What is the most humanistic instinct that differentiates humans from animals? Debating and sharing ideas should be set to elevate us from other lifeforms and let us evolve. In Deborah Tannen’s article titled “For Argument’s Sake; Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?” the audience is treated after reading to one simple never-ending questions stating whether arguing is pivotal in convincing a certain stance. She explains that we won't accomplish with just arguing, but she does see the need for it in some circumstances. Deborah Tannen states many scenarios and stories where it showcases that arguing is not always the correct thing, and certainly not the most effective way to find results. She states that “The best way to discuss
…show more content…
I believe that the message that Deborah Tannen tries to convey was very well structured and very well received just after a first reading to the normal audience which who it was intended to. Deborah Tannen was able to use strong and powerful ethos and pathos without overwhelmingly using logos appeals. The main claim that's being supported in the article is that understanding between people does not stem from an argument. The author presents some personal bias to achieve her message that arguing will never achieve results and clarity towards people. When it comes to statistics she does not provide much to back up her case. Although she does use powerful ethos appeals and is considered somewhat credible because she is professor at after all. She also exemplifies many pathos appeals because she does showcase many real-life examples which allow a person to view her point-of-view. An example where she demonstrates strong pathos appeals is when she tells the story about the women on television being verbally attacked by a man and how the audience reacted to the whole situation. Another example of Deborah Tannen using pathos in here article is when she refers to the man smoking and how when there is a calm and polite interaction the result are bound to be correct in everyone's favor. She uses many other …show more content…
I was able to embody and clarify Deborah Tannen’s article after closely looking through her examples. I would like to start off by answering the and reassuring that arguing is what makes us humans and allows us to evolve but sometimes it doesn't help at all and actually divides us more than allows us to reach an agreement. The main purpose of Deborah Tannen’s article is that although arguing is human nature most times it doesn't reach a conclusion and it actually is useless, but sometimes it is necessary to partake in. I realized that even though it doesn't always reach a conclusion it's better to partake in then just not at all because of the positives that come out of communicating. What I was able to conclude after doing my rhetorical analysis from Deborah Tannen’s is even though somethings will not give us positive results it's better to have interaction then to not have it at all. I believe that her message was successfully persuasive and digestible other than some minor tweaks was a very well written article. After using quotes and examples to back the claim of my writting for this paper. All the examples that surrounded her ideas allowed the article to be understandable and a treat to write after
I believe that the message that Deborah Tannen tries to convey was very well structured and very well received just after a first reading to the normal audience which who it was intended to. Deborah Tannen was able to use strong and powerful ethos and pathos without overwhelmingly using logos appeals. The main claim that's being supported in the article is that understanding between people does not stem from an argument. The author presents some personal bias to achieve her message that arguing will never achieve results and clarity towards people. When it comes to statistics she does not provide much to back up her case. Although she does use powerful ethos appeals and is considered somewhat credible because she is professor at after all. She also exemplifies many pathos appeals because she does showcase many real-life examples which allow a person to view her point-of-view. An example where she demonstrates strong pathos appeals is when she tells the story about the women on television being verbally attacked by a man and how the audience reacted to the whole situation. Another example of Deborah Tannen using pathos in here article is when she refers to the man smoking and how when there is a calm and polite interaction the result are bound to be correct in everyone's favor. She uses many other …show more content…
I was able to embody and clarify Deborah Tannen’s article after closely looking through her examples. I would like to start off by answering the and reassuring that arguing is what makes us humans and allows us to evolve but sometimes it doesn't help at all and actually divides us more than allows us to reach an agreement. The main purpose of Deborah Tannen’s article is that although arguing is human nature most times it doesn't reach a conclusion and it actually is useless, but sometimes it is necessary to partake in. I realized that even though it doesn't always reach a conclusion it's better to partake in then just not at all because of the positives that come out of communicating. What I was able to conclude after doing my rhetorical analysis from Deborah Tannen’s is even though somethings will not give us positive results it's better to have interaction then to not have it at all. I believe that her message was successfully persuasive and digestible other than some minor tweaks was a very well written article. After using quotes and examples to back the claim of my writting for this paper. All the examples that surrounded her ideas allowed the article to be understandable and a treat to write after