Cesar Chavez, published an article on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. Jr. In his argument, he emphasizes about advocating for nonviolent resistance and cite the ideals of Dr. King. Implementing an admirable tone, he repeats about how nonviolence is more powerful than violence since nonviolence will only be able to achieve those of the civil rights activist's goals. This is appealing to different rhetorical devices but also bringing in the question of helping his argument for the nonviolence resistance. Which he is also using contrast diction to recognize the violent and nonviolent actions. Hence, his reason for the morality of the aftermath, like his judgement and the use of plural nouns. Chavez is alluring his audience by providing a logical argument of why more people should turn to nonviolence and will accomplish their determined attempts. …show more content…
King demonstrates. By going through very outspoken sentences, he points out how nonviolence is more powerful than violence because violence leads to "injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides... (paragraph 4) and how nonviolence is "supportive and crucial." Moreover, Chavez is contrasting diction from images of injuries and deaths yet compared to the justifiable of nonviolence helping persuade his audience of which they choose. There he is mentioning how violence as being harmful to "both side." Therefore, helping establish an unprejudiced character and demonstrating how violence is destructive to anyone, none less of his position on civil rights. Furthermore, he once again directly express contrast, "Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect" (paragraph 5). His accessory of words like "conscience", "justice", and "support" to nonviolence is making the effect more appealing to the audience and portray why it's effective and