Nuclear power

The article I read was about nuclear power and it was from nuclear-news.net. This article was very biased against nuclear power. It strongly condemned numerous practices of the nuclear industry such as secrecy about the full health effects and how nuclear waste would last for an extremely long time. The article was not addressed to any particular audience, just those interested in nuclear power. 

The article used a large amount of logos with numerous findings and quotes to condemn nuclear power. The article also used in pathos in regarding our society as one that does not care about future generations and would just leave them with nuclear waste that could possibly cause large amounts of cancer and other health problems. Other than citing sources the article did not do much to appeal to ethos. 

The article did have some rhetorical devices in it such as allusion with Macbeth and comparing how many supporters of nuclear power had a similar mind set to him in which they concentrate on just their own actions. It also had some rhetorical questions such as is nuclear energy evil and other such questions. It also has appeals to authority in order to gain more ethos. 

Analysis of My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked

The article I read was "My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked" by Edwin Lyngar. The subject of this article is how libertarian politics and their effect on Honduras. The occasion was is vacation to Honduras and how dangerous it is in the country and its conditions. The audience is anyone who thinks libertarian politics are good. The purpose of this article is to condemn libertarian politics as a terrible system that benefits only the rich and causes more violence and poverty. 

The article primarily relies on an anecdote of the author's vacation  to prove a point. The author primarily uses pathos to show the dangerous conditions and how terrible it is. He backs up this pathos with some logos and states facts about these conditions. He does appeal to ethos by showing how at one time he also believed in libertarian politics but since his travels he now knows they do not work.

Prescription drug costs

The article was "The $750 pill" by theweek.com. This article discusses how pharmaceutical companies overcharge for their pills. It talks about specific cases, especially Shkreli's habit of raising prices exorbitantly, such as making pills that cost $1 all the way up to $750. The purpose of this article is to expose how big pharma exorbitantly raises costs and influences politics in such a way that allows for them to continue doing this. The audience of this article are Americans who both vote and/ or take prescription medication. 

This article mostly appeals to logos. It mentions statistics of what thing cost and how much the pharma companies pay to make the drugs. It also appeals to pathos with loaded language with how the companies are over charging those who have no choice but to pay. The author does not reference himself in the writing but does appeal to ethos by mentioning authorities in the subject. The article does not make many direct rhetorical appeals but does contain loaded language and an overall tone of anger at these companies actions. The article primarily uses the rhetorical strategy of exemplification to get its point across. 

College majors

     The article is "The Economic Guide to Picking a College Major" by Ben Casselman. This article talks about majors and the effect they have on the career and general wealth of students. This is in response to the occasion that numerous students going to college, and that the decisions they make will influence the rest of their lives. The audience is any and all people who are going to major in something in order to make a living. The purpose of this article is to inform future students to choose a major wisely since they may be better off not going to college if they can't get properly employed. 

    This article does make rhetorical appeals. The author primarily focuses on logos and mention numerous statistics. He tells wages, employment probability, and even probability of getting full time in their field. He makes some appeals to pathos by showing how some majors are terrible economic decisions and how many degrees just end in people getting underemployed and saddled with debt. The author does not make appeals to ethos in his article. He also does not use much figurative language or other such rhetorical devices in his article. 

Reading

     The article I read was "10 Benefits of Reading: Why You Should Read Every Day" from lifehack.org. The subject was the benefits of reading and the purpose of this article was to encourage people to read everyday. The audience was really just anyone who does not read much. The author mostly appeals to logos by mentioning benefits and some statistics even. The author has some appeal to pathos by mentioning how much better life could become with the benefits of reading. The author does not really appeal to ethos though. 

     I personally find the argument to be far to generalized. The author specifies that things like Facebook posts and tweets are not really as beneficial to one's mind as say a novel, but shows basically no distinction between books. This lack of distinction could imply that one could get the same benefits from reading an incredibly simple book like Dr. Seuss or a book which they can not comprehend at all and still get the same benefits as if they were reading an book of appropriate difficulty. Also in some areas she clearly distinguishes why TV could not be a substitute but in others she leaves it so open ended that even TV could work, like tranquility or even free entertainment, depending on what equipment you have, since many libraries have a DVD section. Otherwise it was decently argued. 

Mass killings in USA

The article is "America's killing contagion" by the week.com. This article discusses the prevalence of shootings within America and why the amount is increasing. The audience is anyone who is interested in learning about mass killings. The author uses logos by mentioning statistics to show the increase in crime, mentions the profiles of the killers, and discusses the culture behind the rise of this violence. He uses pathos by mentioning specific example of these killers and shootings by showing some of their problems. He appeals to ethos by mentioning many experts and using their authority on the subject.

Gluten

The article I read is called "against the grain" by Michael Specter. The purpose is to discuss wether gluten has health disbenefits for those who do not have celiac disease or at least a gluten sensitivity. The subject was gluten. Occasion was the rising amount of people avoiding gluten despite not having celiac disease. The audience was readers of the New Yorker. The author did a fairly good job showing both sides of the argument. He uses logos by mentioning studies that have been done, showing both their results and numbers of participants. He also mentions proven statistics. He uses ethos by mentioning his own personal experiences. His pathos is mostly found in anecdotes he tells of other people. 

Stem cell controversy

The article "how fetal tissue is used in medical research" discusses both uses and ethical controversies of stem cell research. It goes through actual progress made, such as vaccines, and mentions possible treatments that could be derived from this research. It discusses legal changes that have occurred, either making it legal, illegal, or legal with numerous requirements. It shows both sides of the argument fairly well, telling why stem cells are used, the claims against it, the response to the claims, and the moral controversy between those who think an immoral means can not justify a good end and those who think it is completely justifiable. It shows both sides appeal to logos, such as how cure have been derived from stem cells and how there have been cases, or at least claims, in which planned parenthood employees have broken the law. It also shows their pathos in which those who support stem cell research mention how practically everyone benefits from it and those against it by saying how they think something that is absolutely wrong can not be justified even if it helps others.