In this article, Juliet Litman uses formal diction to establish credibility of her being a smart and educated writer. Litman uses polysyllabic words like "malaise" (Line 5) , "inkling" and"prescient" (both on line 15), which make the passage a little harder to read, but overall make her argument stronger. Litman is emotionally attached to the piece due to her obvious interest in 'The Real Housewives of New York City', so much so that she is making connections from the show to real life. She also mentions character by their names, and references scenes and story lines from 'The Real Housewives of New York City' to strengthen her argument.
The author also uses simplistic syntax to make the article easier to read for her audience, and make it so a wider variety of people can read and understand it. Litman uses commas when she needs to, has semi-colons uncommonly throughout her article, and rarely uses em dashes. Most of the sentences are simple, reasonably short, and fairly easy to understand. Because of the simplistic syntax, the article can be vary choppy to read, which is not the best thing for an article to be. The choppiness also means that Litman does not elaborate on what she says, usually saying what she needs to say, then changing the topic. Litman has a weird mixture of tones. She is very conversational throughout some the article, using contractions commonly and even going as far as saying "sh*t", but in other parts of the article, she is formal and sophisticated. The blend on tones can be confusing at times, her making a sarcastic remark about one of the characters, then deeply analyzing another character using 20 syllable words in the very next sentence. The purpose of this article is to share how the author believes an actress on the reality TV show "The Real Housewives of New York City" mimics Donald Trump, and she does a really good job at persuading her audience. Her argument is very valid, and fans of the show would find her point of view very interesting (to say the least). She references the show multiple times, supports her arguments with quotes from other actors/actresses on the show, and even throws in outside research occasionally. Doing this makes her points more and more difficult to argue with, and if nobody can argue with you, you have a very strong claim. Litman has obviously read and analyzed Thank you for arguing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2017
Categories |