Argumentative Essay Sample: Compare Contrast Two Articles "Embracing Change" & "In Defense of the Defenseless" Paper
Contrast between Embracing Change & In Defense of the Defenseless Sample Paper
The New York Times publication by the name Embracing Change,is an article by a soldier who is in a war-torn nation. The author talks about the challenges that soldiers face in a foreign nation. The article will be useful in the analysis of the application of different techniques by the author. The article In Defense of the Defenseless is about a theory in existence explaining some arguments for and against the theory, and the author is giving an argument against the theory. The article is attempting to look into the plight of those that are defenseless in war. Both articles are on war in general, but there exist clear differences between the two articles. The article by Keller is a practical experience while the other is an analysis of a theory. There has been the employment of techniques by both authors to ensure effective communication of the message to the audience. The study will compare and contrast techniques employed by the authors.
The two articles make use of different appeals. There is the use of ethos and pathos in In Defense of the Defenseless and Embracing Change respectively. Meisels is attempting to ensure that the article is as credible and reliable as possible. To ensure the achievement of ethos, there is the building of arguments of other scholars and the citation of the sources in a correct manner. There are many in-text citations such as on page 931 just after the first paragraph, there is the inclusion of a citation ‘Waldron, 2010, p. 94’. The importance of the citation is to ensure that the audience is well aware that Meisels is acknowledging the inclusion of another individual’s view and not his. In Embracing Change, there is no use of ethos but the author uses pathos as an appeal to the audience. Kelley makes use of emotional appeal using personal experience in the attempt to explain the plight of the soldiers in foreign nations. The use of pathos in the article is perfect as it does encourage fear but passes the message to the audience in a calm way.
The two authors are addressing their articles to the different audience and for different purposes. The article Embracing Change has the public as its audience. There is no specific audience, but any person in a position to read it should consider the article addressed to him/her. The publication is in The New York Times; a newspaper that is read all over New York and the world at large as it is accessible in both soft and hard copy. The article does not use any jargon in its content making it easy to understand. The writing of this article is in a layman’s language meaning that any individual who can read is being addressed. In addition, the article is addressed to those that have their family member in a similar situation to that of the author.
On the other hand, In Defense of the Defenseless is an article addressing those that have an interest in political science and related disciplines. The article makes use of jargon, using phrases such as Jus ad bellum and jus in bello(Meisels, p. 924). These are phrases that no ordinary audience can understand but those with great interest in the political science discipline and closely related disciplines. The article is a publication in the Political Studies Journal, which restricts the audience who may access it. Not many people are in a position to access articles in journals such as the Political Science Journal.
The purpose of the article In Defense of the Defenseless is to present an argument against a theory that the author describes as the traditional just war theory. An academic article provides some insight on the issue by stating facts and arguments. The author is of the opinion that there are those that are defenseless in a scenario of war, and there is nobody attempting to defend them. The author gives an example of those that are in defense of the traditional just war theory. They argue that a soldier loses immunity the time he/she gets hold of a firearm as it poses danger to the public. Immunity is for those without a firearm (Meisels, p.920). The article makes use of other professional summaries in the presentation of the argument to enhance the understanding of the article.
Embracing Changeis an informative article with no academic background, but just an article describing the author’s experience. The experiences of the author are the case study in the article in the attempt to help the public understand people in similar situations. The author states that the importance of the article is to share a lieutenant’s experience in a combat zone (Kelley, frontlines.blogs.nytimes.com). The article is not more of a factual article but experience article.
Despite the articles being similar in the aspect that there are about war, there is the application of techniques that make them completely differently. One makes use of emotional appeal while the other makes use of in-text citations to ensure credibility. Kelley addresses his article to all members of the public while Meisels addresses his to those in the political science discipline. The use of different techniques makes the articles capture the intended audiences differently making the two articles achieve intended objectives.
First Lt. Kelley, Lee. "Embracing Change."Frontlines Embracing Change Comments. 7 May 2006. Web. 25 Feb. 2015. <http://frontlines.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/embracing-change/>.
Meisels, Tamar. "In Defense of the Defenseless: The Morality of the Laws of Warpost." Political Science 60.4 (2012): 919-35. Print.