Katha Pollitt The Matter With Creationism Summary

1005 Words3 Pages

If anyone were to turn on the most recent debates, they would see some sort of unprofessional rhetoric being displayed. Many young children get excited about watching debates for the reason that they will be able to see a fight happen on live television. This is the incorrect way for anyone to see rhetoric. Rhetoric is a professional, humane way to show one's opinions in a safe, academic environment. Many less-known rhetoricians do show the correct way to use rhetoric. The rhetorical tools that Katha Pollitt uses in her essay, “What’s the Matter with Creationism?”, become impactful to convince the reader that what she is saying to be correct without leaving the professional realm of academic writing.
Pollitt has a lack of emotional appeal …show more content…

Those people who argue tend to use many fallacies in their writing to “help” support their points. However, Pollitt stays away from the fallacy of Ad hominem in order to keep her audience convinced that she is an educated woman and not an argumentative person who puts others down to achieve her goal. She keeps her morals and her emotions under control, therefore giving the reader a reason to believe her case because she has the manners to deserve their attention. She supports her argument without being unprofessional in her delivery of the essay. This sort of composure is something that only strengthens her position as a debater and as a …show more content…

Katha, in her very last paragraph of the essay says in regards to religious beliefs about Noah, “ If that ‘recurrent flooding’ really gets going, you may wish you’d book a cabin” (37). Pollitt strategically puts this sentence in the conclusion of her paragraph to leave an implicit meaning about her message. She calls out a very drastic and well known religious story and makes it seem rather silly and childish. This is the correct way to devalue the other side of the argument, with credible, relevant information rather than just emotionally attacking the subject. That sort of rhetoric is a way to discount the other side of the argument, which is obviously creationism. By making other side of the argument look less realistic, she strengthens her own argument and makes a bigger impact on the stance of the

Open Document