Author and known Professor of Surgery at Duke University, Dr William Parker has made an argument in his article “.... But Intestinal Worms can be good for you, ” he establishes his argument of why worms can help people in a medical sense by appealing to the audience by using modes of persuasion, colloquial language and rhetorical questions, and positive connotations and repetition, as well as author's purpose. To begin with, Parker utilizes modes of persuasion by appealing to the audience with ethos, pathos, and logos. Parker first introduced at the beginning of the third paragraph in his article by appealing to ethos, a sense of credibility by referring to his “lab “ and his research as a form to make them believe that he is a professional. …show more content…
He uses phrases such as “just the tip of the iceberg” to imply that is more to intestinal worms that the reader or audience thinks of as a whole on this particular subject matter. Parker also uses the colloquial term “ick factor” to describe the thought of intestinal worms disgusting and that it shouldn’t prevent further progress on figuring out their possible gainful uses it may bring to the medical field. Furthermore, another form of appeal to the readers thinking is Parker ’s utilization of rhetorical questions. For instance, he communicates with the question, “.... Could these helminths actively be doing good? [Parker 1], which makes the reader question if these helminths are an exception from other usual helminths, and could they benefit us as a species, but doesn't expect an answer from the reader. Parker’s other exemplification of a rhetorical question is, “Why aren't helminths catching on?”, but instead of letting the reader infer and investigate for themselves, he also answers it with how it must go through many clinical trials, get approved by the FDA, and convince society to somewhat accept the treatment rather than abhor and be hostile toward such an idea, that they propose to the audience and their