In his article "Army, Inc.", JAmes Surowiecki explains his argument that the United States Army has become a corporation, leading him to arrive at his final claim that the military, as a business, cannot be outsourced. Surowiecki's argument is very effective due to his strong diction, authoritative and knowledgeable, yet accessible tone, and his powerful use of syntax.
Surowiecki uses strong, commanding diction to add pathos to his argument to further sway his reader. His use of "villain" and "most despised" to portray Halliburton, his proposed enemy, works to give the company itself an almost sinister human like quality, driving the readers emotions to be against the big bad monster, Halliburton, that is corporatizing our military. This appeals to the readers sense of national pride and leads into his use of logos to legitimize his argument. His scathing diction leads to his scathing facts of "multi-billion dollar contracts" and military "private contractors", which leads his readers to be more compelled to support his claims.
Throughout the piece, Surowiecki also takes on an authoritative and knowledgeable tone, revealing indirectly to readers that he knows what he's talking about and that he's sure of his claims. By using phrases such as "no serious person believes" and "an annual prize for the worlds most despised country", Surowiecki is able to build up his ethos as a knowledgeable speaker without ever addressing himself or his credibility directly. His tone does this for him and leads him to be able to convincingly make claims such as outsourcing being "the era's biggest fad" that Washington "fell for." His tone is harshly critical while still maintaining his credibility without being offensive or distasteful, which makes his claims more acceptable and accessible to the average reader. He is not making references beyond his readers understanding, yet he is not insulting them by speaking incredibly casually.
Surowiecki's powerful syntax makes his argument and claims strong, memorable, and leave the piece on a patriotic note. When delving deeper into the harshness of his argument, he expertly crafts his claims into be clearly and strongly against corporations dominating the military, while still making it digestible for the reader. His use of imagery and juxtaposition when saying "It's a tidy pictureL the Army becomes a lean, mean killing machine, while civilians peel the potatoes and clean the latrines" clearly gets across his own stance, even in a critical way, while still making it non-offensive to the reader. In the final sentence of the article, Surowiecki's syntax leaves the reader with a powerful message: "Dont outsource the iron until you can outsource the blood." He blends imagery of blood and iron and the emotional connotations that go along with those images perfectly to leave his reader deeply thinking about his point against outsourcing military needs and turns it into a profound final thought to take away.
Surowiecki's strong diction, powerful tone, and skillful use of syntax make his argument complex and thought provoking. He is able to take a strong, opinionated, even possibly controversial stance and fully express his points without putting off the reader.
Olivia, you do a nice job looking for and finding rhetorical devices and techniques. The next step is to find a balance between analyzing WHAT the author is saying and how he says it (right now you have the how, but not much of the what). In other words, resist analyzing the techniques in isolation--analyze how they work within the context of this particular argument. That means including major claims and major turns or shifts in the argument. Start there, and then let the rhetorical devices be the meat of your body paragraphs.
ReplyDelete