My last close reading post was about Brittany Maynard and the plan to end her life. The article reflects on her decision to end her life on November 1, 2014. The author, Ronald M. Green, uses diction, syntax, and language to argue that physician-assisted is okay.
The author is explicit that he supports Brittany’s choice. His first sentences states, “I strongly support Brittany Maynard’s impassioned efforts…” By using the word strongly, we know that he feels robustly about Ms. Maynard’s life changing choice. Using the word impassioned shows that we often feel empathetically for those who cope with stressfully horrendous issues. I believe the author is trying to persuading us to understand why doctor-assisted suicide is acceptance.
Ronald Green writes this article using long, technically written sentences. They are used to examine ideas meticulously. He utilizes these by packing them with opinion and idea. Some of these include, “It may seem strange to say this, but the reason that you and I as free individuals cannot access life-ending drugs is because governments have imposed rules that require prescription approval by physicians for such drugs.” This is a strongly stated sentence used by Green. Another example includes, “But mutual respect here also requires that we allow others who who believe differently to end their lives in the way they see fit, as Brittany Maynard has now courageously done.” This sentence is used to be reflective, really allowing us to think about our own lives. A short sentence would not be as powerful if used here.
Lastly, Green uses language to effectively develop his message. In his second paragraph, he discusses that he does not believe that physicians should be involved in death. When reading phrases such as, “mass killing” and “corps of people”, I visualize death and horrific acts. The writer is communicating that physician-assisted suicide is not comparable to other instances of dying. Another example of this is, “grievous and irreversible pain.” Not only is this useful diction, it creates a feeling and understand of what the person is experiencing.
I believe that Ronald M. Green did a thorough job of explaining his opinion of physician-assisted suicide. He made this possible by using diction, syntax, and language.
Hey Hunter,
ReplyDeleteWhile the post is fine overall, I have some concerns about the diction paragraph. I am really not sure that strongly requires much analysis or even if it carries much value. Lastly, "He feels robustly", that does not read quite right-- I think it is the use of the adverb, but you might try some other wording for that. Syntax is definitely your strongest paragraph, I do not see anything to work on there. The language paragraph-- it is fine, but I think you could improve on it by going further in depth or adding more examples. That last paragraph is fine, but if you want to make it feel a little better try mixing up the language so it is not verbatim repeating.
~Erik
Good job analyzing this article it is clear that you feel passionate about that topic and I think that it makes it easier to analyze the way. I do think you are missing the word "suicide" after "physician assisted" in your thesis sentence. It also might be helpful to make your link more pronounced but its up to you. I also think that your syntax and diction paragraphs are missing topic sentences. I got confused while reading some of them so to be clear the topic sentences would definitely be helpful. That being said I think that examples you give for each area are awesome. Great analysis of the piece!
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article- I normally associate CNN with very new-sy stories, but this one had some more personal aspects to it and some definite opinions to argue that people can react to and agree/disagree with.
ReplyDeleteThe text was definitely an argument- the author wanted readers to support his message, physician-assisted suicide. Your thesis is okay... but it doesn't really make the author's message seem as serious as he portrays it. You identify strategies (diction, etc.) well, but maybe rephrase the meaning of the text.
Your syntax paragraph seems to be a lot better supported than the paragraphs on diction and language. You have more examples, and more analysis. I feel like you don't clarify the difference between diction and language in this post,,, there is specific language used, but the analysis seems redundant after the diction paragraph. I would change the diction paragraph, though, more than the language one... maybe don't mention diction in your language paragraph, too.
Hunter--You did a MUCH better job this month with the clarity of your thesis and on your warrants--nice job with this! Your peer reviewers gave you some great feedback, though, that you really should have taken into account for a revision of this post. Your "language" paragraph is really kind of more about diction, and some of the paragraphs need more evidence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, NO FIRST PERSON in a formal academic argument.
ReplyDelete