{"id":114,"date":"2015-08-24T23:27:52","date_gmt":"2015-08-24T23:27:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/davis\/?page_id=114"},"modified":"2016-09-19T21:38:29","modified_gmt":"2016-09-19T21:38:29","slug":"321-example-analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/davis\/courses\/rhe-321\/rhe-321-schedule\/321-example-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"321 Example-Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

[[Disclaimer: When i say this is a “decent example,” i mean that i gave myself an hour to do this, just as you had today. Obviously, you should give yourself more time to produce your real first analysis paper. This is a decent example of an analysis produced in an hour<\/em>.]]<\/p>\n

Example Analysis of Wahls<\/p>\n

On April 3, 2009, Iowa became one of the first states in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which had been ratified in 2005. On February 1, 2011, however, Iowa\u2019s House of Representatives was poised to vote on House Joint Resolution 6, a proposal to overturn the 2009 decision, making it illegal once again for\u00a0 same-sex couples to marry in that state. The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from constituents before the vote, and a nineteen year old engineering student at the University of Iowa named Zach Wahls<\/a> argued against the proposed amendment, suggesting that it would \u201ccodify discrimination into our constitution.\u201d The son of a lesbian couple, Wahls aimed to convince legislators to vote against the amendment by showing them that same-sex families are much the same as other Iowa families, that the children of gay couples are not harmed by their parents\u2019 sexual orientation, and that what this amendment would do is tell his family and others like it that\u00a0\u201c[s]ome among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.\u201d\u00a0 Though the House of Representatives, Zach\u2019s target audience, voted 62-37 in favor of Joint Resolution 6 that day, the Senate declined to bring it up for a vote and Wahls\u2019 testimony went viral on youtube, reaching and moving a much wider audience than he initially intended.<\/p>\n

According to his own self-description, Wahls is a trained debater<\/a>, and his testimony makes use of several rhetorical strategies. Though he is an unknown when he walks in the room, he establishes his credibility right away, dressing appropriately for the occasion (suit and tie), speaking eloquently and from the heart, and demonstrating that he understands not only the proposed amendment and what\u2019s at stake in its passage, but also what the proposed amendment would do to the families of same-sex couples. His presentation is not hostile or overly passionate but calm, thoughtful, and reflective, which makes him seem fair-minded and trustworthy. He describes himself as an Eagle Scout and an engineering student who already owns and operates his own small business and scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT\u2014all of which make him appear smart, dedicated, determined, and responsible, as one who values hard work and intellectual growth. In a particularly poignant moment that is also an emotional appeal that arouses a mix of admiration and pride in the audience, Wahls adds \u201cIf I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I\u2019d make you very proud.\u201d He says he\u2019s excited that he has a full-sibling sister, and he speaks lovingly of his two moms, demonstrating that he also greatly values family. He doesn\u2019t whine about his situation but notes that he and his family are \u201cIowans\u201d who work hard and solve their own problems. Indeed, he notes with pride that he\u2019s a sixth generation Iowan, which indicates that he is not some city-slicker with metropolitan values but a proud native of Iowa with the same strong Midwestern values the legislators very likely share.<\/p>\n

He appeals to his audience\u2019s emotions mostly through his detailed narrative about his own family, which also involves an identification with the target audience, whose families also likely \u201cgo to church together,\u201d \u201ceat dinner,\u201d and \u201cgo on vacations.\u201d This target audience is also sure to have suffered through certain heart-wrenching fights and other \u201chard times\u201d with their families. Perhaps they have not (yet) experienced a health crisis in their family, but they are able to imagine it and so are very likely to feel sympathy for this young man whose birth mom was diagnosed with MS, \u201ca devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair.\u201d In the second paragraph, he again arouses a sense of identification and compassion from his suggestion that a family becomes a family not by some legislative power but through \u201cthe commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That\u2019s what makes a family.\u201d Toward the end, having established a clear analogy (formal topic) between his family and the legislators\u2019 families, and addressing the legislators in the second person (\u201cyou\u201d), he says: \u201cSo will this vote affect my family? Would it affect yours?\u201d By the time he makes this analogy toward the end of the testimony, he has established such a sense of identification between his family and their families that this reversal evokes sympathy, if not a sense of shame. Beyond these vivid images and descriptions, Wahl does not rely heavily on direct emotional appeals; most of his language is not emotionally charged, which might damage his ethos, and his descriptions of his family are mainly positive. The emotional appeals arouse a sense of identification and then sympathy for the plight of a fellow Iowan.<\/p>\n

The ethical and emotional appeals in the opening paragraph of the testimony work together to indicate that his family, headed by two women, is very much like any loving and loyal Iowa family. The claim Wahls makes in this testimony is that his family, like any<\/em> family, deserves protection and equal treatment under the law. There is an enthymeme at work in this claim:<\/p>\n