explaining the beneficial values of it. Criminals should not be treated as innocent people nor should they own the right to vote, Blair states.
Indholdsfortegnelse
1. Outline
2. How does Angela Blair argue for her views? Give examples from the text, and comment on her use of rhetorical devices.
3. Choose three of Angela Blair's arguments and give counter-arguments of your own.
Optimer dit sprog - Læs vores guide og scor topkarakter
Uddrag
Angela Blair doesn’t fancy a lot of alliteration, assonance or anaphora, but this lack of the more “artistic” rhetorical devices is not particularly surprising considering that this is not a speech or “poetic” text.
Blair describes a serious subject matter using informative linguistics but still manages to squeeze in a bit of pathos.
We see an example of this when she states that the criminals’ dread of the death penalty has saved countless children from possible molestation and death. Mentioning child molestation brings out emotions in people thus enforcing Blair’s argument.
The quote: “If the gun is in my name and in my possession – I control it!” is an anaphora, in the sense that the word “my” is repeated and because of the fact that the words “name” and “possession” get connected.
Another device is used when Angela Blair mentions an old east Texas judge who, in Blair’s mind, had a very valuable moral. This is an anecdote.
Skriv et svar