“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches” (Bradbury, 1979, Coda). Molly Guptill Manning would argue that censoring a book is equivalent to burning it to ashes. Manning uses her own book, When Books Went to War, to convey an argument against Title V, an amendment to the 1944 Soldier Voting Bill created by Robert A. Taft that “placed restrictions on amusements distributed to the servicemen, including books, so long as they were provided by the government and made some reference to politics” (Manning, 2014, p. 135). The eighth chapter titled: “Censorship and FDR’s F---th T—m”, chronicles the proposal of Title V, its consequences, and its ultimate elimination. Once Title V was approved, it led to limitations of Armed Service Editions, books sent to soldiers, and resulted in a great deal of controversial censorship. Through appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos, Manning promotes her conclusion that Title V should have been eliminated because it challenged freedom, a right that American …show more content…
She appeals appropriately to logos through displaying cause and effect relationships, authentic examples, and cited, reliable resources, that together create a strong argument and a logical conclusion. While the appeals to logos throughout the eighth chapter are valid, Manning appeals incorrectly to ethos and pathos through the use of a select few fallacies in her argument. When critically analyzing the text, a few errors in reasoning are found, however, Manning’s manipulation of the audience is completely overshadowed by her rock solid logical argument. Her argument is not perfect by any means, but the heavy use of factual evidence that all logically points towards her conclusion creates a logically sound argument against Title