Rhetorical Analysis Of Animal Rights

In every discipline, there are unique approaches and attitudes towards the elements that are faced within each job. These diverse approaches are adopted and practiced by those that are involved in them, typically based on what the end-goal of the job actually is. One such example would be between an Animal Right’s Activist and a Meat-Eating Activist. The topic on which they differ is on the killing of animals for food. In each of the above fields, there are rhetorical devices that are used to appeal to and persuade the outside world to agree with and support their beliefs. In this paper, we will analyze the rhetorical devices used in articles from each of these disciplinary fields. Robert C. Jones, the author of the “Animal rights is a social justice issue” article, begins his article clarifying that the purpose of his writing is to “persuade those committed to social justice to consider both in their theory and practice, the interests of all sentient beings, not only those of human beings” (Jones 467). It is through this sentence that Jones exclaims the true focus of …show more content…
In the “Animal rights is a social justice issue” article, Jones does not use very many assuring certainty indicators, but instead uses words such as claim, intention, and assertion. The use of these words tends to take away from the overall solidity of the article, as it can make the reader less sure of the article’s “truth”. In the “Getting Down to the Meat: The Symbolic Construction of Meat Consumption” article, the authors use the words facts, reveals, provides. These certainty indicators seem to be more “certain” than those in the social justice article. The use of these words, compared the the uncertain words of the social justice article, tend to carry a sort of assuring