What is Kristof's main claim regarding our attitude toward violence and genocide?
What language choices does Kristof make that exude a strong emotional appeal?
Where do you see his logical claims? What authority does Kristof have to speak about the Syrian crisis?
What do you see as the reason for our indifference between these two different losses? These two different kinds of suffering
Response
Kristof’s main claim regarding our attitude is that we should give violence and genocide the attention it deserves - or at least the same as we give to our golden retriever
Kristof choice of diction includes many instances of word that evoke emotion - this article mainly appeals to pathos
Logical Claim: “I agree that we can’t solve all the world’s problems, but it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t try to solve any”
Kristof establishes ethos in the beginning by beginning with his published column, which led to a torrent of comments
Typically, personal experiences will touch ones lives more than a simple statistic. For the average American (especially today), the military is simply one statistic - to most people it does not hold much personal value. However, it’s implied that Katie’s death was important or saddening to most people - primary because dogs hold emotional and personal connections between us. Therefore, it’s often easy to be indifferent to the United States military