Rob Wimberly AP Lang Block 4 Ms.

Rinder [Date] Soaps

DRUGS
SubjectLegalization of drugs OccasionA surge in drug-related crime AudienceAmerican people, youths Purposeto argue for the legalization of drugs SpeakerGore Vidal Tone
The American people are as devoted to the idea of sin and punishment as they are to making money and fighting drugs is nearly as big a business as pushing them (Vidal12).

Diction
If everyone is allowed to take drugs everyone will and the GNP will decrease, the Commies will stop us from making everyone free, and we shall end up a race of zombies, passively murmuring groovy to one another (Vidal 5). Vidals mocking diction intends to criticize his hypothetical opponents to his plan to legalize drugs. He utilizes slang such as Commies, zombies, and groovy to show the rote nature of the threats proposed by contemporary political rhetoric. Vidal mocks his opponents through his colloquial diction by impersonating hypothetical arguments against his plan.

Detail
If there was no money in it for the Mafia, there would be no friendly playground pushers, and addicts would not commit crimes to pay for the next fix (Vidal 11).

Imagery
Label each drug with a precise description of what effectgood and badthe drug will have on the taker (Vidal 1).

Syntax
Whose fault? Evil men like the Mafiosi? Permissive Dr. Spock? Wild-eyed Dr. Leary? No. The government of the United States was responsible for those deaths (Vidal 9-10). By presenting a rhetorical question based on blame Vidal refutes the common assumption that the socalled enablers of drug use are to blame for the deaths of youths, but rather the government. This wild proposal is built up through Vidals repeated rhetorical questioning, which serves to emphasize the radical truth of his argument.

Ethos
For the record, I have triedoncealmost every drug and liked none, disproving the popular Fu Manchu that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind (Vidal 2). Vidal explicitly builds his credibility by stating that he has experienced most, if not all main types of illegal drugs. This experience proves Vidals argument that drugs are not as addictive as are made out to seem, as Vidal has taken drugs but is not a drug addict. By disproving the notion that drugs are extremely addictive, Vidal disproves a major barrier to drug legalization.

Pathos
We have no public memory of anything that happened before last Tuesday (Vidal 7).

Logos
Some people will always become drug addicts just as some people will always become alcoholics (Vidal 6).

Rob Wimberly AP Lang Block 4 Ms. Rinder [Date] Soaps

Analogizing alcohol to illegal narcotics, Vidal argues that because alcohol exists as a legal substance in United States markets, other narcotics ought to. Since alcohol produces addicts, the traditional argument that drugs produce addiction becomes moot. By making addiction a case of non-sequitur, Vidal proves that drugs ought to be legalized.

Evidence
No one in Washington today recalls what happened during the years alcohol was forbidden to the people by a Congress that thought it had a divine mission to stamp out Demon Rumlaunching, in the process, the greatest crime wave in the countrys history (Vidal 7). Beyond personal argument, Vidal cites American history, specifically prohibition, as evidence that prohibiting mind-altering chemicals empirically results in greater crime sprees. This citation is augmented by his mention that just as people become addicted to drugs, alcoholism exists far and wide across America, further bolstering his argument that anti-drug campaigns are irrational.

Assumption
It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time. Simply make all drugs available and sell them at cost (Vidal 1). Vidals statement that legalizing all drugs would eradicate addiction assumes that once drugs are legalized, people would stop using them because of the lack of a negative connotation. However, drugs are addictive not because of the image of taking them, but because of neurochemicals in the drugs that make them addictive, meaning legalization would potentially cause more addiction, rather than less.

Dialectical
Compare to modest proposal

Rob Wimberly AP Lang Block 4 Ms. Rinder [Date] Soaps

SAFE SEX LIES

Subject Occasion Audience Purpose Speaker Tone
We try to catch him in the lie weve been told hell tell (Daum 6).

Diction

Detail
I went to a college where condoms and dental dams lay in baskets in dormitory lobbies, where it seemed incumbent on health service counselors to give us the straight talk, to tell us never, ever to have sex without condoms unless we wanted to die (Daum 1).

Imagery
Many are white and blond and have the tousled, moneyed look common to more traditional fashion spreads or even yearbooks from colleges like the one I attended (Daum 7)

Syntax
(And theyd seen it happen, oh, yes they had) (Daum 1).

Ethos
I have been tested for HIV three times. Ive gone to clinics and stuck my arm out for those disposable needles, each time forgetting the fear and nausea that descend upon me before the results come back (Daum 1).

Pathos
The message we receive is that trusting anyone is itself an irresponsible act, that having faith in an intimate partner, particularly women in relation to men, is a symptom of such profound naivet that were obviously not mature enough to be having sex anyway (Daum 4).

Logos
Confronted with arty effects instead of actual information, people like me are going to believe what we want to believe, which, of course, is whatever isnt too scary (Daum 7).

Evidence
Were not going to sacrifice the thing we believe we deserve, the experiences we waited for, because Levi Strauss is a major sponsor of MTVs coverage of World AIDS Day (Daum 9).

Assumptions

Dialectical
Compare to drugs

Rob Wimberly AP Lang Block 4 Ms. Rinder [Date] Soaps

NEAT PEOPLE VS. SLOPPY PEOPLE

Subject Occasion Audience Purpose Speaker Tone Diction Detail Imagery Syntax Ethos Pathos Logos