Bordering on Absurdity is trustworthy

Michael Mandel wrote an article titled "Bordering on Absurdity" for Business Weekly. Right underneath his title he said, "Cars can move more easily from country to country than people, and that is crimping both human potential and economic growth." I thought it summed up the article quite nicely. Mandel is pro immigration and he will use the article to tell the readers why.

Ehtos is a "persuasive strategy built on trust" says Gary Layne Hatch (Writing and Rhetoric chapter 4). We generally trust those who have authority and/or those who have good characteristics (is. knowledgeable, experienced, reliable, etc.). There are a few moments in Mandel's paper where he makes it easy to trust him.

The first thing I noticed was that the article was found on businessweek.com. The title is exactly what it says. Weekly Business articles. An article on this website would seem trustworthy to the reader because the website itself is truthful and trustworthy.

Mandel also gains the readers' trust in paragraph 6. He is talking about an other economist's research to prove his pint on immigration. Not only does he give this economist authority by telling the reader that he is from UC Berkeley, but he also gives the reader al ink to the economist's own article on the subject. Showing the audience where he got his information is a huge sign to trust him.

At the very end of the article it says "Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek." That shows the reader that Mandel is also in a position of authority, and so he is therefore trustworthy.

Audience Analysis

Mandel's article on immigration is written very well for any audience. The reason why is hte structure of his article. He has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Inside of the body he has headers to organize the different catagories he will talk about. So it is very easy to understand where his article is going. An other good thing he has in his article is that he has a rebuttal with every point he makes. he lets the reader know what the other side is saying, and then defends his side according to the other side's opinion. The structure makes it easy for all audiences to read this article and understand Mandel's opinion. He can't hide anything, there is no reading in between the lines. This allows the reader to take the information given to them and go their own way. I think that it is important that his article is written to all audiences so that he has the opportunity to change some reader's opinions to his own.

Why Read?

When one looks for an article to read in their spare time, oftentimes one looks for an article that appeals to their interest. It isn’t very likely that one will choose to read an article that’s about something they aren’t interested in.

In Dan Amato’s article The Dark Side of Immigration he says “Most Americans are against illegal immigration, but I feel that the majority just don’t know that dire situation that our country is in and the damage that illegal aliens are doing to the United States” (Introduction, par. 4). Here he’s stating that he believes that most of his readers know nothing and are anti-immigration. He then goes on in his article to consistently give facts and data—just as if his audience knew nothing.

Is his audience really that uninformed though? Maybe they are. Most people in the United States are unaware of exact data and not many people can quote statistics at the top of their head. Is this what his readers are going to want though? Most people don’t want to read through long lists of every single thing that every single immigrant has done in the United States. Most people don’t even care whether or not this crime happened on this date at this time and at this place. They just want to know how this effects them in their life. Most readers are going to be paying attention to what’s in it for them—not what happened to some person in L.A five years ago.

Crafting the blade for the bearer

I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we've listened to a speaker who wasn't very highly dispositioned towards our viewpoint and in turn when we heard this, we weren't very keen to listen to his. A vital part of rhetoric is the ability of the speaker or writer to connect well with his audience. They have the job of not alienating us as readers. U.S.A. Today's article on illegal aliens has the difficult task of appealing to a very large audience, many of whom will not be favorably disposed towards this particular argument, but the writer does an excellent job at writing a one-sided argument and not alienating his audience.

He starts by appealing to the educated workers and normal laborers, "Carlos Nieto holds a degree in engineering from a university in Mexico but earns far more here, laying bricks in "McMansions," than he would at home."(par. 1) This citation of an experience allows educated Americans to think about a couple of things. First it allows them to wonder what they would do if they had studied, received a degree, and then found they could make more money doing honest labor in another county. Secondly it appeals to the educated workers because they see that these illegal immigrants are actually honest workers not some scoundrels on the street.

Next he asks the question, "Who will do the hard jobs?"(par. 6) This time he appeals to the audience's sense of comfort. He tries to connect with the educated class again and perhaps the people who wouldn't want to do this kind of hard labor. On the other hand, he doesn't appeal to the working class of America, many of whom believe that they would do those jobs if they had an opportunity.

All in all the author does a good job with his article, but on such an issue it is nigh impossible to completely satisfy the demands of his entire audience.