Rhetorical Analysis Of Paired Argument Analysis
Rhetorical Analysis of Paired Arguments: Women's inferiority in math and science
Audience Analysis: "Sex Ed at Harvard" by Charles Murray
Published in the New York Times, Murray is addressing a primarily liberal audience. However, it is read by a general audience both liberals and conservatives between the ages of twenty and sixty because it is circulated nationwide and internationally. This newspaper reaches the educated upper, middle, and lower classes. Murray includes himself in the same category as the reader, however his tone and word choice suggest that he sides with Summer's radical comments and this in turn weakens his argument as a whole.
Audience Analysis: "Summers of Our Discontent" by Katha Pollitt
Like Murray, Pollitt addresses a predominately liberal audience between the ages of twenty and sixty. Though, being published in The Nation, it reaches a smaller audience and though it is published nationwide it is not readily available. Pollitt's loquacious and verbose tone may turn off some readers, while adding fuel to the fire for the people intensifying her argument. Her strong emotional appeal is direct towards a more female and liberal audience. Moreover, her usage of "I" and "me" are important because she shares her ideals and values with her …show more content…
audience.
The fields of math and science have traditionally been male driven areas of study. However, in the last few decades, women have slowly begun to permeate into these disciplines showing equal skills and abilities as their male counterparts. Therefore, it was greatly discredited when Harvard president, Harry Summers, proposed his claim that there are few women pursuing math and science because of their nature. Much controversy arose and this scandal provoked two writers, Charles Murray of the New York Times and Kathy Pollitt of The Nation to write for and against Summer's assertion respectively. Investigating the authors' uses of the rhetorical approaches-ethos, pathos, and logos- as well as the common topics, demonstrates that Politt's article is more persuasive.
Pollitt's article employs weak intrinsic ethos against Summers to strengthen her argument. She characterizes Larry Summers, "a distinguished economist who was Treasury Secretary under Clinton" (Pollitt), as a man who follows the saying " behind every successful woman is a man who is surprised" (Pollitt). According to Pollitt, Summers is another chauvinistic male underestimating a woman's potential. His ignorance challenged his credibility which he later attempted to regain by apologizing. Furthermore, his lack of judgment is revealed when he "doesn't want the world to know what he actually said" (Pollitt), by not making his official statement public. By informing the reader that Summers apologized for his assertion, Pollitt is strengthening her argument and revealing his ineffective authority. She also effectively does this my demonstrating his lack of providing women opportunities to be tenured in math and science. "The numbers of tenure offers to women at Harvard has gone down in each of Summers' three years as president, from nine in thirty-six tenures to three in thirty-two. Surely women's genes have not deteriorated since 2001?" (Pollitt). Pollitt's morbidly sarcastic tone also plays on her pathetic appeal. This is especially aimed toward the fellow women who think genetic differences as a basis of less tenured women in these fields is absurd. She also challenges Summers at the end of her article by questioning his knowledge as to "why women are underrepresented in math and science" (Pollitt)? She mocks him by telling him to "do his homework, beginning with Nancy Hopkin's pathbreaking 1999 study of bias against female faculty at MIT" (Pollitt) and maybe then he will understand the prejudice women must overcome.
Unlike Pollitt, Murray strongly agrees with Summers by supporting his reasoning with "all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women" (Murray). By agreeing with a discredited authoritative figure Murray's argument is in turn weakened. Also, his failure to identify himself as the co-author of The Bell Curve, leads the reader to question his credibility even more. It is Pollitt who distinguishes him as the "discredited farrago of racist claptrap" (Pollitt). The Bell Curve was a 1992 literary work that reinforced the idea of eugenics and deemed the availability of genetically inferior people. Thus, Murray's belief that a lack of tenured women is due to male and female genetic differences, reflects his attitude that women are genetically inferior and for this reason have not mastered both fields. Murray digs himself into a deeper hole when he states that the answers found from extensive research will " lead themselves to simplistic verdicts of males are better' and vice versa" (Murray). Murray's diction inadvertently deters women and illustrates his dominant male persona. His word choice of "males are better", reveals his preconceived notion that men are superior and this abates his argument through his pathetic appeal. Why didn't he propose "women are better"? Also, he later states that "some people will find the results threatening" (Murray). He is referring to women, though why would they be threatened by such results? Again, Murray is unaware of his negative implications toward women and this heightens his pathetic appeal in such a way that greatly questions his argument. His female readers are probably in outrage by such narrow-minded, conservative ideas established this diction and syntax.
Both authors establish logos in diverse ways. Murray uses an analogy and Politt effectively employs testimony and facts, thus making her argument stronger once again. In Sex Ed at Harvard, Murray opens his article with a reference to "The Two Cultures" by C.P. Snow. The book chronicled the dispute between literary and scientific intellectuals and the resolution that both disciplines need to come together and work in unison, in order to achieve progress in mid-twentieth century education. Murry attempts to make this analogous to the break in collaboration of men and women in math and science. While intellectually appealing, this insubstantial and superfluous comparison harms his logical appeal because his argument has very little relevance to any of Snow's arguments in "The Two Cultures". Murray's argument is that people are now willing to deny certain bodies of information which is irrelevant to a lack of communication between the sexes and weakening his initial logos and entire argument.
Pollitt, on the other hand, maintains successful use of logos throughout her contention. She supports her claim through evidence of a testimony, "most of my Radcliffe classmates remember being firmly discouraged from anything to do with numbers or labs; one was flatly told that women couldn't be physicians- at her Harvard med school interview" (Pollitt). However, women have increased their performance in the fields of math and science over the years and Pollitt illustrates this through her facts that "today women obtain forty-eight percent of Bas in math, fifty-seven percent in biology and agricultural science, etc." (Pollitt). In addition, she correlates a woman's decreased tenure to the lack of opportunities and possibilities to facilitate their advance in these disciplines. For instance, she argues that Harvard's twenty three billion dollar endowment does not provide free daycare to graduate students. Thus, it is no wonder that mothers who are attending school, cannot at times pursue their passion for math and science. This claim without a doubt enhances her pathetic appeal, especially to her female audience who have experienced such obstacles.
In addition, Pollitt's extensive examples not only reinforce her logical appeal, but also her own intrinsic ethos.
She does not dispute the fact that, "there's a tone of research on all the subjects raised by Summers" (Pollitt). However, she argues that talented women as docile housewives are a thing of the past. She further supports this with even more statistics than she previously stated above. Women have " half of all places in med school, and they are steadily increasing their numbers as finalists in the Intel high school science contest" (Pollitt). Pollitt then emphasizes the struggle women have had to endure in the past two centuries, while trying to pursue their
aspiration.
Nevertheless, Murray can't even identify himself in his own article, let alone support his logical claim with facts and examples. He vaguely mentions a " recent assessment of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children" (Murray), however this greatly weakens his argument. First, he does not cite this example and second he goes on to report that in this study " you will discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls- but were nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way" (Murray). This statement completely destroys his argument because through this he should have attracted his pathetic appeal to strengthen his argument. On the contrary, he does not remotely think about who Summers's claim initially provoked. Wasn't Summers's inciting assertion directed toward women? Then why does Murray chose to comment on how boys were dissuaded from playing with dolls, and not why girls were deterred from playing with trucks and Legos? Though logical and well derived, Murray's argument is flimsy at best. The overall structure of his argument is organized, though this doesn't appeal to the audience, as it does not make valid support for its point.
Even though the pathetic appeal is illustrated throughout both authors' arguments of logos and ethos, pathos is the predominant appeal which makes Pollitts argument outstanding and completely destroys Murray's claim. Pollitt's analogy of the work ladder " based on the traditional male life plan" (Pollitt) is the pinnacle of her argument as she undoubtedly appeals to her female readers. If this ladder remotely included women then it would not be unheard of women " taking a semester off to have a baby" (Pollitt) and they "would not be expected to do huge amounts of academic service work and then be blamed at tenure time for not publishing tenure" (Pollitt). Pollitt's female audience, especially over the age of twenty five, can relate to such discrimination they themselves have experienced. Moreover, she implies that the entire system, or "academia" is rigid and interprets Summers claims as "women [are] the problem". What other way to entice your female audience's anger than by asserting them as a problem.
In contrast, Murray's emotional appeal is only asserted at the end when he identifies himself as part of the audience, "we-scientists, parents, educators, employers- must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions" (Murray). He further states that "the best way to do that is to put the individual's abilities, not group membership, at the center of our attention" (Murray). He finally realizes the setbacks a female must face, though after being bombarded by pseudo science the reader is shocked by such a claim. His pathetic appeal isn't even taken seriously at this point in his argument because throughout the rest he never made an attempt to argue Summers. In fact, he merely reiterated Summers comments and supported it by emphasizing the genetic differences between males and females. While explaining Summers statement he says they are "mild" and "interesting". Thus implying his intrigue and resulting in his lack of appeal to his female audience. The epitome of this disposition is seen in his unintentional bias that women becoming engineers and mathematicians is as frivolous and people becoming "circus clowns". By using circus clowns as a possible career for women, he belittles females to an extreme level. By comparing both essays, it is obvious that Pollitt displays the more persuasive argument. The diversity of her literary appeals, ranging from lists to analogy to rhetorical questions shows the ethos of a well informed but vehemently frustrated intellectual. Pathos is her strongest appeal as she triggers the emotions of her female audience against Summers remarks. Her anger towards Summers insulting analogy to his own daughter's use of trucks as dolls exemplifies the frustration that women feel. Although Murray's logos is flawed, it is his most convincing argument. Following an Aristotelian model he logically arrives at his conclusion that there are genetic differences between male and female which may cause the disparity of the sexes' abilities in both math and science. However, he fails appeal to a diverse audience, particularly women, and this in turn diminishes his argument as a whole.
Audience Analysis: "Sex Ed at Harvard" by Charles Murray
Published in the New York Times, Murray is addressing a primarily liberal audience. However, it is read by a general audience both liberals and conservatives between the ages of twenty and sixty because it is circulated nationwide and internationally. This newspaper reaches the educated upper, middle, and lower classes. Murray includes himself in the same category as the reader, however his tone and word choice suggest that he sides with Summer's radical comments and this in turn weakens his argument as a whole.
Audience Analysis: "Summers of Our Discontent" by Katha Pollitt
Like Murray, Pollitt addresses a predominately liberal audience between the ages of twenty and sixty. Though, being published in The Nation, it reaches a smaller audience and though it is published nationwide it is not readily available. Pollitt's loquacious and verbose tone may turn off some readers, while adding fuel to the fire for the people intensifying her argument. Her strong emotional appeal is direct towards a more female and liberal audience. Moreover, her usage of "I" and "me" are important because she shares her ideals and values with her …show more content…
audience.
The fields of math and science have traditionally been male driven areas of study. However, in the last few decades, women have slowly begun to permeate into these disciplines showing equal skills and abilities as their male counterparts. Therefore, it was greatly discredited when Harvard president, Harry Summers, proposed his claim that there are few women pursuing math and science because of their nature. Much controversy arose and this scandal provoked two writers, Charles Murray of the New York Times and Kathy Pollitt of The Nation to write for and against Summer's assertion respectively. Investigating the authors' uses of the rhetorical approaches-ethos, pathos, and logos- as well as the common topics, demonstrates that Politt's article is more persuasive.
Pollitt's article employs weak intrinsic ethos against Summers to strengthen her argument. She characterizes Larry Summers, "a distinguished economist who was Treasury Secretary under Clinton" (Pollitt), as a man who follows the saying " behind every successful woman is a man who is surprised" (Pollitt). According to Pollitt, Summers is another chauvinistic male underestimating a woman's potential. His ignorance challenged his credibility which he later attempted to regain by apologizing. Furthermore, his lack of judgment is revealed when he "doesn't want the world to know what he actually said" (Pollitt), by not making his official statement public. By informing the reader that Summers apologized for his assertion, Pollitt is strengthening her argument and revealing his ineffective authority. She also effectively does this my demonstrating his lack of providing women opportunities to be tenured in math and science. "The numbers of tenure offers to women at Harvard has gone down in each of Summers' three years as president, from nine in thirty-six tenures to three in thirty-two. Surely women's genes have not deteriorated since 2001?" (Pollitt). Pollitt's morbidly sarcastic tone also plays on her pathetic appeal. This is especially aimed toward the fellow women who think genetic differences as a basis of less tenured women in these fields is absurd. She also challenges Summers at the end of her article by questioning his knowledge as to "why women are underrepresented in math and science" (Pollitt)? She mocks him by telling him to "do his homework, beginning with Nancy Hopkin's pathbreaking 1999 study of bias against female faculty at MIT" (Pollitt) and maybe then he will understand the prejudice women must overcome.
Unlike Pollitt, Murray strongly agrees with Summers by supporting his reasoning with "all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women" (Murray). By agreeing with a discredited authoritative figure Murray's argument is in turn weakened. Also, his failure to identify himself as the co-author of The Bell Curve, leads the reader to question his credibility even more. It is Pollitt who distinguishes him as the "discredited farrago of racist claptrap" (Pollitt). The Bell Curve was a 1992 literary work that reinforced the idea of eugenics and deemed the availability of genetically inferior people. Thus, Murray's belief that a lack of tenured women is due to male and female genetic differences, reflects his attitude that women are genetically inferior and for this reason have not mastered both fields. Murray digs himself into a deeper hole when he states that the answers found from extensive research will " lead themselves to simplistic verdicts of males are better' and vice versa" (Murray). Murray's diction inadvertently deters women and illustrates his dominant male persona. His word choice of "males are better", reveals his preconceived notion that men are superior and this abates his argument through his pathetic appeal. Why didn't he propose "women are better"? Also, he later states that "some people will find the results threatening" (Murray). He is referring to women, though why would they be threatened by such results? Again, Murray is unaware of his negative implications toward women and this heightens his pathetic appeal in such a way that greatly questions his argument. His female readers are probably in outrage by such narrow-minded, conservative ideas established this diction and syntax.
Both authors establish logos in diverse ways. Murray uses an analogy and Politt effectively employs testimony and facts, thus making her argument stronger once again. In Sex Ed at Harvard, Murray opens his article with a reference to "The Two Cultures" by C.P. Snow. The book chronicled the dispute between literary and scientific intellectuals and the resolution that both disciplines need to come together and work in unison, in order to achieve progress in mid-twentieth century education. Murry attempts to make this analogous to the break in collaboration of men and women in math and science. While intellectually appealing, this insubstantial and superfluous comparison harms his logical appeal because his argument has very little relevance to any of Snow's arguments in "The Two Cultures". Murray's argument is that people are now willing to deny certain bodies of information which is irrelevant to a lack of communication between the sexes and weakening his initial logos and entire argument.
Pollitt, on the other hand, maintains successful use of logos throughout her contention. She supports her claim through evidence of a testimony, "most of my Radcliffe classmates remember being firmly discouraged from anything to do with numbers or labs; one was flatly told that women couldn't be physicians- at her Harvard med school interview" (Pollitt). However, women have increased their performance in the fields of math and science over the years and Pollitt illustrates this through her facts that "today women obtain forty-eight percent of Bas in math, fifty-seven percent in biology and agricultural science, etc." (Pollitt). In addition, she correlates a woman's decreased tenure to the lack of opportunities and possibilities to facilitate their advance in these disciplines. For instance, she argues that Harvard's twenty three billion dollar endowment does not provide free daycare to graduate students. Thus, it is no wonder that mothers who are attending school, cannot at times pursue their passion for math and science. This claim without a doubt enhances her pathetic appeal, especially to her female audience who have experienced such obstacles.
In addition, Pollitt's extensive examples not only reinforce her logical appeal, but also her own intrinsic ethos.
She does not dispute the fact that, "there's a tone of research on all the subjects raised by Summers" (Pollitt). However, she argues that talented women as docile housewives are a thing of the past. She further supports this with even more statistics than she previously stated above. Women have " half of all places in med school, and they are steadily increasing their numbers as finalists in the Intel high school science contest" (Pollitt). Pollitt then emphasizes the struggle women have had to endure in the past two centuries, while trying to pursue their
aspiration.
Nevertheless, Murray can't even identify himself in his own article, let alone support his logical claim with facts and examples. He vaguely mentions a " recent assessment of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children" (Murray), however this greatly weakens his argument. First, he does not cite this example and second he goes on to report that in this study " you will discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls- but were nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way" (Murray). This statement completely destroys his argument because through this he should have attracted his pathetic appeal to strengthen his argument. On the contrary, he does not remotely think about who Summers's claim initially provoked. Wasn't Summers's inciting assertion directed toward women? Then why does Murray chose to comment on how boys were dissuaded from playing with dolls, and not why girls were deterred from playing with trucks and Legos? Though logical and well derived, Murray's argument is flimsy at best. The overall structure of his argument is organized, though this doesn't appeal to the audience, as it does not make valid support for its point.
Even though the pathetic appeal is illustrated throughout both authors' arguments of logos and ethos, pathos is the predominant appeal which makes Pollitts argument outstanding and completely destroys Murray's claim. Pollitt's analogy of the work ladder " based on the traditional male life plan" (Pollitt) is the pinnacle of her argument as she undoubtedly appeals to her female readers. If this ladder remotely included women then it would not be unheard of women " taking a semester off to have a baby" (Pollitt) and they "would not be expected to do huge amounts of academic service work and then be blamed at tenure time for not publishing tenure" (Pollitt). Pollitt's female audience, especially over the age of twenty five, can relate to such discrimination they themselves have experienced. Moreover, she implies that the entire system, or "academia" is rigid and interprets Summers claims as "women [are] the problem". What other way to entice your female audience's anger than by asserting them as a problem.
In contrast, Murray's emotional appeal is only asserted at the end when he identifies himself as part of the audience, "we-scientists, parents, educators, employers- must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions" (Murray). He further states that "the best way to do that is to put the individual's abilities, not group membership, at the center of our attention" (Murray). He finally realizes the setbacks a female must face, though after being bombarded by pseudo science the reader is shocked by such a claim. His pathetic appeal isn't even taken seriously at this point in his argument because throughout the rest he never made an attempt to argue Summers. In fact, he merely reiterated Summers comments and supported it by emphasizing the genetic differences between males and females. While explaining Summers statement he says they are "mild" and "interesting". Thus implying his intrigue and resulting in his lack of appeal to his female audience. The epitome of this disposition is seen in his unintentional bias that women becoming engineers and mathematicians is as frivolous and people becoming "circus clowns". By using circus clowns as a possible career for women, he belittles females to an extreme level. By comparing both essays, it is obvious that Pollitt displays the more persuasive argument. The diversity of her literary appeals, ranging from lists to analogy to rhetorical questions shows the ethos of a well informed but vehemently frustrated intellectual. Pathos is her strongest appeal as she triggers the emotions of her female audience against Summers remarks. Her anger towards Summers insulting analogy to his own daughter's use of trucks as dolls exemplifies the frustration that women feel. Although Murray's logos is flawed, it is his most convincing argument. Following an Aristotelian model he logically arrives at his conclusion that there are genetic differences between male and female which may cause the disparity of the sexes' abilities in both math and science. However, he fails appeal to a diverse audience, particularly women, and this in turn diminishes his argument as a whole.