• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A Rhetorical Analysis of: Evil is as Evil Does By Leonard Pitts.

Extracts from this document...


Diana Best September 30, 2001 History of Rhetoric Joseph McCallus A Rhetorical Analysis of: Evil is as Evil Does By Leonard Pitts PURPOSE: The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle once said, concerning the art of rhetoric, "[it] is the faculty of discovering in every case the available means of persuasion." A suitably eloquent phrase, the definition lends itself to images of momentous speeches amongst great crowds and heated debates in which the fluent, forceful language of one person casts a shadow over the rural diction of another. Leonard Pitts' purpose in his article, Evil is as Evil Does, is to argue that, "The events of September 11 did not happen because we did something wrong. Or because we somehow 'deserved' them." Pitts feels very strongly that we were attacked on September 11 "because certain religious extremists hate us." Pitts is writing a heated response to the arguments and comments he has heard over the past couple of weeks concerning why we were attacked. AUDIENCE: Since this article was in a local professional newspaper for the public, Pitts' audience would consist of people in Columbus, Georgia, regions close around the city, and in Florida because he is a writer for the Miami Herald. ...read more.


He concludes his article with another bold statement, which says, "We are right and they are evil. End of story." This concluding paragraph shows the readers how strongly he feels about his argument. The reader can clearly see after reading this article that Pitts is using inductive reasoning to persuade his audience. The article was very easy to read and understand. There were no words that one would stumble over or that were hard to define and the paragraphs flowed and transitioned smoothly. The sentence structure was also varied well between long and short sentences. AUTHORITY: Pitts establishes his authority at the very beginning of the article by including his job title with his name: Leonard Pitts, Commentary. Right away, his audience is aware that he is an educated man because, otherwise, he would not be a writer for such a well-known newspaper as the Miami Herald. He is also an American, which, at this point, gives him good authority to write such an impassioned commentary concerning the recent attacks. Another thing that shows a writer to be credible is how one would define his character. Aristotle listed three aspects that would help with the credibility of a writer. ...read more.


He does not revisit each argument, but instead says that "they hate us" and "there is nothing about our enemies that deserves to be dignified by our moral distress." He concludes his argument by asserting that "We are right and they are evil. End of Story." EFFECTIVENESS: This article was a very effective argument. The author made a point by providing facts to support that point, and countering the opposition. The article flowed well, and the diction was not so complex that one could not understand. The passionate voice Pitts uses and the facts he provides clearly express his feelings on the issue at hand. I do agree with Pitts' assertion that these attacks were not the fault of America and I also believe we did not deserve these vicious attacks. The acts of the terrorists were cowardly and evil. And in my own opinion, I believe that the attack backfired on them. Although they caused mass chaos and much pain, they also caused a revival of American pride and unity in our nation that has not been seen since World War II. Pitts' article completely convinced me because I believe the same things that he does. We are certainly not a perfect nation and we do not always do the right things, but we do not condone the slaughter of innocent people, and there is no cause that would justify such an action. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. problem of evil

    A theist can sometimes be faced with justifying both types of evil as natural evils like tsunamis and hurricanes are often the cause of people committing moral evils like looting. The problem is not easily justifiable and is illustrated in 'The Inconsistent Triad', which states the points: God is omnipotent

  2. Problem of evil

    evil, indeed, Irenaeus believed evil was made for the greater good and thus he would not want to eliminate evil. Furthermore, do we not see our bravery only in a time of danger; is my compassion not an effect of suffering?

  1. Does Aristotle regard the description of an ideal state and the analysis of actual ...

    Aristotle is more than willing to talk in bluntly practical political terms about the necessities of the state and the retention of power. He will advocate the practical policies of power, even if they might seem to conflict with the general good.

  2. Plato and Nietzsche on Authority

    state (as in theocracy), this religious politics may not be a bad idea. For example, if those with authority look to God for advice on political matters, it gives them a chance to think about and 'receive information' (either from God, or simply thinking it through in prayer, or even

  1. What is authority?

    A charismatic authority can sometimes be just a channel or mouthpiece for the will or interests of their followers.

  2. The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition by James P. Zappen. ...

    And Zappen brings appropriate scholars-Don Bialostosky, Caryl Emerson, Michael Holquist, Gary Morson, and Peter Stallybrass-into his discussions of the secondary literature. Whether scholars of Bakhtin will find the converse true is beyond my judgment. But here, too, Zappen consults the right scholars, interpreters who have shaped the contemporary conversation about

  1. Philosophy: Life After Death Analysis

    This mainly meant that instead of the demiurge train taking you back and forth from the form world and this one, your soul is what defines you, and when you die it simply perishes with you (as it is really only the shaping force to your physical form).

  2. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you are contented Dicuss.

    Plato b melieved that we all need to open our minds to all the possibilties and not be blinded by our ignorance. We also know, due to Plato's theories, that in the question where it says, ?there is nothing wrong with being ignorant...,? we know for a fact that Plato would disagree with this.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work