A Rhetorical Analysis Of Next By Barbara Hewson

Though Barbara Hewson thoroughly demonstrates skill and knowledge in the subject of abortion, she takes the subject of many conflicts and turns it into a mess of unpersuasive words. The development of her stance on this subject shows no growth, and although she demonstrated the use of ethos, her article seems to endlessly cover the same information she had already delivered. Her use of logos and pathos is lacking, and what little use of ethos she has gives the reader only basic knowledge, and does not seem to help deliver her point.

Hewson’s intended audience, based on her writing, is people of higher educational levels, or rather, those working on higher education in medical fields. Her lack of usage in basic Aristotelian rhetoric resulted

Pathos is meant to force the audience into truly believing the author, because an emotional connection should develop a deep bond between the writer and audience. However, Hewson blatantly and without deep regards, feeling or passion towards what she wrote. Because of impersonal text glaring across the audience's electronic device, the reader has no opportunity to understand the lengths at which the author would go to to prove her point. Hewson’s writing is rather bitter, however not in an emotionally bitter type of way, but instead an indifferent or apathetic type of way. Going so far as to say “the present tendency to characterise questions about abortion ethics in terms of concerns about fetuses, or even fetal ‘rights’, tends to sideline women and the realities of women's lives” (Hewson) considerably undermines her own ability to persuade an audience. Using this quote, she provokes most of society by just explicitly stating that fetuses have no right in our society. Although anyone can have this opinion and feel right by it, Hewson’s form in delivering the quote is blunt, and inspires the audience to not believe a word she says. According to Aristotle's work in ethos logos and pathos, pathos is more commonly used for the reader to appeal to the author. This means Hewson was right in invoking the anger in people, however did not justify it or try to

Although the very first thing seen on the website is what seems to be a chart of compiled data it is truthfully a chart of how many people tweeted about the article or referenced it in a Wikipedia page. Though it can deceive the reader into thinking the author is of great nobility because they have been referenced, however, one must remember Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. In Hewson’s article, there is in fact very little substantial fact. Hewson is severely unsuccessful in many aspects of logos, specifically when she alludes to items in history which are completely unrelated to the topic: “NATO's attack on Kosovo, or careless driving” (Hewson). Hewson fails to recognize her mistakes of having an absence of logos until late into her sixth or seventh paragraph where she brings about some usable information. Once Hewson readily supplied facts later in her writing, she began to make an advance toward a chance of persuading the