First, details. LaChance proves that she is knowledgeable about the topic by providing specific examples of deaths-gone-wrong and other flaws in the system. Take, for example, the top of the third paragraph.
"In 1972, the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutionally unfair, but left the door open for states to come up with new laws to remedy the arbitrary sentencing criteria it found troubling."
This example displays one of the facts about the death penalty LaChance researched. She goes on the explain how different groups tried taking advantage of that particular ruling. Her use of these periodic facts (others can be found in paragraphs six and seven) lead to readers assuming that she is learned on the subject. Readers that haven't done the research LaChance has may be impressed by her insight and could be attracted to her arguements simply because they assume she knows more than they do.
Another rhetoric LaChance exercises frequently is imagery, or what the reader feels/sees when reading. See the last lines of her first paragraph-
"...voters will finally see capital punishment for what it is: an intolerable affront to human dignity."
Sentences like these tend to sort of inspire readers. They create a feeling that goes with the article. This specific example leaves readers with a feeling of offense with the rest of the article. Intolerable? A reader sees that something may be intolerable and synonymizes it with something bad. An affront to human dignity? Readers are usually proud. They may go right along with Lachance's description of capital punishment. By the time they reach the second paragraph, LaChance has already planted a feeling of disgruntlement. More examples can be provided, but really every other line contains another one. Diction at this level leads to images that can very easily sway readers to seeing from LaChance's point of view.
Lastly comes LaChance's diction of the article. Focusing on what Lachance didn't say rather than what she did, the story is lacking a different point of view. As an editorial this can easily be expected, but discrediting the oppositions arguments can often do more to persuade readers than simply offering your own. Lachance provides many examples that support her points and says plenty about her subject, but a reader may begin to wonder why she never included or addressed an opposing view. She makes her thought very clear, but that's about it.
You have a pretty good analysis here. I agree with what your are saying about details, which very clearly helped to show the authority of the author.
ReplyDeleteI am not as sure about your argument for imagery, though. Your example doesn't give me a picture, sound, or sense: an experience. Perhaps there are good examples of imagery in the article, but I don't think that is one.
Your point on diction is interesting (though perhaps slightly more aptly syntax? I'm not sure), and I hadn't noticed it. Once you mentioned the lack of refuting the opposition, it was very apparent though. Why do you think she doesn't try to address the other points of view?
So I wrote this entire thing, but I then accidentally went back on the browser, losing everything I wrote. Here goes again.
ReplyDeleteJason, I like how you structured this entire passage. You stated which part of DIDLS you used, "gave an example directly from the text, and then went on to explain it. It was easy to follow along, which was nice.
I was a little confused on which part of DIDLS you used. In your thesis, you said you were going to talk about details, structure, and structure. However instead of writing about structure, you wrtoe about imagery. Well, you did say imagery, but it felt more like diction. You looked at each word in a sentence, and wrote about what it meant (second to last paragraph). In addition you did mention diction.
I also felt like the last paragraph was more details than diction. It talked about what she did not say. So the details not said, rather than the word choice not said.
To be completely honest, when I was reading your paragraph on imagery, I had no idea it was on imagery. Maybe instead of telling how it creates a 'feeling of...', show how it creates the feeling. It might also help if you get rid of or move the last sentence concerning diction in this paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph concerning diction felt like it focused more on details at points. When you said 'Focusing on what Lachance didn't say rather than what she did', the readers immediately relate that to details (why she did say, or didn't say the things she did). Diction is more on the specific use of word choice. Go through the article again and find specific words, then analyze them. That will help to make your case on diction stronger.
Your observation on how her article lacked an opposing view was a good addition, though. But do consider moving it to a different part of the essay, possibly the details paragraph, where it might better fit in.