Imagine if the Supreme Court was trying to take your freedom of speech over an assumption they have without any actual facts, Daniel Green did not agree with this, see the types of rhetorical strategies he uses to convince his audience about how it should not be done. Daniel Greenberg has a good use of Kairos with the timing of his article, while also using effective rhetorical strategies such as logos and pathos to get his point across and convince the audience to agree with him. Greenberg wrote this article prior to the hearing of Schwarzenegger v. EMA displaying signs of Kairos. For instance, on October 2010 Greenberg’s article appear in The Washington Post “Prior to the Supreme Court hearing on the California law preventing the sale of
…show more content…
Such as, his back ground description proclaims that “he chairs the committee of violence and social issues for international game developers association…” and he also “is a freelance video game designer and design consultant” (Greenberg 454). Considering this, Daniel Greenberg is knowledgeable in this topic, since he works first hand at developing games, and defending them. Another way Greenberg is about to gain his credibility in this article is because he has also indicates that scholars from major universities also agree that the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of passing the law that would prevent the sale of violent video games to minors. For example, Daniel Greenberg writes in his article that “more than 80 scholars and researchers from schools such as George Mason University and Harvard Medical School have written an extensive friend-of-the-court brief in opposition to the law, noting that California failed to produce ant real evidence showing that video games cause psychological harm to minors. And even if there was harm the law’s supporters have not shown that the statute could alleviate it” (Greenberg 456). He uses these credible sources to let the audience understand that this law should not be passed without having actual facts about harming minors who play these
Such as, his back ground description proclaims that “he chairs the committee of violence and social issues for international game developers association…” and he also “is a freelance video game designer and design consultant” (Greenberg 454). Considering this, Daniel Greenberg is knowledgeable in this topic, since he works first hand at developing games, and defending them. Another way Greenberg is about to gain his credibility in this article is because he has also indicates that scholars from major universities also agree that the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of passing the law that would prevent the sale of violent video games to minors. For example, Daniel Greenberg writes in his article that “more than 80 scholars and researchers from schools such as George Mason University and Harvard Medical School have written an extensive friend-of-the-court brief in opposition to the law, noting that California failed to produce ant real evidence showing that video games cause psychological harm to minors. And even if there was harm the law’s supporters have not shown that the statute could alleviate it” (Greenberg 456). He uses these credible sources to let the audience understand that this law should not be passed without having actual facts about harming minors who play these