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.