The Cesar Chavez article, that was published in a religious magazine, on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Luther King Jr. advocated that people should use nonviolence to show power in their work. Chavez introduces anaphora when making an argument towards people that use violence as a solution for their problems. By using anaphora, Chavez repeats the word “nonviolence” as a frequency to get his point across. At the beginning of Chavez’s essay, he makes a claim that people should put Dr. King as an example of a nonviolence leader for equal rights. He compares that “nonviolence is more powerful than violence” to show that violence can lead to a disaster without peace. When using anaphora to understand why Chavez is writing to his audience that would listen to him. A religious group would absolutely listen to Chavez when he states that nonviolence is a pivotal way to make this certain group to follow his lead. Many of these people will …show more content…
He gives diction on both sides of the group, violence and nonviolence, that they can both get hurt and “injured or perhaps being killed.” Their actions can put a face on these types of people to show that nonviolent people are weak, but Chavez wants people to pay attention to his footsteps of being an achievable activist of civil rights. The “injury” can come from being in a violent circumstance, which no one wants to be in. Especially being killed for trying to save, protect, and change peoples equal rights. This comes to show that people need to be supporting their beliefs in a more stronger and powerful way to be an obedient leader. When applying diction, Chavez is subtitled to giving both sides an opening to manifest the pros and cons of being violent. He furthers this towards the end of his article, to employ the reasoning to be in power by doing nonviolent battles to get what the people actually