Flirting with Disaster
Make an argument about the persuasiveness of a written argument and offer evidence from the text to support your evaluation of its persuasiveness. To analyze an argument, you have to be a rhetorical reader—that is, an active and critical reader who can explain not just what an author says but how persuasive the author is or isn’t and why. You should focus not on the issue but on what choices an author has made and how those choices affect the audience’s response to the argument.
Use this articles for Writing Arguments for your rhetorical analysis:
Ivan Snook, “Flirting with Disaster: An Argument against Integrating Women into the Combat Arms” (pp. 328- 34)
Sample Solution
In his article “Flirting with Disaster: An Argument against Integrating Women into the Combat Arms,” Ivan Snook attempts to persuade his audience of the potential dangers associated with integrating women into combat arms units. To make his argument, he presents numerous examples and statistics to demonstrate how female soldiers have fared under similar conditions in other countries. Additionally, Snook provides several scenarios that illustrate the unique challenges that female soldiers may face when placed in a potentially hostile environment. He also cites multiple studies conducted by experts on the topic which support his conclusions.
Overall, it is clear that Snook is attempting to convey a powerful message using persuasive techniques such as appeals to emotion and facts-based reasoning. He emphasizes the dangers of putting females in harm's way and cites evidence from other countries where this has happened before. Furthermore, he deftly avoids any overt gender bias by providing both positive and negative outcomes from previous instances of female integration within combat forces abroad. In summation, this article successfully uses data-driven arguments and emotional appeals to convince readers of its position on an important issue facing our military today—making it an overall strong piece of written rhetori