In Jim Amrheins, “Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights,” he creates a thought provoking, convincing, reason driven argument. He displays his claim through an informal, yet logos driven argument. Jim Amrhein’s logos and informal tone creates an intelligent argument weakened by an unintelligent approach. He proves unconvincing as a result of his informal tone and lack of ethos, but still proves effective with his strong logos. Initially, Amrhein displays his ethos but continues to focus on discrediting his opponent. This shows that he has dealt with the issue before hand in a previous essay, crediting him with prior experience on the subject and audience. To be familiar with his audience and be, or at least claim to be, well known throughout his audience. However, this results in his effectiveness having the limited range of those who browse the website or are already familiar with him. This lack of ethos is a major flaw in his essay when his audience…show more content… “They’d have to; who else would pay for their upkeep and regulation? The animal rights crowd? Uh, no.” Answering his own rhetorical question creates a sense that the author is desperate for approval from his audience, similar to a fourth grader. Answering, “Uh, no,” extends on this childish behavior of making fun of his opponent in the shortest, pettiest way he could. “Can you think of ANY other federal government program that divines only 10% of its budget from the general fund.” Whether or not his rhetorical question is true, he states it informally first by emphasizing “any”. Also by addressing the audience in an informal tone, it creates an insulting message to the audience as if he is trying to “dumb down” his audience. Without his large amount of logos, this informal attitude could discredit the essay, with the little credibility it has to begin
