Rhetorical Precis
Nicholas Kristof, in his “Kristof: Lessons From the Virginia Shooting” (New York Times, 26 Aug. 2015), asserts that America needs to start taking gun violence seriously and strengthen it’s gun restrictions. First he brings in statistical data to highlight the damage guns have caused over the years, using logos, then he appeals to ethos by bringing in the story of the shooter in Virginia and how he was “waiting to go BOOM!!!!” He then tries to theorize about possible solutions and restrictions, and he used the analogy of the car to represent how America goes to such far lengths to ensure the safety of drivers, so why are guns ignored? His purpose is to persuade the reader and America that we need to do more, because guns are taking away countless lives each year. His audience is the American public and the government, and he excludes anyone that is not in our country.
Response
Nicholas Kristof’s opinion article, “Kristof: Lessons From the Virginia Shooting,” opened my eyes to the real dangers of gun violence in America. The data he provides is astounding. The fact that more Americans die by gun homicide or suicide every six months than have been killed in the past twenty-five in every terrorist attack and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined is absolutely shocking and troublesome. It seems to me that whenever I open up Yahoo or the Commercial Appeal, there is another story about a little child playing with his father’s gun while he is sleeping and inadvertently shooting his father to death. How are we standing by and letting this happen? Something needs to be done. These are kids that will have to live with the reality that they took their father’s life for the rest of their own. Additionally, the lack of security and precautions regarding guns in America is also stunning. Kristof remarks that “if someone steals an iPhone, it requires a PIN; guns don’t.” How is it that we go to such extreme measures for a measly cell phone, yet we sit back in the face of human life? Something has to be done.
It sounds like he persuaded you. It's interesting that you mention how persuasive the phone comparison was, yet you didn't mention it in the precis.
ReplyDeleteAgain--combine sentences so that you only have four.
Terrific precision, Jonathan. In your first sentence, everything is good and well except for the inclusion of his medium to tell the reader what you are critiquing, in this case an article. Your second sentence was especially strong, as you perfectly identified not just his steps, but also his use of rhetoric. Additionally, your quote did not read too far in, as it summarized the second step without leaving the summarizing tone. However, you should have combined the third and second sentences, or picked only some parts of it. Your third sentence does a good job in expressing his purpose, but your "because" clause should have included an "in order to" or another synonym for "in order," as even though you say why he wrote the passage, you did not state why he wrote it expressly for those people. Finally, your last sentence describes the audience, but you didn't describe the relationship he built with them, such as a persuasive relationship where he wants to sway the people towards gun control. Otherwise, your precis was well-stated and did not sway from summarizing.
ReplyDeleteYour response to Kristof's article is appropriate and well spoken. You showed that you understood his intent and you clearly expressed agreement. You also displayed a connection to the data and identified with his statistics and brought in knowledge of your own to back up your response. The only message I would convey to you is that maybe you could have responded more to why people have sat back and refused to change the law, as you could have done that well. Also, you could have possibly spoken on more than just the regulation of other products and statistics, as he mentioned other opinions in his article. Besides from these small points, you did an incredible job in your response, and I look forward to reading more of your blogs.