Rhetorical Analysis Of Trump Kills Immigration Compromise

The Editorial Board of The New York Times article Trump Kills Immigration Compromise is an ineffective and unsound argument. The article is centered around the Senate's debate on immigration and the Democrats and Republicans proposals for immigration laws. This creates kairos because this is a current debate and makes the argument relevant, but there is a lack of conciliatory language which is paired with the absence of evidence. This makes it so there is no warrant to support their claim that Donald Trump does not care about fixing our immigration problem as longs as he can use it for his political gain. Also, this impacts the logos and ethos and generates an ineffective and unsound argument. In addition, they use negative imagery that

“Unfortunately, Mr. Trump is not interested in resolving a difficult problem if he can exploit it for political gain” This statement is delivered without any evidence or warrant build their logos. In addition, there is a lack of conciliatory language that impacts the tone and makes it seems like it is a fact while is actually a judgment they made. This impacts the logos and ethos and generates an ineffective and unsound argument. There is also a play on pathos in this statement created from the diction choice of “difficult problem” and “exploit”. Both of these emphasize mood but have a negative impact on pathos because they have a negative

“The president himself at one point expressed sympathy for the young immigrants and said he might make a deal with Democrats to protect them” However, earlier in the argument they already stated that the president did not care if immigration was fixed as long as “he can exploit it for political gain.” But, here they state he “expressed sympathy for the young immigrants” which is the opposite of what they stated previously. This creates a conflicting conditions fallacy that causes the reader's mind to wander aimlessly in a cloud of confusion wondering how they came to be there. This sabotages their logos and ethos for the reader because they are contradicting themselves and not following a clear logical way of