Rhetorical Analysis #1 In Adam Gopnik’s article, “Why Obama Should Lead the Opposition to Trump,” published in The New Yorker on August 21, 2017, Gopnik persuades readers that former President Barack Obama should accept the responsibility of speaking against Trump in the current period of “national emergency.” Gopnik seemingly hopes to persuade Democrats and left-leaning citizens that Obama would be a successful figure in the opposition to Trump’s presidency. While the fears of many Americans have surfaced with the election of Trump, Gopnik presents to the reader a figure who he believes could provide inspiration and courage to these Americans. While Gopnik is a supporter of Obama and dislikes Trump, he gives logical reasons as to why he believes
…show more content…
In his article, he provides the reader with arguments that are usually made by either politicians or gun-owners that support the Second Amendment. However, he makes it clear that these are not his personal opinions by responding with a rebuttal against these common arguments. Using his reaction to the most immediate shooting in a church in Texas, Gopnik hopes to persuade readers who are wary of gun control that it is a necessary measure in American society. Gopnik uses analogies and sarcasm to make the need for gun control in America more apparent to the reader in an understandable …show more content…
He makes his arguments seem more rational and understandable. In the article “Why Obama Should Lead the Opposition Against Trump,” Gopnik says that while Obama should be patient and cordial with Trump in a normal setting, that “this is not a normal time; it is a national emergency.” While this thought is not entirely complex, it establishes a sense of urgency and compares the state of the country to “normal times.” Furthering the idea that Trump is not an ordinary or fit president emphasizes the need for an opposition against him and a strong figure to lead. In his article “A Mass Shooting in Texas and False Arguments Against Gun Control,” he uses the same strategy, using a dramatic moment to show the reader the validity of his argument. “Charles Whitman, the sniper who killed people from the University of Texas at Austin clock tower, in 1966, was thought to have done something unimaginable at the time. He killed sixteen people that day.” By waiting to say the number of people that Whitman killed in 1966, he both compares the shooting to those of the modern day and creates a sense of suspense for the reader. While showing how normalized gun massacres have become, Gopnik can persuade the reader of a need for gun control in a way that he makes possible in his contrast between the past and the
In his article, he provides the reader with arguments that are usually made by either politicians or gun-owners that support the Second Amendment. However, he makes it clear that these are not his personal opinions by responding with a rebuttal against these common arguments. Using his reaction to the most immediate shooting in a church in Texas, Gopnik hopes to persuade readers who are wary of gun control that it is a necessary measure in American society. Gopnik uses analogies and sarcasm to make the need for gun control in America more apparent to the reader in an understandable …show more content…
He makes his arguments seem more rational and understandable. In the article “Why Obama Should Lead the Opposition Against Trump,” Gopnik says that while Obama should be patient and cordial with Trump in a normal setting, that “this is not a normal time; it is a national emergency.” While this thought is not entirely complex, it establishes a sense of urgency and compares the state of the country to “normal times.” Furthering the idea that Trump is not an ordinary or fit president emphasizes the need for an opposition against him and a strong figure to lead. In his article “A Mass Shooting in Texas and False Arguments Against Gun Control,” he uses the same strategy, using a dramatic moment to show the reader the validity of his argument. “Charles Whitman, the sniper who killed people from the University of Texas at Austin clock tower, in 1966, was thought to have done something unimaginable at the time. He killed sixteen people that day.” By waiting to say the number of people that Whitman killed in 1966, he both compares the shooting to those of the modern day and creates a sense of suspense for the reader. While showing how normalized gun massacres have become, Gopnik can persuade the reader of a need for gun control in a way that he makes possible in his contrast between the past and the