3/20/11
“Rich District, Poor District” by Unnamed Author
In the editorial “Rich District, Poor District”, the author uses a strong voice to debate an issue. Though powerful and convincing, the harsh diction used throughout makes it obvious that the author is taking sides. While this might convince people who are on the fence and reaffirm the beliefs of those who already agree, the voice is alienating to those who disagree and has little chance to changing their minds. Already at the beginning of the essay, the diction is noticeably extreme. The author uses words like lavishly, catastrophic, impoverished, starved, reeling, struggling, and cannibalize, all in the very first paragraph. The obvious exaggeration of the events can be understood when the reader takes into account that this editorial is about budget cuts to schools in the state of New York. This abrasive diction continues throughout the entire piece. The syntax is simple and straightforward, without any lavishes. There is also a lack of imagery, but the colorful diction makes up for it. The author is obvious against the budget cuts to schools because they feel that the poorer districts will bear the worst of it while the richer districts are relatively unaffected. But the author's diction makes it unlikely that it will convince their audience to change their opinion.
If this piece were an AP essay, the speaker would be semi-appropriate. It would be appropriate in that all of the author's claims are backed up with solid evidence. But on the other hand, the diction is abrasive and extreme, which makes it unlikely to be seen as convincing argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment