Trust David Gerwirtz Rhetorical Analysis

What happen to a nation if the Government cannot trust it people to keep a secret? What happen if the people we trust betray us be giving information to other to take advantage of us? Trust would be broken and the consequences could be severe. That is what David Gerwirtz say using tone, source, and repetition to emphasize that trust is important in politics and that breaking the trust can have severe consequences ,but Gerwirtze argument does not correspond to the title as a result it creates a lot of question instead of answering the title question. Throughout the article, Gerwirtze emphasize trust as a major point in his argument by using repetition. In using repetition Gerwirtze get to the point that trust is major component in everything. …show more content…
Then when he start explaining about trust in how important it is he tone become's neutral. The tone he use in the beginning help his argument as he is training to explain to us about trust in how it is important by giving background information about and it help his point as the reader need a neutral and calm voice to give it background in affect helping the reader understand in affect helping his argument. Then when the topic change from explanation to an example you can see that his tone change to anger and as he is angry in what Bradley Manning did as the words describing him as" a dropout and also he also started a sentence saying that while other soldiers can be trusted he is not".(Gewirtze 373) As he explain trust his tone was calm then when the subject change to Bradley Manning he get angry and he describe him as a untruthful person and then he describe Assange as a " narcissist person who use these information to black mail people for his own reason".(Gewirtze 372) His tone can appeal to the tone as the person betray the government showing that he is patriotic which can appeal to the readers feeling helping the reader agree with him further helping his