A Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gore And Michael Moore

Al Gore and Michael Moore effectively argue through the use of three rhetorical appeals in their documentary films. Al Gore talks about the world having to recognize the drastic effects of global warming. He stresses the urgency of the problem. Challenges the world to spread awareness and adjust their lifestyle. Michael Moore compares and contrasts, questions American`s morals, and conducts interviews, believing the United States should have socialized healthcare. Ethos refers to the audience`s sense of credibility. Al Gore’s ethos is important because it eliminates any skepticism and effectively demonstrates credibility by asserting his knowledge of global warming. Al Gore establishes credibility by his extensive career in politics. His involvement in the senate and the Kyoto protocol. First-hand experience by traveling with scientist to different regions as Antarctica, the North Pole, and South Pole. Shows pictures, clips shows, his black and white presidential campaign. Logos which is the audience`s logic and common since. Gore reviews scientific climate change and describes in specific detail the consequences of global warming. Using …show more content…
One film showing more to one of the three rhetorical appeals. Sicko showed more into the pathos appeal, by showing heartfelt stories that made the audience see the pain the healthcare system causes. An Inconvenient Truth showed more into the logos appeal, by showing all scientific research, campaigns, statics, and pictures of real life places dry with no ice. Both films had the same equal amount of ethos. Michael Moore’s confidence in delivering and going out of his way to prove every single argument he shows in the film. Al Gore is a very well respected politician who has the potential and credibility to influence people to believe in what comes out of his mouth. He also shows and provides proof to everything he shows in the