Comparison between two persuasive arguments
Should legendary coach Bobby Knight been fired from the University of Indiana? Does the punishment fit the crime? The two articles "The Knight Who Thought He Was King," and "Knight Fall" try to answer these two controversial questions. Each of these articles present the debated issue in their own distinct ways. "Knight Fall" is written in a way that the reader really doesn't know what side the author is choosing, that is until the last few sentences. On the other hand, the other article is very distinct, and the reader knows for a fact, just from reading the first few sentences, that the author is not what you call a "Bobby Knight fan." Both of these articles use the three rhetoric appeals to help persuade their audience.
"He also thought -indeed, no thought to the contrary seems ever to have made its way into his head- that he was larger than the university itself
he signed the papers placed before him and then blithely violated the very agreement he supposedly had accepted, obviously on the assumption that the policy simply did not apply to a god such as him." (Yardley.) Well if this isn't straightforward enough for one to understand, then the reader has problems. This is how Yardley uses intrinsic ethos. He is an author for the Washington Post, in the style section, and writing about sports. One who is reading this article is not expecting a remarkable well-informed sports article. Throughout the article he uses a sophisticated vocabulary and strong, powerful words to grasp the attention of his audience. This article doesn't exactly give the reader much leeway in choosing a side; there is not one good thing about Bobby Knight in this article.
Throughout this editorial, the author really tries to get to your emotions. He uses pathos to try to persuade the reader into not liking Bobby Knight. "He screamed at referees, berated and belittled members of his own team, heaved chairs."(Yardley)...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document