Forensic Science: fact or pseudo? Three articles, “Forensic Science Controversies” by Rachel Kaufman published in CQ Press, “Forensic Science” from an FBI handbook on Opposing Viewpoints, and “But it Works on TV” by Sharon Begley from Opposing Viewpoints, discussed in this essay have comparing and contrasting rhetorical elements. Those rhetorical elements are the use of factual data from crime scenes (logos and pathos), contrasting writer credibility (ethos), and different appeals to certain audiences through formality of the articles.
To begin, the first rhetorical element that all three articles use is factual data from crime scenes and actual information from case files, appealing to the audiences’ logos. By including these facts in the …show more content…
Another example of pathos that Kaufman uses is when she analyzes crime scene information and forensics that included a man wrongfully charged of killing his wife and children. By including this rhetorical strategy, and more throughout the article, Kaufman is persuading the audience to the side that forensic science may not always be the …show more content…
All three introduce different writers and establish their credibility. Starting with “Forensic Science Controversies”, Kaufman is described as “a freelance writer and editor whose science writing has appeared in The Washington Post, National Geographic News, Smithsonian.com and Scientific American.” Including this about the author at the end gives this source more credibility than someone like a high school student who just started writing about forensic science. Because Kaufman’s writing has appeared in National Geographic and The Washington Post, which are both well-known, credible publications, the audience learns that she is a credible source and has done her research about forensic science to avoid wrongful
To begin, the first rhetorical element that all three articles use is factual data from crime scenes and actual information from case files, appealing to the audiences’ logos. By including these facts in the …show more content…
Another example of pathos that Kaufman uses is when she analyzes crime scene information and forensics that included a man wrongfully charged of killing his wife and children. By including this rhetorical strategy, and more throughout the article, Kaufman is persuading the audience to the side that forensic science may not always be the …show more content…
All three introduce different writers and establish their credibility. Starting with “Forensic Science Controversies”, Kaufman is described as “a freelance writer and editor whose science writing has appeared in The Washington Post, National Geographic News, Smithsonian.com and Scientific American.” Including this about the author at the end gives this source more credibility than someone like a high school student who just started writing about forensic science. Because Kaufman’s writing has appeared in National Geographic and The Washington Post, which are both well-known, credible publications, the audience learns that she is a credible source and has done her research about forensic science to avoid wrongful