Rhetorical Analysis of Arguments by Paige Fernandez and Jason C. Johnson and James A. Gagliano

Introduction

In this essay, we will conduct a comparative rhetorical analysis of two arguments: one by Paige Fernandez and the other by Jason C. Johnson and James A. Gagliano. The main focus will be on summarizing each argument, analyzing the rhetorical situation of each piece, evaluating the authors’ use of ethos, logos, and pathos, and determining which argument is more convincing to its target audience.

Thesis Statement

By closely examining the rhetorical strategies, contextual elements, and persuasive techniques used in the arguments by Paige Fernandez and Jason C. Johnson and James A. Gagliano, it becomes evident that Fernandez’s argument is more effective in persuading its audience due to her adept use of emotional appeal and relatable examples.

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis

Paige Fernandez’s Argument

– Overview: Paige Fernandez’s argument revolves around the importance of mental health awareness in schools and the necessity of implementing mental health education in curriculums.

– Rhetorical Situation:

– Audience: Fernandez’s argument is targeted at educators, parents, and policymakers who have the power to influence the inclusion of mental health education in schools.
– Purpose: The purpose of her argument is to advocate for the well-being of students by emphasizing the need for mental health education.
– Context: The argument is written in response to the rising concerns about mental health issues among students and the lack of adequate support systems within educational institutions.

– Use of Ethos, Logos, Pathos:

– Ethos: Fernandez establishes her credibility through her professional background in psychology and education.
– Logos: She supports her claims with statistical data and research findings regarding the benefits of mental health education.
– Pathos: Fernandez effectively appeals to readers’ emotions by sharing personal anecdotes and stories that evoke empathy.

Jason C. Johnson and James A. Gagliano’s Argument

– Overview: Johnson and Gagliano’s argument focuses on the need for stricter gun control laws to reduce gun violence in the United States.

– Rhetorical Situation:

– Audience: Their argument targets lawmakers, law enforcement agencies, and the general public concerned about gun violence.
– Purpose: The purpose is to persuade the audience to support legislative changes that would enhance gun control measures.
– Context: The argument is situated in the ongoing debate surrounding gun control laws and their impact on public safety.

– Use of Ethos, Logos, Pathos:

– Ethos: Johnson and Gagliano draw on their expertise in law enforcement to lend credibility to their argument.
– Logos: They present statistical evidence and case studies to demonstrate the correlation between lax gun laws and increased gun violence.
– Pathos: The authors appeal to readers’ emotions by recounting tragic incidents involving gun violence to evoke a sense of urgency for change.

Comparative Evaluation

Upon evaluating both arguments, it is clear that while both Fernandez and Johnson and Gagliano effectively utilize ethos, logos, and pathos in their respective pieces, Fernandez’s argument holds a stronger persuasive impact. The emotional appeal embedded in Fernandez’s narrative, coupled with relatable examples and personal stories, creates a compelling case for the implementation of mental health education in schools. In contrast, while Johnson and Gagliano present a logical and well-researched argument for stricter gun control laws, the emotional resonance found in Fernandez’s piece resonates more profoundly with readers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, through a comparative rhetorical analysis of the arguments by Paige Fernandez and Jason C. Johnson and James A. Gagliano, it is evident that Fernandez’s argument emerges as more convincing due to its adept use of emotional appeal and relatable examples. By leveraging personal narratives and emotional connections, Fernandez successfully engages her audience and makes a compelling case for mental health education in schools.