Doing What You Have To: An Analysis of “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’”
It is ingrained in many young children to follow their dreams and to make career choices based on those dreams, but sometimes that is not always possible. Gordon Marino, an award-winning professor, brings light to this subject in an essay that he wrote and that the New York Times published. In his piece, Marino argues that it is not always wise to do what one loves. Marino persuades his audience to consider the possibility that doing what one might hate for the “greater good”, is more important than doing what we love. He builds his argument through anecdotes in the essay that confirm his credibility, appeal to the readers’ sympathy, and he creates hypophora’s to build his audiences’ curiosity.
Marino incorporates many rhetorical devices in his essay to make his argument a success. One …show more content…
He does this especially well when he discusses the young adults he counsels, who work jobs to help their families. In his anecdote says “Many of them are used to delivering papers at 5 a.m., slinging shingles all day or loading trucks all night” (Page 2, Para 1). This sentence, in my opinion, is very powerful. I too decided to take on a job to help my family; therefore, not only is Marino persuasive through his use of sympathy, but for those readers who have made the sacrifice to work at an early age to help their families, he has summoned their empathy as well. Marino also appeals to the readers’ emotion when he confesses that his father worked a job that he hated in order to raise Marino and his siblings and put them through school (Page 2, Para. 2). The actual strength in the words Marino chooses to describe his father’s ordeal help make his story more vivid. For example, he uses words like “detest” and “labored” (Page 2, Para. 2). These examples of sympathy really drive home Marino’s
It is ingrained in many young children to follow their dreams and to make career choices based on those dreams, but sometimes that is not always possible. Gordon Marino, an award-winning professor, brings light to this subject in an essay that he wrote and that the New York Times published. In his piece, Marino argues that it is not always wise to do what one loves. Marino persuades his audience to consider the possibility that doing what one might hate for the “greater good”, is more important than doing what we love. He builds his argument through anecdotes in the essay that confirm his credibility, appeal to the readers’ sympathy, and he creates hypophora’s to build his audiences’ curiosity.
Marino incorporates many rhetorical devices in his essay to make his argument a success. One …show more content…
He does this especially well when he discusses the young adults he counsels, who work jobs to help their families. In his anecdote says “Many of them are used to delivering papers at 5 a.m., slinging shingles all day or loading trucks all night” (Page 2, Para 1). This sentence, in my opinion, is very powerful. I too decided to take on a job to help my family; therefore, not only is Marino persuasive through his use of sympathy, but for those readers who have made the sacrifice to work at an early age to help their families, he has summoned their empathy as well. Marino also appeals to the readers’ emotion when he confesses that his father worked a job that he hated in order to raise Marino and his siblings and put them through school (Page 2, Para. 2). The actual strength in the words Marino chooses to describe his father’s ordeal help make his story more vivid. For example, he uses words like “detest” and “labored” (Page 2, Para. 2). These examples of sympathy really drive home Marino’s