Rhetorical Analysis Of John Coates 'The Biology Of Risk'

Getting Personal, a rhetorical analysis on “The Biology of Risk” By John Coates

Jasmine Arechiga

Department of Literature, Science and the Arts, University of Michigan

ENGLISH 125 050

Melissa Valerie

March 06, 2023

Getting Personal (VERY ROUGH DRAFT)

We humans have taken many risks over the course of history, from the past’s “what animal do I hunt to survive” to “what stocks do I invest in to make money” today. We take risks in love, risks in career, risks financially, or even risks in choosing our outfits for the day. But risks aren’t just a rational choice, risks aren’t purely intellectual, they’re biological too. John Coates, a neuroscientist studying the biology of risk, provides a compelling argument for the importance of understanding

For instance, "We do not process information as a computer does, dispassionately; we react to it physically" (Coates, 2014, para. 8). This analogy distinguishes human thought and computer processing to illustrate the idea that humans respond to information in a more emotional and biological way. He also provides clarity for biological concepts by saying, "As such, most stress is not, well, stressful. For example, when you walk to the coffee room at work, your muscles need fuel, so the stress hormones adrenaline and cortisol recruit glucose from your liver and muscles; you need oxygen to burn this fuel, so your breathing increases ever so slightly; and you need to deliver this fuel and oxygen to cells throughout your body, so your heart gently speeds up and blood pressure increases" (Coates, 2014, para. 7). This compares biological stress response to fueling a car, something most if not all people have understanding of. This analogy emphasizes that stress response, like fueling a car, is a necessary process that provides energy for movement. These analogies help the reader visualize the concepts being discussed and create a more relatable and engaging reading experience. Coates' use of analogies helps to bridge the gap between the scientific ideas,

By drawing on his expertise, using relatable analogies, and repeating key ideas, Coates is able to make a compelling case for the importance of understanding the biological responses to risk-taking. I feel the piece is very accessible and doesn’t hold any constraints, it allows for the average person to comprehend the text thanks to the use of analogies and allows those who are well versed in the topic to enjoy the argument with Coates’ use of technical terminology. Analogies allow reader understanding which in turn allows for data to have more impact on the argument. If the reader were confused, the data would only add to confusion. The combination of all three of these rhetorical devices were what compelled me to agree in Coates' argument; I was coaxed with his credibility, breakdown of concepts and emphasis on biological terms in his article. The article serves as a model for how to use rhetorical devices to create a persuasive and impactful