Rhetorical Arguments - Rhetorical Arguments For and Against...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

Rhetorical Arguments For and Against Mandatory Helmet Legislation: Comparing Two Opposing Viewpoints The question about whether or not having a law in Canada that makes helmet use for adult cyclists mandatory has been a topic of debate in the news in recent times. One viewpoint suggests that having legislation that requires the use of helmets by cyclists is fundamentally wrong based on the logical arguments leading up to the implementation of the law (1). An opposing viewpoint proceeds from a more factual and statistical progression to the conclusion that mandatory helmet use is obviously necessary based on evidence from provinces with existing laws in place (2) . . Kilburn writes with a more subjective voice than CMAJ with the latter having a more journalistic style. However, Kilburn presents a more effective rhetorical argument that better appeals to the ethics and emotion of the general audience in his presentation of the facts than CMAJ. First, the overall tone of the two articles are different with Kilburn’s approach being more appropriate for his purpose. The CMAJ uses quotations from experts in the field with numbers and statistics to support its points in an attempt to be credible. However, much of the statistical information are the results of surveys of helmet use in provinces where legislation is mandatory. On the other hand, Kilburn has a more informal approach in his argument. He clearly identifies his position at the beginning of the article using a personal

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture