Analysis Of Heinrich Schliemann: Archeological Con Artist

In the passage “Heinrich Schliemann: Archeological Con Artist,” the author tries to prove that Schliemann was a con artist and a thief. The author’s article is effective in trying to prove that Schliemann was a bad person in many ways such as: logic, text structure, and propaganda techniques. The first way that the article is effective is the the facts, or logic. The author gives evidence on when and where something happened in Schliemann’s life. For example, in the article the author says, “First and foremost, an examination of many of Schliemann’s claims will show that he was a pathological liar.” The author gives facts of what, where, and when Schliemann stole an artifact. For example, the author says, “Late, pictures surfaced of his wife wearing some of the gold jewelry, but other reports from people who knew him and his wife confirmed that she was elsewhere at the time of the discovery.” his article is effective because they give facts and logic on Heinrich Schliemann, and what he has done with his life. Whether it was stealing or being an archaeologist, the author proves that he is a bad person. In conclusion, the author’s article is …show more content…
The author uses the text structure of proposition and support because he is arguing that Schliemann is a bad man. In the article, the author says, “Lying, cheating, and stealing should not be excused for the sake of historical importance,” meaning that that author doesn’t want Schliemann to be a free man and wants him in jail for the crimes he committed. The author also says, “Yes, Schliemann may have taken information from others and used his wealth to dig at the site of Troy, but beyond that, he deserves no recognition.” The use of proposition and support is to use facts to make the readers feel the same way about Schliemann. In conclusion, the article is effective because it has proposition and support text