Argumentation
Part 2 of the exam question requires you to analyse the way Morton Schapiro argues for his views in text 3, using examples from the text. First, we will give you a summary of the article and then focus on the writer’s argumentation.
Summary
Text 2 in your exam set is titled “I’m Northwestern’s president. Here’s why safe spaces for students are important” and was published on the website of The Washington Post.
In the article, Morton Schapiro, president of Northwestern University in Illinois, argues in favour of university safe spaces.
His arguments are supported by two examples that he has either learned about himself or through a reliable acquaintance. In the first example, a group of black students was approached by white students who wanted to join them on their lunch break.
...
Argumentation
By argumentation, we refer to the techniques and language devices a writer/speaker uses to make his arguments more convincing so that they are accepted by the audience.
In his article, Morton Schapiro argues for his views both directly and indirectly.
Indirect or closed argumentation means the writer does not express his opinion directly. This is noticeable when Schapiro uses two stories to answer the question “And finally, what about those often criticized safe spaces?” (ll. 8-9). Through the two stories, the author shows indirectly that safe spaces are necessary:
...
Rhetorical devices
In order to make his argumentation more appealing and convincing Morton Schapiro uses rhetorical devices like ethos and pathos.
Ethos (an appeal to authority and common values) is created by Schapiro making the audience aware of his professional role— “I’m Northwestern’s president”—which gives him authority and credibility. As a students’ president, it is likely that he is well acquainted with students and campus politics. Furthermore, Schapiro promotes the idea of students’ community by using the first person plural (“we”) to indicate that he and others in the community share the same values and opinions.
...
