The rising crisis in the East brings to light the horrors of war and with it the need to discuss riveting matters such as the child soldier epidemic. “The Truth About Child Soldiers” is an article which seeks to make the reader think about the subject in a different light. To do this, Mark Drumbl uses deductive reasoning and ethical thinking to convince the reader that although child soldiers should pay for their actions, they should all be considered individually and given suitable punishments. While some areas of his article are confusing, his use of expressive language and reasoning ultimately succeed in persuading the reader.
While having a strong argument, Drumbl’s article has moments where he confuses his reader with an odd fact thrown …show more content…
Drumbl, who chooses the middle ground in the innocent versus guilty debate, tackles those who deem the child soldiers as innocent. He starts the paragraph asking us “Should a civilian who has been tortured, raped or had a limb amputated by a child be denied a remedy to what would otherwise be a war crime?” and immediately follows this up with the question “If someone’s family has been wiped out by a group of child soldiers, should he or she be refused justice because of the age of the perpetrators?” These rhetorical questions placed one after the other ask very serious questions at the same time painting dark vivid pictures of child soldiers and creating sympathy for their victims. The questions asked are so appalling that the reader feels cornered and submits to the urge to give the response that the author wants – a response which supports his claim.
Despite the few weaknesses, by the end of the “The Truth About Child Soldiers”, the reader is left thinking about the subject from a different perspective strategically put in place by the author. Essentially, as the title suggests, Drumbl reveals the truth about child soldiers to the readers through a skillful combination of using the appropriate tone and word choice while convincing us of his claim by relying mainly on deductive reasoning. In the end, Drumbl effectively persuades the reader through ethical thinking that the child soldier is an individual, neither wholly innocent nor
While having a strong argument, Drumbl’s article has moments where he confuses his reader with an odd fact thrown …show more content…
Drumbl, who chooses the middle ground in the innocent versus guilty debate, tackles those who deem the child soldiers as innocent. He starts the paragraph asking us “Should a civilian who has been tortured, raped or had a limb amputated by a child be denied a remedy to what would otherwise be a war crime?” and immediately follows this up with the question “If someone’s family has been wiped out by a group of child soldiers, should he or she be refused justice because of the age of the perpetrators?” These rhetorical questions placed one after the other ask very serious questions at the same time painting dark vivid pictures of child soldiers and creating sympathy for their victims. The questions asked are so appalling that the reader feels cornered and submits to the urge to give the response that the author wants – a response which supports his claim.
Despite the few weaknesses, by the end of the “The Truth About Child Soldiers”, the reader is left thinking about the subject from a different perspective strategically put in place by the author. Essentially, as the title suggests, Drumbl reveals the truth about child soldiers to the readers through a skillful combination of using the appropriate tone and word choice while convincing us of his claim by relying mainly on deductive reasoning. In the end, Drumbl effectively persuades the reader through ethical thinking that the child soldier is an individual, neither wholly innocent nor