This is the article I have to write a 3-4 page rhetorical essay over. I am just needing a 3 paragraph rough draft right now. Here is the article and my professors
instructions of what she wants in my rough draft also.
Journal 1 Assignment:
For this journal, you are to offer a brief analysis of the assigned reading that you will analyze in Essay 1. Your posting should be a minimum of three thoroughly-
developed paragraphs (each paragraph being 6-8 sentences). In your analysis, consider and address the following:
•What is the writer/speaker trying to achieve in this piece/speech?
•Does the writer/speaker seem credible on the topic?
•Does the writer/speaker seem trustworthy?
•Does the writer/speaker use sound logic in his argument?
•Does the writer/speaker make emotional appeals to the audience? Do they help put a human face on the issue or is the writer/speaker being manipulative?
•What overall claim is the writer/speaker making?
•Does the writer/speaker make any claims that are not supported through relevant evidence?
•Does the writer/speaker connect with the audience? Why or why not? How?
•How does the writer/speaker’s tone affect the desired outcome of the argument?
•How does diction — word choice — affect the desired outcome of the argument?
•Does the writer/speaker use any logical fallacies in the argument? If so, which ones, where, and how?
Begin your journal by identifying which piece you are analyzing. In your journal, offer specific examples of the elements that you analyze, using the above questions
as a guide. You may not address each of these questions (not every reading, for example, contains fallacies), but you should address several at a minimum.
The Evil of Animal “Rights”
Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein (2001.05.18 )
Scientists are closer than ever to finding cures for AIDS, cancer and other deadly illnesses. But more research and testing are needed and much of it must be done on
animals. But will it occur? Not if the animal “rights” terrorists plaguing Huntingdon Life Sciences have their way.
Huntingdon tests new medical products on animals–mostly rats and mice–to help determine if the products are safe and effective for human use. According to a recent
story in The Wall Street Journal, “there has been a series of violent attacks on people and property linked to the company. Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon
employees have been firebombed, a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester, and the company’s managing director was seriously beaten
by masked assailants.”
The terrorists ally themselves with a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). The group publishes information about Huntingdon and its shareholders,
stockbrokers and customers, and encourages its members to stage loud protests outside these businesses and the homes of their employees. The “protests” often include
violence, breaking and entering, property damage and death threats. Lacking adequate police protection and fearing for the lives of their employees, many of the
targeted companies, including Merrill Lynch, Citibank, Charles Schwab and British Biotech, have cut off all association with Huntingdon, bringing it to the brink of
SHAC’s leaders disavow any connection to the violence–but they do not condemn the terrorists responsible for it. After all, it is the violence that scares away
Huntingdon’s associates and brings SHAC closer to its goal of shutting down Huntingdon. However, that is only the beginning–”When Huntingdon closes, we’ll be moving on
to the next one,” says SHAC founder Greg Avery.
Ominously, the crimes against Huntingdon are not isolated incidents; animal rights terrorists commit more than 1,000 crimes annually. Some animal rights leaders are
even openly in favor of criminal action. According to Alex Pacheco, director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETE), arson, property, destruction,
burglary, and theft are “acceptable crimes” when used for the animals’ cause.
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!