Rhetorical Analysis: Inequality For All

Paper 4 Rough Draft When analyzing rhetorical texts and sources, one must weigh one source against others who have made similar or opposite arguments and the relative strength of that argument. In his 2007 article “Confronting Inequality,” Paul Krugman uses a textual medium and hard facts in an attempt to persuade his audience. In the 2013 documentary Inequality for All, director Jacob Kornbluth opts for a more visual approach to persuade his audience. In his 2014 article, “Inequality Has Been Going on Forever… but That Doesn’t Mean It’s Inevitable,” David Leonhardt writes in a textual medium but opts for analogies to help the audience interpret his point. All three of these works are aimed to persuade their individual but similar audiences. The audiences are more or less educated people who have an idea of the existence of income inequality and social inequality. This essay will analyze the innate distinctions between the chosen media, the relative strength and weaknesses of each source, and the effectiveness of each to persuade an intended audience member. To begin an analysis of relative strengths and effectiveness between multiple sources, one must analyze the writers’ choices in media and technique and the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each. Krugman and Leonhardt both opted to write in a textual medium, whereas

Combined with the ease of understanding information, audience members are more likely to continue watching the documentary than they are reading the texts by Krugman or Leonhardt. Leonhardt is more engaging due to the more understandable text, but Krugman has an overall better argument of the two. Krugman has the “best” argument because facts are indisputable. However, it will not persuade much of his audience due to the inability to keep them engaged. Inequality for All excels at engagement and does just as well if not better than Leonhardt at argumentative