My Rhetorical Analysis On Nazi Experiments

As the first semester of freshman year comes to an end, one final paper was required for English 198, an argument for a public audience. This assignment allowed the class to choose their own topic of interest and explore different stylistic choices that had not been available for previous papers. I decided to focus my argument on an issue that had come to my attention in my psychology class. Before regulations had been put in place by government policies, unethical human research took place around the world, specifically at the concentration camps during World War II. It is still in question whether this research should be referred to today due to the inhumane procedures used. I argued that despite the questionable scientific validity of some of the experiments, incompetent Nazi physicians, and dehumanization of the victims, the results of the Nazi experiments should be referred to when further research could result in saving lives. I intended for my argument to be published in The Guardian science blog because the debate rests on psychological principles. Throughout the process of writing this specific paper, along with the rest of the assignments that made up the course, I have learned many aspects of rhetorical analysis
All of my previous writing experience has involved academic writing, so incorporating my opinion was a new experience for me. Also, the seriousness of my topic made the transition more difficult because the tone was very serious and respectful. To overcome this obstacle, I attempted to use bold claims and vivid language while still establishing a knowledgeable and respected tone. This can be seen when describing the wide range of experiments as, “immersing subjects in freezing ice water for hours on end to record the detrimental effects of exposure, to injecting the female prisoners’ uteruses with corrosive substances to find new sterilization