Here Are The Prompt And Guidelines For The Essay Portion

Here Are The Prompt And Guidelines For The Essay Portion Of Exam 2 Fo

Describe two different rhetorical devices that can be found in the sources and explain your classification. They should not all be from the same source. They should not all show conservative bias or all liberal bias. Make sure to cite them. Any citation style is fine, as long as it is clear. For each rhetorical device, say whether you think we should be charitable (whether or not we should say it is OK for the author to use the device) and why. For example, do you think it is accidental or intentional? Subtle or blatant? Simple persuasive technique or unfair manipulation? Does the target audience matter? Would it be OK in a different context? Etc. No more than five paragraphs are allowed for this essay. I will stop reading at the end of the fifth paragraph and grade up to that point only.

Paper For Above instruction

The essay prompt requires an analysis of two rhetorical devices present in at least two different sources related to the topic of the EpiPen price hike, with careful consideration of the nature and intent of these devices. This task involves identifying, classifying, and contextualizing the chosen rhetorical devices, as well as evaluating whether their use is justifiable or manipulative, and highlighting the importance of target audience and context.

The first rhetorical device identified in the sources is emotional appeals (pathos), often used in media coverage and interviews discussing the EpiPen price increases. For instance, CNBC’s interview with Mylan CEO Heather Bresch (Bresch, 2016) employs emotional language emphasizing the burden on families who rely on the device. This appeal aims to evoke empathy and concern from viewers, compelling them to scrutinize the profit-driven motives of pharmaceutical companies. Such use of pathos can be seen as deliberate and blatant because it directly targets stakeholders’ emotions, making their concerns seem immediate and pressing. While some may argue that emotional appeals can distort rational discourse, in this context, they serve to highlight the human impact of corporate greed, which arguably warrants a charitable perspective.

The second device is logical fallacies, such as false dilemmas, which appear in opinion pieces suggesting that consumers either accept exorbitant prices or face dangerous health risks. An example is the MSNBC report on congressional actions addressing the EpiPen price hikes (MSNBC, 2016). This report discusses the dilemma of either regulating drug prices or risking public health, but it simplifies complex economic and regulatory issues into a binary choice. Classifying this as a fallacy, I believe this was likely an intentional rhetorical strategy to pressure policymakers and audiences into favoring regulation. From a charitable viewpoint, it is problematic because it oversimplifies the issues and manipulates the audience’s understanding, but its use might be deemed acceptable in political advocacy when direct, emotionally charged messaging is deemed effective.

Regarding the classification of these devices, emotional appeals generally aim for a subtle manipulation of sympathy, but they can also appear blatant and premeditated, especially when amplified in visual media or personal stories. Their use in the interview and coverage is largely intentional, designed to mobilize public opinion and influence policy debates. Conversely, logical fallacies are more blatantly manipulative, often used to steer audiences toward predetermined conclusions without considering nuanced alternatives. The target audience for emotional appeals is often the general public, including vulnerable groups, whereas logical fallacies tend to target policymakers and politically active citizens. The acceptability of these devices can change based on context; for instance, emotional appeals might be more justified in human-interest stories, whereas fallacies are generally considered unethical in academic or objective discourse.

In conclusion, both emotional appeals and logical fallacies are employed in discussions surrounding the EpiPen price issue, serving different rhetorical functions and targeted at different audiences. While emotional appeals can be justified as raising awareness about human suffering, their manipulation should be approached cautiously. Logical fallacies, though powerful, often undermine rational debate and should be scrutinized critically. Understanding the intent and context of these devices helps determine whether their use is ethical, and whether we should regard them as acceptable strategies or manipulative tactics, particularly in politically charged debates like pharmaceutical pricing.

References

• Bresch, H. (2016). Interview with CNBC. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/09/16/mylan-ceo-heather-bresch-on-epipen-price-hike.html
• MSNBC. (2016). Clinton, Congress take aim at EpiPen price hikes. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/clinton-congress-take-aim-at-epipen-price-hikes-798586371571