Who would've thought that nonviolence could amount to anything, much less produce results that are far more effective than that produced through violence? There have been several figures in history who have conveyed the power nonviolence bears. It doesn't not lie in the hand off of anyone to take the life away from another, especially because once a life I taken, it can't be returned. When people partake in violence, there is sure to be at least one negative results. Often, much more than not, the violence ends in injuries or even death. Chavez argues about a very powerful claim. He claims that we should be more committed to nonviolence than violence. Throughout the passage, Chavez uses logos to persuade the audience to adopt his views. He introduces famous historical figures such as Dr. King and Gandhi to convey his reasoning with evidence and also to convey himself as and his viewpoints as credible. He borrows the ideas of Gandhi and Dr King and expands on them. In paragraph 9, for example, he first expresses his claims and then uses Gandhi's teachings as evidence from where he got his information. Chavez uses a hypophora in paragraph 12. He first asks a very intriguing question to capture the attention of his audience. Later he expands and …show more content…
The result of using pathos shows the author's understanding of the situation of the farmers and how overcome they are with poverty. He then goes on to explain the importance of freedom and movement of the people. Chavez explains that in order to overcome emotions, which people have been burdened with due to hardships, people must partake in movements. He uses Gandhi as reference to a particular movement, he boycott, which is nonviolent. He claims that not only does this movement allow people to participate actively, it also results in no deaths or