Riffkin Rhetorical Strategies free essay sample

Jeremy Rifkin’s Rhetorical Strategies Is it right to take the life of an innocent animal? Animals have been burnt, crushed, sliced, poisoned with toxic chemicals, and tormented in psychological testing. They do all these tests just to make money or find if a chemical is safe for humans. Lab experimentation involving animals is inhumane. In discussion of inhumane treatment, a controversial issue is whether animals are entitled to their rights.On the one hand, some argue that only humans have rights; however, others argue that animals should have the same privileges as humans. The author of â€Å"A Change of Heart about Animals,† Jeremy Rifkin, claims that animals should have better treatment and that we should treat them more humanly and we should expand animal’s right. He emphasizes on how animals should have better treatment due to the lack of compassion and acknowledgment. He uses distinctive types of rhetorical techniques to persuade his audience to agree and feel his pain for these creatures. Rifkin rhetorically changes one’s view on this subject without the consent of the reader. For instance, Rifkin begins by explaining for the readers certain types of evidence to increase their likelihood of accepting his argument. The second strategy that Rifkin use is the use of animal’s names in his article. Lastly, Rifkin uses pathos in his writing to get emotional feedback from the reader. One of the strategies that Rifkin used is providing some types of evidence for the readers to increase their likelihood of accepting his argument.For example, he used examples that have a great deal of credibility, such as using animals that are almost as intelligent as humans and including studies from universities and educational references. For instance, he mentions Koko, a 300-pound gorilla. Koko was able to learn sign language, and yet some people never even learn how to communicate in sign language. Rifkin also notes the similarity between rats and humans. He states, â€Å"Recent studies in the brain chemistry of rats show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine, a neurochemical associated with pleasure and excitement in human beings† (12).In other words, Rifkin shows that not only do animals have the ability to learn the things we do, but also have some features that we do. After providing the analogy between the two, Rifkin anticipated that many people would view animals as one of them. The result is that readers are more likely to believe that animals are not any different than us, so they should not be in the brutal situations they face every day. In the end, this makes the reader much more likely to accept the statement he makes based on the similarities he provides, that we must work to increase the benevolent treatment of anim als. The second strategy that Rifkin used in his article â€Å"A Change of Heart about Animals† is his use of animal’s names when introducing data. When he offers new research about the problem solving abilities of New Caledonian crows, for example, Rifkin cleverly describes how â€Å"Abel, the more dominant male †¦ stole Betty’s hook† in order to obtain a better feeding tool (7). Rifkin, of course, could have chosen to ignore the bird’s test-subject names, but by including them he bestows a human quality to the animals beyond what the data suggests.He repeats this technique twice more to the same effect, once when introducing â€Å"Koko, the 300 pound gorilla,† who displays close to human intelligence and an impressive sign language vocabulary, and again when describing an â€Å"Orangutan named Chantek,† (10) whose use of a mirror displays human- like self- awareness. Surely the data alone makes the arguments that animals are by turns capable of human qualities, of problem solving, learning, and self-awareness. By offering the names of test animals, he gives them greater personality and individuality.Giving the animals human names invites reader to think of them in terms usually reserved only for human beings. This strategy establishes a relationship of similarity between the animals mentioned and ourselves. This strategy thus helps advance Rifkin’s claim that we should treat animals more humanly and expand animal’s rights. The third strategy that Rifkin uses to persuade his audience to believe that animals should be perceived and treated better is pathos.Knowing that this is a very sensitive topic that most people can relate to, Rifkin uses an emotional appeal to reach his audience’s hearts. Rifkin started using this strategy when he wrote, â€Å"Our fellow creatures are more like us than we ever imagined† (2). Rifkin’s point defines that humans and animals are the same. He sparks emotion, allowing the reader relate better to animals as if they were another human being. When describing the study of pigs, he notes that pigs â€Å"crave attention and are easily depressed if isolated† (4).Having many choices of different animal studies, Rifkin chose this study of pig behavior at Purdue University because he knows that every human has craved attention at least once in their lifetime. He also illustrates a study done at Oxford University, reporting that â€Å"two birds named Betty and Abel were given a choice between using two tools†¦ to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube† (7). Rifkin uses pathos to remind us â€Å"readers† that animals are our fellow creatures. In conclusion, some people argue to give animals their right, and other says only humans have rights.In his article Rifkin is quite aware of people’s resistance to his efforts, so he uses different rhetorical strategies to increase the readers’ likelihood of accepting his argument that we should treat animals more humanly. First he started with provid ing evidence for his readers. Second, he used animals’ name to establish a relationship of similarity between the animals and human. And finally he used pathos in his article to reach human’s heart and make the readers feel sorry for the animals. By using some of the rhetorical strategies, Rifkin was able to change one’s view on this subject without the consent of the reader.