Victor Torres
Katherine Sentz
English 1C
February 12, 2014
Rhetorical analysis These two articles argue a really strong topic that America faces nowadays , Ms Susan Thistlethwaite’s article argues that Americans need to find the cure to Affluenza before it destroys our society, her arguments are that Affluenza is a growing moral problem that needs examination, she backs up her arguments with religious beliefs. Something that I think really minimizes her audience. She gives biblical passages to persuade the reader to understand her argument. On the other hand Mr. Robin S. Rosenberg’s article clearly states his belief that the claim that a rich kid was unable to understand consequences is unacceptable. I clearly agree with Mr. Rosenberg’s article on how parenting issues have nothing to do when a person has to make a judgment call on what’s wrong and what’s right.
I find The Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite: America needs a cure for ‘affluenza’ article less effective in this case simply because of the fact that Ms, Thistlethwaite minimizes her audience to a more religious group of readers, she uses the bible as a support to her statements. She also uses an angry tone, like if she were to be annoyed . She lacks balance in what she is saying aswell as how she says it. She trys to use Ethos to persuade her audience, When she clarifies that she is a pastor. “I am a pastor and theologian, and while I agree that the lack of a clinical basis is a crucial critique, I think the idea of affluenza actually names a growing moral problem that needs examination.” She also uses logos in her way of persuading the reader. The same biblical examples make part of this. A good tone of sarcasm is also notable. She states that the cure for affluenza is no other than just taking “the money away”.

Mr Rosenbergs article more effectively convinces the general newspaper reader that affluenza is an inexcusable defense simply because he states and supports his points more clearly . he shows a strong appeal to the audience he states that we are all equal to eachother and that we all have the same mental ability to distinguish the bad from the good, what brings consequences and rewards. He clearly uses Ethos as a support, he states in his own words that hes a clinical psychologist, not a lawyer. His interest in this case is from a psychological point of view , the issues the case raises about the definitions and diagnoses of mental illness and why Couch should or shouldn’t be held responsible for his behavior. He states that Couch had a history for inappropriate behavior. He states that the defense argument “that knowing the law” is not enough to educate a person whats right and whats wrong is clearly unacceptable . He also uses simple animals like rats as a support for his arguments. He states that these animals know when is the right time to get water and when its not. Mr rosenbergs good use of emotional appeal really gives the audience more support. And is more likely to have an effect towards its readers. It has more credibility , in fact he really uses his words with carefulness for a general audience. He does not limit his audience, he expands it. The way he uses pre schoolers as an example also makes it more easy to understand what he is trying to make the reader to believe. He also uses Logos as a strong support, he states that its logical to act up if your parents gave you too much liberty, but the person that has the last decision it’s the person themselves. he states that couch had past decisions in life ,