Aside from eventually giving a detailed explanation as to why nonviolence is more productive than violence, Cesar Chavez begins with definitive proof that it is more productive by mentioning a well- known, nonviolent activist, Martin Luther King, in his opening paragraph. By using Dr. King in his opening paragraph, Chavez sets up his whole article in a way that not only explains why nonviolence is better, but first uses a real example of when nonviolence functioned better than violence. In addition to this, Chavez is able to engage his audience and explain why nonviolence is always the best decision through the use of uncomplicated diction, sentence structure, and appealing to his audience’s religious beliefs.
Chavez hits ground running after his opening paragraph about Dr. King, and his very first stride is appealing to his audience by the religious belief that violence is never acceptable, no matter how just the cause is. Chavez says, “...human life is a very special possession given by God… that no one has the right to take it for any reason…” This statement in the beginning of the essay almost immediately implies that those who are using violence are ignoring God. Throughout the essay, in fact, Chavez holds his audience accountable to have good morals and being a good person. In lines 39-41 Chavez says, “We work on the theory that men and women
…show more content…
Often times, the thesis of a writer can get lost in their overcomplicated diction, if the diction is not fully understood by the audience. Chavez, on the other hand, uses commonly used words that clearly and concisely portray his message. Chavez gets straight to the point and directly says to his audience what he means. Chavez basically says, “Nonviolence is perfect and violence always sucks.” Which leaves little room for the audience to misinterpret what he’s saying or take it out of context because of long, uncommon