Have you ever thought about whether you should do what you love in life, or if what you would love to do would be enough to support you or a family? In Gordon Marino’s “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’” Marino discusses that people look to pursue what they love in life, and whether this is always the best course of action. As Marino goes further in his essay, the idea is brought forth that doing what you love in life is not always the rational choice, but doing what is necessary to support yourself and a family, if you have one of course. Marino’s essay has the intended audience of those in the more adult phase of life, as the essay does not particularly address younger readers, who would still be in middle school, high school, etc. Gordon
…show more content…
Marino uses appeal to emotion when discussing the poor lives of the children in Northfield, who spend life, even in youth, doing not what they love, but what is necessary to support their families, “When I am off campus and informally counseling economically challenged kids in Northfield, Minn., a city of about 20,000, the theme is not ‘do what you love.’” - (Page 2, Para 6) And again, a slight appeal to emotion is found when Marino uses an anecdote to his father not doing what he loved in life, but what supported Marino’s family, “My father didn’t do what he loved.” - (Page 2, Para 7) Marino also uses this when asking his rhetorical questions to make his audience ponder on their own lives. Marino’s argument is effective by using appeal to emotion in a way that it can make the audience think in terms of morals, and the audience can sympathize with the argument. Allowing the audience to sympathize with the argument will lead to more support of the argument. The appeal to emotion works in such a way that it almost makes the audience want to side with the argument, through sympathy and other emotions. Marino’s argument’s effectiveness relies heavily upon Marino using the appeal to emotion to impact his audience. However, the use of anecdotes in an argument also plays into the fact of whether the argument is strong or …show more content…
Marino’s rhetorical question in his essay is brought about when there is mention of his father not doing what he loved, “Was he just unenlightened and mistaken to put the well-being of others above his own personal interests?”- (Page 2, Para 8) Asking this question provides a way to get Marino’s audience thinking deeper about whether they should do what they love in life, or what is needed. Marino’s use of rhetorical questions strengthens his argument by making the audience think deeper on the subject and relate it to their lives. When an audience has a direct relation to an argument, the argument becomes much stronger, as seen with Marino’s essay. Marino must encourage deeper thought on his arguments, so his audience knows how to go about making this important decision in life, and not make the wrong decision for themselves, depending on who they may be. Gordon Marino, in his essay “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’”, uses both the rhetorical device of appeal to emotion and anecdotes in such a way that it gets his audience involved and thinking about how this had or will influence life for them. It is encouraged to read this essay by Gordon Marino, for if the stories Marino tells about his argument influencing life are not learned from, it could have such a negative impact on life. The negative
Marino uses appeal to emotion when discussing the poor lives of the children in Northfield, who spend life, even in youth, doing not what they love, but what is necessary to support their families, “When I am off campus and informally counseling economically challenged kids in Northfield, Minn., a city of about 20,000, the theme is not ‘do what you love.’” - (Page 2, Para 6) And again, a slight appeal to emotion is found when Marino uses an anecdote to his father not doing what he loved in life, but what supported Marino’s family, “My father didn’t do what he loved.” - (Page 2, Para 7) Marino also uses this when asking his rhetorical questions to make his audience ponder on their own lives. Marino’s argument is effective by using appeal to emotion in a way that it can make the audience think in terms of morals, and the audience can sympathize with the argument. Allowing the audience to sympathize with the argument will lead to more support of the argument. The appeal to emotion works in such a way that it almost makes the audience want to side with the argument, through sympathy and other emotions. Marino’s argument’s effectiveness relies heavily upon Marino using the appeal to emotion to impact his audience. However, the use of anecdotes in an argument also plays into the fact of whether the argument is strong or …show more content…
Marino’s rhetorical question in his essay is brought about when there is mention of his father not doing what he loved, “Was he just unenlightened and mistaken to put the well-being of others above his own personal interests?”- (Page 2, Para 8) Asking this question provides a way to get Marino’s audience thinking deeper about whether they should do what they love in life, or what is needed. Marino’s use of rhetorical questions strengthens his argument by making the audience think deeper on the subject and relate it to their lives. When an audience has a direct relation to an argument, the argument becomes much stronger, as seen with Marino’s essay. Marino must encourage deeper thought on his arguments, so his audience knows how to go about making this important decision in life, and not make the wrong decision for themselves, depending on who they may be. Gordon Marino, in his essay “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’”, uses both the rhetorical device of appeal to emotion and anecdotes in such a way that it gets his audience involved and thinking about how this had or will influence life for them. It is encouraged to read this essay by Gordon Marino, for if the stories Marino tells about his argument influencing life are not learned from, it could have such a negative impact on life. The negative