What’s Wrong With Being Involved Death is sad subject and it is even more devastating when people stand idly by and let it take place. In “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call The Police”, published on the 27th of March 1964 in the New York Times by Martin Gansberg, contends that America was becoming callous. The article Gansberg wrote was about the murder of Catherine Genovese by Winston Moseley. According to Gansberg, 37 people witnessed the attack and murder of Catherine Genovese without phoning the police. Gansberg’s article portrays that the witnesses were too scared or lazy to bother calling the police. The authors assertion that all of the witnesses were too afraid or lazy to call the cops is based upon fallacies and appeals that appear to
…show more content…
His purpose was to show how callous as a society America was becoming. The article brought forth feelings of anger, sadness, and despair of what this society had become. The author was able to bring forth these emotions by diction and word placement. Emotion is a basic instinct of human nature. Emotion are an effective way to create sympathy or cause anger to arise. Gansberg was aware of the effect emotions have on people and used well-crafted sentences to persuade them to his opinion. Throughout the article, there are strong verbs that create images in the readers mind, and bring forth emotions. “I’m dying” (Gansberg) was said three times in the article and “he stabbed me” (Gansberg) was said twice. The way the author uses the emotional words creates images and feelings that the reader would not have experienced without the strong word …show more content…
His article on the 37 witnesses that did not call the police was able to show to America that they were sliding down a slippery slope into an uncaring society. The way that he wrote effectively pulled the reader into the story and caused emotions to arise to influence their decision. His article did have its weak spots, when he started to generalize. The use of the logical fallacy of Hasty Generalization weakened his argument. The quick decision that he made could be seen as untruthful, but his case it worked out well for him. The fallacies and appeals that he used weakened his argument, but he was able to achieve his purpose of convincing the reader of the laziness of the witnesses and of how callous America had
His purpose was to show how callous as a society America was becoming. The article brought forth feelings of anger, sadness, and despair of what this society had become. The author was able to bring forth these emotions by diction and word placement. Emotion is a basic instinct of human nature. Emotion are an effective way to create sympathy or cause anger to arise. Gansberg was aware of the effect emotions have on people and used well-crafted sentences to persuade them to his opinion. Throughout the article, there are strong verbs that create images in the readers mind, and bring forth emotions. “I’m dying” (Gansberg) was said three times in the article and “he stabbed me” (Gansberg) was said twice. The way the author uses the emotional words creates images and feelings that the reader would not have experienced without the strong word …show more content…
His article on the 37 witnesses that did not call the police was able to show to America that they were sliding down a slippery slope into an uncaring society. The way that he wrote effectively pulled the reader into the story and caused emotions to arise to influence their decision. His article did have its weak spots, when he started to generalize. The use of the logical fallacy of Hasty Generalization weakened his argument. The quick decision that he made could be seen as untruthful, but his case it worked out well for him. The fallacies and appeals that he used weakened his argument, but he was able to achieve his purpose of convincing the reader of the laziness of the witnesses and of how callous America had