Matthew Soyster and Nancy Mairs both wrote a personal essay on being a cripple and living with MS. Both these essays are written for people who may struggle with a disease or people who do not understand what it is like to live with one, but Soyster’s essay had more of a negative outlook on his life. He argues that this disease defines and limits you. It takes away who you really are. Mairs has a more positive view on her situation. With every bad, she finds the good. She argues that disease does not dictate who you are.
Both authors were very straightforward and honest in their discussion, and both used appeal to ethos because they are living and experiencing the disease but Mairs essay had more credibility compared to Soyster’s because Soyster’s entire argument was based on negativity and never even looked on the positive side. He goes through his essay saying that he has “had to give up activities and passions that define[him]...his very sense of manhood(p2).” Sports and passions do not define you, it is you attitude and what you do after something knocks you down. Saying he …show more content…
This essay was effective in showing the reality of MS, but it only showed one side to the argument. It was harder to be inspired by this essay when he was just negative all throughout. Mairs was very straight forward as well, but she showed all the sides to the story, the good and the bad, the happy and the sad, which made for the complete argument. This was more effective because it showed that she has thought about both point of views and was not just one sided in her opinion. Viewing both side of the argument was a more effective way of persuading the reader because it was more relatable, and society tends to like a happy ending, and there was no happy ending in Soyster’s
Both authors were very straightforward and honest in their discussion, and both used appeal to ethos because they are living and experiencing the disease but Mairs essay had more credibility compared to Soyster’s because Soyster’s entire argument was based on negativity and never even looked on the positive side. He goes through his essay saying that he has “had to give up activities and passions that define[him]...his very sense of manhood(p2).” Sports and passions do not define you, it is you attitude and what you do after something knocks you down. Saying he …show more content…
This essay was effective in showing the reality of MS, but it only showed one side to the argument. It was harder to be inspired by this essay when he was just negative all throughout. Mairs was very straight forward as well, but she showed all the sides to the story, the good and the bad, the happy and the sad, which made for the complete argument. This was more effective because it showed that she has thought about both point of views and was not just one sided in her opinion. Viewing both side of the argument was a more effective way of persuading the reader because it was more relatable, and society tends to like a happy ending, and there was no happy ending in Soyster’s