Rhetorical Home-run
It’s down to the ninth inning, and Bird is last to bat. Despite her weary looks, you can tell her head is in the game. She had worked hard this season to make this final game worth the time and effort. She had long waited for this moment, and she knows she’s ready to give her all. The crowd now stands in anticipation as she makes her way up to the dirt-scuffed plate. She shakes the tension out of her hands, then confidently positions her body to the side and grips the bat. She takes a breath, raises the bat behind her shoulder, and waits for the pitch. “College is a Waste of Time and Money” by Caroline Bird is a powerful and persuasive argument written in the 1970’s. She argues that the majority of college students do …show more content…
One such example that Bird provides is one where she responds to a financial columnist’s assumption that “a college education is among the very best investments you can make in your entire life” (221). Bird replies, “But the truth is not quite so rosy, even if we assume that the Census Bureau is correct when it says that as of 1972, a man who completed four years of college would expect to earn $199,000 more between the ages of 22 and 64 than a man who had only a high-school diploma” (221). That alone can cause eyebrows to rise, and thus would keep a highly sophisticated reader interested in the subject. It would be of a surprise to anyone if they read that the Census Bureau found that a person who had taken four long years of higher education may not possibly earn any more than what someone else would between ages 22 and 64 if they only had high-school education. Another example Bird provides comes right after the previous one, where she continues, “If a 1972 Princeton-bound high-school graduate had put the $34,181 that his four years of college would have cost into a savings bank at 7.5 percent interest compounded daily, he would have had at age 64 a total of $1,129,200, or $528,200 more than the earnings of a male college graduate, and more than five times as the $199,000 extra the more educated man could expect to earn between 22 and 64.” Here, she emphasizes on probably one of the top concerns many people have when dealing with college, their pocketbook. The statistical and professional support to her argument tops off with the rhetorical appeals of logos and as well as ethos. She gives logical scenarios of how investing in college can effect a person’s financial standing later even after they get a good job. As for ethos, she gains credibility by providing evidence to her reasons,
It’s down to the ninth inning, and Bird is last to bat. Despite her weary looks, you can tell her head is in the game. She had worked hard this season to make this final game worth the time and effort. She had long waited for this moment, and she knows she’s ready to give her all. The crowd now stands in anticipation as she makes her way up to the dirt-scuffed plate. She shakes the tension out of her hands, then confidently positions her body to the side and grips the bat. She takes a breath, raises the bat behind her shoulder, and waits for the pitch. “College is a Waste of Time and Money” by Caroline Bird is a powerful and persuasive argument written in the 1970’s. She argues that the majority of college students do …show more content…
One such example that Bird provides is one where she responds to a financial columnist’s assumption that “a college education is among the very best investments you can make in your entire life” (221). Bird replies, “But the truth is not quite so rosy, even if we assume that the Census Bureau is correct when it says that as of 1972, a man who completed four years of college would expect to earn $199,000 more between the ages of 22 and 64 than a man who had only a high-school diploma” (221). That alone can cause eyebrows to rise, and thus would keep a highly sophisticated reader interested in the subject. It would be of a surprise to anyone if they read that the Census Bureau found that a person who had taken four long years of higher education may not possibly earn any more than what someone else would between ages 22 and 64 if they only had high-school education. Another example Bird provides comes right after the previous one, where she continues, “If a 1972 Princeton-bound high-school graduate had put the $34,181 that his four years of college would have cost into a savings bank at 7.5 percent interest compounded daily, he would have had at age 64 a total of $1,129,200, or $528,200 more than the earnings of a male college graduate, and more than five times as the $199,000 extra the more educated man could expect to earn between 22 and 64.” Here, she emphasizes on probably one of the top concerns many people have when dealing with college, their pocketbook. The statistical and professional support to her argument tops off with the rhetorical appeals of logos and as well as ethos. She gives logical scenarios of how investing in college can effect a person’s financial standing later even after they get a good job. As for ethos, she gains credibility by providing evidence to her reasons,