As a persuasive essay, Emily Andrews in ‘Why I don’t spare “spare change” uses Aristotle’s tools of rhetoric in affirming the validity of her argument and reinforcing her perspective that it is much more credible to contribute to charitable organizations than to give alms to mendicants and vagrants. She establishes the credibility of her premise through a coherent union of the three tools of persuasion- ethos, logos and pathos. Andrews questions whether the poor really do deserve alms.
She suggests that they could be alcoholics or drug addicts or may be simply unwilling to work, in which case she would only be encouraging them to pursue bad habits by giving them spare change. Her attitude is that it is more productive to contribute to charitable organizations where the money will most certainly benefit the poor. This will also ensure that the money will be channelized gainfully and will not only serve merely to assuage the conscience. Andrews displays effective usage of the principle of ethos to make her argument forceful and compelling.
When she states “It happens that I have been brought up to believe that it is appropriate to make contributions to charity- let’s say a shelter for battered women” (Andrews, 1), she is establishing her credibility as a person of positive moral character. The fact that she is essentially brought up with a social conscience also makes the argument more appealing. Aristotle has stated that there are intrinsically three elements that make the use of ethos in an argument powerful. These are the presence of – 1. good common sense, 2. ethics and 3. amity.
The Research paper on Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade
The Greek word ethos is related(связанные) to our word ethics or ethical, but a more accurate(точный) modern translation might be “image. ” Aristotle uses ethos to refer to the speaker’s character as it appears to the audience. Aristotle says that if we believe that a speaker has good sense, good moral character, and goodwill, we are inclined(склонный) to believe what that speaker says. Today we ...
The sentence that Andrews uses is doubly potent because apart from proving her morality, it also establishes her benevolence, that she is, in fact, willing to lend money to a home for abused women. It helps establish her altruistic motive. In doing so, it contributes to her likeability, and lends credence to and helps augment the fact that she comes from a position of goodness. She also disapproves of alcohol and drugs and is unswerving in her belief that the consumption of both serves to not only destroy the lives of those who consume them but also those dependant on them.
This further contributes to ethos or espouses her sincerity. In the construction of the essay also, Andrews lends to the strength of her arguments by using a strong and explicit thesis sentence in her introductory paragraph “most alcoholics and drug addicts can be classified with the “undeserving poor” . And that is largely why I don’t distribute spare change to panhandlers. ” (Andrews, 1).
Also, in questioning the aphorism, ““poor but honest”, “the deserving poor”” (Andrews, 1) and describing the reasons for her beliefs, Andrews narrows the field of her argument and makes it definitive.
During the course of her argument also, Andrews states that from her frame of reference, which is primarily personal experience, her argument is valid. She also says that she is “not generalizing about street people” (Andrews, 2) and also that she is “not talking about street people in the big urban centers” (Andrews, 2).
Her conclusion is also decisive when she affirms “that’s why I don’t usually give “spare change”” (Andrews, 2) and “I don’t think I will in the future” (Andrews, 2).
She is effective also in using repetition to make her premise emphatic. Thus, by using language to enhance and build on the clarity of her case, Andrews demonstrates ethos. In her third paragraph, logos or the power of logic is used to convince the reader. She applies deductive reasoning when she states that in lending money to a panhandler, one may or may not be supporting a penniless destitute or a person who is really in want, but in contributing to an organization such as the United Way, one can vouch for the end use of the money for charity.
The Term Paper on Prosecuting Argument: State V. Stu Dents
In the case of State v. Stu Dents, the state of Maryland will be charging the defendant with homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, burglary and the crimes related to drugs discovered by the detectives after the murder. The state will present evidence on what the detectives discover going through the suspects’ resident. Detectives discovered a journal that comprised of details about ...
In doing so, Andrews encourages people to contribute wisely to charitable organizations whose credibility is not questionable. When Andrews states that “one may feel that this particular unfortunate individual needs help at this moment- a cup of coffee or a sandwich” (Andrews, 2), she is demonstrating pathos to sway the reader. She is reinstating that she is also sympathetic and can be moved by the impoverishness of a beggar, but experience has taught her that they can sustain themselves. Andrews also solicits pathos when she claims that she might have to sacrifice a movie some week.
Here, she is emphasizing that dispensing with money for beggars would entail some relinquishment on her part. The choice of language is very significant here because she states that she comes across very few beggars and parting with change for them, is for her, not very consequential. In other words, charity, per se is important to her, the only thing that she is questioning is the credibility of the recipient. Andrews also demonstrates the power of example to support and assiduously develop her premise.
Her illustration about the omnipresence of a beggar who impresses her with his unceasing regularity in turning up at the bus stop where she boards a bus for college adds to the power of her argument, that he is, in fact, perfectly capable of holding a regular job. This also reiterates the fact that the beggar is poor largely because he chooses not to do anything or employ his time gainfully. The author’s motive in writing the essay is based on her values, that money should be used prudently. Though she strives to remain objective in enforcing her conviction, her perspective comes through.
The essay is convincing and is limited only by the absence of facts, statistics or elucidations to strengthen her premise. These would have helped strengthen her point of view further. Through the consistent use of the first person “I” and starting her essay by stating the values she imbibed whilst she was growing up, she makes the essay personal and engaging. It also helps the author to establish an affinity with the reader. Andrews also uses contrast to heighten the difference between the poor who may or may not be warrant charity and voluntary nonprofit organizations which are unquestionably reliable.
The Report on Change of State of Matter
REVIEW: Matter - anything that has mass and takes up space States of Matter: solid, liquid, gas, plasma Solid - has definite shape, definite volume (ex. Rock) Liquid - has indefinite shape, definite volume (ex. water) Gas - has indefinite shape, indefinite volume (ex. air) PHASES! CHANGES OF STATE OF MATTER: * When something such as water turns from being water to being ice, it is called a change ...
The contrast also lends credence to the assertion that some beggars are “better off” (Andrews 2) by not providing them money for “liquor or drugs” (Andrews 2).
The power of the author’s arguments is reinforced by using all the elements of a rhetorical essay in confluence. Following the structure of a five paragraph rhetorical essay, she states her thesis sentence in the introductory paragraph and gradually builds her argument in successive paragraphs by introducing topic sentences and supporting them with the help of ethos, logos and pathos.
Her language is colloquial and lucid, tempered by interrogative sentences like “Deserving what? My spare change? Or simply the government’s assistance? ” (Andrews, 1).
These help to involve the reader. In fact, this informality lends the essay fluidity so that it appears almost as a conversation, a mellifluous writing style which helps the author to present her perspective, which is essentially what she is doing. Andrews concludes her essay categorically by reiterating “That’s why I usually do not give “spare change”, and I don’t think I will in the future.
These people will get along without me” (Andrews, 2).
She has been successful in establishing her point of view and forcefully insistent that from her viewpoint social responsibility should be exercised discriminately, with a moral obligation to contribute only to the destitute through organizations. Her experience has embittered her to be wary of beggars and not give them the benefit of doubt. In the end, her argument is logical and is successful in persuading the reader.
Works Cited Andrews, Emily Why I don’t Spare “Spare Change”