Rhetorical Analysis Of Fred Kaplan's Killing Conspiracy

The assassination of former president John F. Kennedy was a tragic event that left citizens across the United States in grief, shock, and disbelief. The tragedy became the subject of controversy as speculations of a political conspiracy involving the CIA, the Mafia, or the Soviet Union surround the assassination. Some people began to distrust and criticize the Warren Commission’s report of the investigation of events regarding Kennedy’s death. Some conspiracy theorists assert that the assassination was not the act of a lone gunman as reported, and they cite evidence in the theories of the “magic bullet” and the grassy knoll. Fred Kaplan, a journalist, refutes these prominent conspiracy theories in his article “Killing Conspiracy.” In the article,

He references a ABC News documentary that featured the motorcade in one segment and explains, “The back seat, where JFK rode, was three inches higher than the front seat, where Connally rode.” Because of the alignment of the seats, Kaplan concludes that it was possible for a single, non-magical bullet fired from a high vantage point to injure both Kennedy and Connally. Kaplan’s appeal to logos may convince the audience that there were not multiple gunmen involved in Kennedy’s

Although Kaplan disproves the magic-bullet and grassy-knoll theories, he acknowledges and discusses the conspiracies that may exist in the events surrounding Kennedy’s death. By mentioning the other side of the debate, Kaplan establishes credibility by appearing to be unbiased. Kaplan also establishes credibility by referencing accredited sources such as ABC News, CBS News, and the National Academy of Sciences. Because of his credibility and objectivity, Kaplan’s appeal to ethos may persuade the audience to believe in his