Rhetorical Zenith Of The Color Pink By Peggy Orenstein Analysis

The Rhetorical Zenith of the Color Pink “The Problem With Pink” by Peggy Orenstein attempts to convey the message to society that people should not advocate for a campaign that only shows a one-sided opinion: early detection using mammograms will increase the survival rate of breast cancer. It is best to start off stating that Orenstein is also a biased writer(in a way) due to her majority of numerous books about female empowerment. She is known for her wide-ranging feminist writing about everything from princess culture to breast cancer. Therefore, it is inferred that her audience are most likely females and the general public regarding issues affecting women. Overall, this analysis of this article will ultimately reveal the flaws of Orenstein’s

Orenstein also attempts to strengthen her position with research through logos. Lastly, she guided the audience throughout the article by establishing questions which triggers readers to think. Even though her purpose was to persuade the reader that the breast cancer awareness campaign is useless, she depreciated the use of pathos and bombarded the reader with many statistics. This just shows that Orenstein is perhaps trying too hard to persuade the reader that breast cancer awareness is futile. With so many statistics it is as if she is attacking every aspect of breast cancer awareness, without considering the benefits of early detection. Granted that she has some great topics, her unsuccessful persuasion outweighed the effectiveness of the article. Nearly every few paragraphs she included statistics, not all of them relevant such as when she stated “ and by the early 1930s, it is estimated that fewer than 20 percent of those eligible did [get cured]”(Orenstein 39). This reveals that she included statistics without even mentioning any source at all. Furthermore, Orenstein attempts to secure her claim by creating questions that make it hard for the audience to decide. Orenstein

Orenstein is notably biased in her choice of words and use of loaded language. The author uses the pathos appeal which is effective because it triggers the audiences emotions, but overused it which made it ineffective. The audience may understand that Orenstein is passionate in regards to this topic because she underwent that traumatic experience, which definitely effects her perception on details surrounding breast cancer. On a analysis level, it is suggested for her to use only fewer but relevant statistics, tune down her bias, and include claims from a doctor’s point of view. This article’s inclusion of too much logos and overuse of pathos has limited the extent of this argument, therefore rendering the topic