Lawrence Drivers Break for Pot Holes, Honk for Better Roads
Join now to read essay Lawrence Drivers Break for Pot Holes, Honk for Better Roads
Lawrence drivers break for pot holes, honk for better roads
The common practice rhetorical device is used. The author states, “We’ve all” to explain how many people are having the same pothole problem in certain area’s of Lawrence. The Author uses this device to justify, by the commonality of this problem, why potholes should be replaced. This common practice, the author assumes, will relate to everyone because everyone has hit a pothole, risk number one. It is easily possible that not every has not had any problems with potholes, it just depends where you unsually drive. Another risk is the reader may not have a car. Many KU students don’t drive around campus, they walk everywhere. The device occurs in paragraph three.
The weaseler rhetoric device is used. The author writes how “ it may appear to most that not much of the budget is actually going to street repair. The weaseler is supposed to make it appear that a very minute amount of the budget is used for street repairs. This weakens this specific argument because it’s very watered down. No facts or direct assertions are given because there may not be any. That is the closest the premise could come, while still protect the author from criticism, to writing that without any actual evidence. This device occurs is paragraph seven.
The Straw man fallacy is used. At the end of paragraph eleven the author writes how she doesn’t understands why a “More effective process” isn’t implemented to fix these potholes. The real problem is that the city budget has only a certain amount of money dedicated to the street repairs. The budget first concentrates it’s spending on things that the city reports as being more necessary. The issue is not over the process that the city uses to fix the streets, it’s over the process that evaluates what areas the city should