Statement of Context: Peta's claim of animal treatment being the same as the holocaust is explained through the context where their claims are valid. In this case it's just like the holocaust because the same number of animals killed every four hours is the same amount of people killed during the holocaust. This is the proof and context for the grounds on which their protesting and why their argument is valid in the first place. Even if it is through extreme faulty analogies.

Statement of Benefits:

Although it's not directly stated in the article, I think its implied that by agreeing with their argument and doing something to aid their side you will feel a strong sense of good doing. What I mean is, by aiding in something comparative to the holocaust people will feel like they did the right thing. Whenever you feel like you've done something that makes a change you get the benefit of feeling that good feeling we all get when we've done right in the world.

ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:

Rogerian thesis: with the knowledge that people will disagree with these ads, Prescott attempted to bring emotion with the help of Jewish history to attempt to stop the number of animals being killed every day.

Summary of Opposing views:

Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its credibility and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.

Rogerian Statement of Position:

Peta believes this mindset of treating animals is similar to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they believe goes through people's minds when aiding the issue. It gives us a clear line of which the stand on.

Introductions:

This sentence is an introduction and a believe statement for what Peta is arguing. It shows us as the audience what their claims are before they introduce their evidence. Its also a very loud sentence in the sense that it jumps out when the word "Nazis" is used. The connotation really plays a part in grabbing the reader's attention.

Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.

ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:

Rogerian thesis: with the knowledge that people will disagree with these ads, Prescott attempted to bring emotion with the help of Jewish history to attempt to stop the number of animals being killed every day.

Rogerian Statement of Position:

Peta believes this mindset of treating animals is similar to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they believe goes through people's minds when aiding the issue. It gives us a clear line of which the stand on.

Statement of Benefits:

Although it's not directly stated in the article, I think its implied that by agreeing with their argument and doing something to aid their side you will feel a strong sense of good doing. What I mean is, by aiding in something comparative to the holocaust people will feel like they did the right thing. Whenever you feel like you've done something that makes a change you get the benefit of feeling that good feeling we all get when we've done right in the world.

Introductions:

This sentence is an introduction and a believe statement for what Peta is arguing. It shows us as the audience what their claims are before they introduce their evidence. Its also a very loud sentence in the sense that it jumps out when the word "Nazis" is used. The connotation really plays a part in grabbing the reader's attention.

Statement of Context:

Peta's claim of animal treatment being the same as the holocaust is explained through the context where their claims are valid. In this case it's just like the holocaust because the same number of animals killed every four hours is the same amount of people killed during the holocaust. This is the proof and context for the grounds on which their protesting and why their argument is valid in the first place. Even if it is through extreme faulty analogies.

Summary of Opposing views:

Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its credibility and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.

Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.

Rogerian Statement of Position:

What Peta believes about the topic of the treatment of animals compared to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they hope other people will do to aid their cause.

Summary of Opposing views:

Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its creditability and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.

Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.

rogerian argument

This article is a rogerian argument

rogerian argument