The topic of the Syrian refugee crisis is very
relevant in current news, with many strong opinions on both sides of the
debate.
The first character, Simon, is passionate about
helping the Syrian refugees, which influences the content of his writing strongly. His views are similar to my own, but he is
more one-sided and extreme in his argument, and argues with more emotion than I
would, if I was writing this blog.
His opening sentence is dramatic and shocking,
which is designed to grab the reader’s attention and is stated as a fact, so as
to garner their support. By studying the
lexical content, we can see that Simon uses several superlatives in phrases
such as “the greatest humanitarian crisis ever” and “the largest refugee group
in the world”, to add weight to his argument, and create the sense that the
crisis could not be any worse.
He tries to legitimise his views using
statistics, creating a cogent argument which seems difficult to refute. For example he compares Britain’s wealth to
the monetary requirement of resolving the refugee crisis by stating that “it
would take no more than 0.5% of our wealth to aid them”.
Throughout the text, Simon uses rhetorical
devices to make the reader consider the situation from his viewpoint. This is a
common persuasive technique and is one of the examples of how he tries to
persuade the reader to adopt his ideas.
For example, he says “after all, aren’t they people just like us, who
through no fault of their own have been given a terribly cruel fate?”
Another example of his attempts at persuasion is
the emotive language he uses, where he asks the reader to “Imagine your family
being forced out of your home by war and forced to live like animals,
scavenging desperately for food and shelter, never knowing whether or not you
will be murdered, starved or frozen to death.”
This is a typical example of a producer using guilt to manipulate the
receiver’s thought process, making them empathise with the producer, and in
this case, the refugees too.
In the third paragraph Simon uses a metaphor,
stating that we “leave the vulnerable to fend off the wolves”. Metaphors can be used to exaggerate or
emphasise an argument, and in this case also elicit and emotional response from
the reader.
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph,
Simon uses reductio ad absurdum to diminish opposing views. In this case he says that “those in support
of the alternative are allowing millions of innocents to freeze and starve to
death”, which extends the argument of his opposition to such an extreme extent
as to effectively invalidate it.
He concludes his article by implying strongly
that his opinions are essentially facts, saying that he hopes his audience have
“realised the truth of the situation”, which is intended to consolidate his
perspective.
Robert’s blog is far more analytical in that its
primary purpose is to unravel the issue, instead of strongly persuading the
audience to adopt his point of view.
While I do not agree that we should avoid aiding refugees, I have
portrayed Robert as a careful thinker, rather than Simon’s stereotype, which I
also believe to be society’s stereotype, that all those against aiding refugees
are callous, hysterical racists. He is
pragmatic about the situation, and raises his concerns about the matter
rationally.
In Robert’s opening paragraph he summarises the
situation and his view on it, using the rhetorical question: “what can we
really do to help them?” to make the reader consider the situation from his
point of view. This is a good decision
for his purposes, as it allows him to discuss his views without being
immediately inflammatory.
Like Simon, Robert uses statistics to make his
claims appear to be based on fact. This
is unsurprising as it is a very common device in several modes of writing, with
many different purposes. The frequency
with which statistics are used in arguments can be attributed to the fact that
they are effective for making an argument appear to be iron-clad.
Unlike Simon however, Robert uses far fewer
persuasive techniques, and is far less emotive; he does not use phrases such as
“cruel fate”, as Simon does. He gives
examples of where aid has failed in the past, which fits with the theme of
making the audience consider, that he is trying to formulate in his more
factual and analytical style of writing.
Robert also states that: “should we gain enough
housing to accommodate for these massive amounts of immigrants, I would revise
my views on the matter”. This is the
opposite attitude that Simon has towards the situation, as it is clear that
Simon is very unlikely to consider changing his perspective on the matter,
regardless of factors that may take effect in the future.
In his conclusion Robert he summarises his views
which indirectly encourages his readers to consider the dangers of the
situation before making a final decision.
This is a great contrast to Simon who “implores” that his readers “show
compassion”. The use of the word implore
suggests that the situation is severe, and implicates that it is desperate and
requires immediate support to prevent the crisis from worsening. Robert’s conclusion is not a plea for support,
but seems to be more like a formal request.
