Rhetorical Analysis Of John Conley's The Pecking Order

success in siblings is the family income. Again the family you are born in has tremendous weight in your life. The higher social class the family you are born in the better the chances are that you will become successful in the world. Such things as inheritances, marrying money, and family wealth boost you up in the social rankings. Conley appeals to logos to further explain his reasoning on sibling inequality. He used research and statistics to explain his argument Conley states that “A family that ranks in the bottom 5 percent of the income hierarchy, you have a 40 percent chance of finding yourself in the lowest 10 percent, a 21 percent chance of making it to somewhere between the 30th and 70th percentile and only a one in a thought chance

First of all he establishes his logic and reasoning by using his research too back up his argument.. His surprising statistics bulk up his claims by displaying overall response by the American population. It also gives the audience a good understanding how the pecking order in the family come about. He did not use exaggerated claims to hook the audiences into believing him. Additionally he includes factors as to explain why siblings turn out completely different from each other and one of the main factors was lack of motivation .Furthermore, Conley uses ethos by using his credibility as an author by referring to his book “The Pecking Order”. This is important because in his last few sections he starts to include his personal opinions on sibling inequality and the pecking order. Conley uses his credibility as an author to further explain why there is a pecking order hierarchy in the family. Towards the end of his article Conley starts to talk about how his book takes into account different issues and factors to explain sibling differences, unlike other books that only give very generic explanations towards the

In his first main point he argues that varying family dynamics are the cause for the rising differences in the family. He uses pathos to his advantage and uses the family dynamics of the Clinton Brothers to give the audience an example of sibling differences and inequality. Furthermore, He continues to discuss how the differences in socioeconomic status of the family effects how successful one particular sibling will than the rest of his/her siblings. In addition Conley says that the higher the socioeconomic status of the family, the better chances a sibling has to become successful. He uses Logos during this section and presents the readers with research and statistics to back up his argument. Finally, Conley argues that the pecking order within the family is the cause for sibling inequality. Different siblings have roles that in the family that are of more importance than the rest of his brother/sisters. This creates a pecking order of sorts in the family, and sets the stage for inequality. Conley uses a combination of ethos and logos to support his own opinion on the matter of sibling differences. By using these main points up above Conley constructs an argument that tries to get to the bottom of the really sources of sibling inequality by pulling and stitching together multiple