Rhetorical Analysis Of The Great Influenza By John M Barry

Scientific research is a crucial part of human progress and discovery, which is a scarcely understood procedure for many. John M. Barry, author of The Great Influenza, describes the 1918 flu epidemic in order to analyze the impact of scientific research. This enlightening account of a vital part of human history maintains the reader’s interest by relating what naturally draws people in to a narrower topic. The author incorporates comparisons, contrasting key points, and clever rhetorical inquiries to give the reader a better comprehension of the practice of scientific research.
To begin with, the metaphorical phrases that Barry incorporates incite a better understanding in the reader by relating an obscure topic to subjects which they may

For instance, when discussing the tedious effort and thought scientists must put into their research, Barry describes a situation in which a scientist must find a proper method for penetrating rock, asking, “Would a pick be best, or would dynamite be better- or would dynamite be too indiscriminately destructive?” (Barry). Barry asks this rhetorical question to force the reader to consider the situation and thus understand the effort scientists must put into their research. He also shows that there are multiple ways a scientist could conduct one singular experiment using this rhetorical question, as he offers several solutions to one problem. He concludes the excerpt’s fifth paragraph with the question, “How would one analyze it?” (Barry) which serves as a final reminder of the vastness of possibilities in the work of a scientist and the intelligence it requires to narrow down those vast possibilities into one solid method that both succeeds in completing the research and in revealing something new and interesting. In conclusion, author John M. Barry uses rhetorical questions in order to give readers a glimpse into the world of scientific research. (Jessica