“Are we heading for a four-party moment?” Analysis The article “Are we heading for a four-party moment?” written by Charles Lane a Post editorial writer, specializing in economic policy, federal fiscal issues and business, and a contributor to the PostPartisan blog. He writes this article to show that our society has pretty much became four parties. In his thesis he questions “might we be headed towards another four-party moment?” (Lane, par.5), which he replies yes. In his article he talks about how he there are many different views and opinions in our society so we shouldn’t be limited to two options. He states that “the usual method of co-optation by which Republican and Democratic politician have maintained cohesion within their respective
…show more content…
Now while the article does struggle with logos, it does well with pathos and has a neutral ethos which makes it an effective argument.
Lane did struggle more with his logos. The main claim of the argument is that we should have four parties instead of two. The argument is pretty clear because he gives reasons to support his argument. There are two main reasons which are “at length produced a sorting-out of Americans into conflicting and sometimes hostile political, social, and geographical groups. (Lane, par.7)”, and “the current presidential campaign, which has been more about the struggles of Republicans and Democrats than the differences between the two parties. (Lane, par.10)” These reasons logically connect to the main claim because in …show more content…
The writer Charles Lane seems to be a pretty credible person because he is a Post editorial writer, specializing in economic policy, federal fiscal issues and business, and contributor to the PostPartisan blog. His credentials can be found off to the side in a square separated from his argument. The arguments medium is an online newsletter. The writer highlights his credentials by quoting Pierson over the 1850’s; he uses history (the 1850’s) to show how more political parties were needed and how we’re at that time again. The write presents himself as a professional because he represents all the candidates the same and doesn’t show preference over one of them. The writer doesn’t have a character in his argument because the argument isn’t about him. The genre of the argument is politics; it’s important that he doesn’t have a character because he leaves his opinion out of his paper which makes him less bias and more credible. The writer’s attitude towards the subject and audience was formal. His credentials and knowledge is what has made me give him respect as a reader. He did well with his ethos because he showed that he was credible and professional about his article. Even though the article struggled with logos, it does well with pathos and ethos making it an effective argument. Lane’s article did struggle with logos because he didn’t provide enough information or background over the 1850s and he didn’t provide an opposing
Now while the article does struggle with logos, it does well with pathos and has a neutral ethos which makes it an effective argument.
Lane did struggle more with his logos. The main claim of the argument is that we should have four parties instead of two. The argument is pretty clear because he gives reasons to support his argument. There are two main reasons which are “at length produced a sorting-out of Americans into conflicting and sometimes hostile political, social, and geographical groups. (Lane, par.7)”, and “the current presidential campaign, which has been more about the struggles of Republicans and Democrats than the differences between the two parties. (Lane, par.10)” These reasons logically connect to the main claim because in …show more content…
The writer Charles Lane seems to be a pretty credible person because he is a Post editorial writer, specializing in economic policy, federal fiscal issues and business, and contributor to the PostPartisan blog. His credentials can be found off to the side in a square separated from his argument. The arguments medium is an online newsletter. The writer highlights his credentials by quoting Pierson over the 1850’s; he uses history (the 1850’s) to show how more political parties were needed and how we’re at that time again. The write presents himself as a professional because he represents all the candidates the same and doesn’t show preference over one of them. The writer doesn’t have a character in his argument because the argument isn’t about him. The genre of the argument is politics; it’s important that he doesn’t have a character because he leaves his opinion out of his paper which makes him less bias and more credible. The writer’s attitude towards the subject and audience was formal. His credentials and knowledge is what has made me give him respect as a reader. He did well with his ethos because he showed that he was credible and professional about his article. Even though the article struggled with logos, it does well with pathos and ethos making it an effective argument. Lane’s article did struggle with logos because he didn’t provide enough information or background over the 1850s and he didn’t provide an opposing