Rhetorical Analysis Of Parties Can Be Fun Without Balloons

744 Words2 Pages

What’s a birthday party, or any celebration, without balloons? You might have a balloon-less birthday if the California bill gets approved, since they have suggested a law that bans balloons. After the recent bill a lawmaker proposed, it has become a controversial topic. This controversy was discussed in a video, “California Aims to Ban Metallic Balloons to Reduce Power Outages,” an article, “Parties Can Be Fun Without Balloons,” by Natalie Romero, and another article, “Balloons Bring Joy to Millions,” by Theo Lewis. Even though the authors used similar techniques and appeals to present their argument, there are also several differences among the sources. All three sources revealed their argument to alike audiences using rhetorical appeals, ethos, and bias to persuade audiences. To begin, the sources address their argument to their intended audience, specifically to people to buy and sell balloons. The authors don’t call the audience out by name, but it is clear because they are trying to persuade people, and the people who need to be persuaded are buyers and sellers of balloons. The readers know that they are trying to appeal to the buyers and sellers of balloons …show more content…

One important difference would be the credibility. “Parties Can Be Fun Without Balloons” by Natalie Romero, is not credible because she had no form of logos, and she also had a weak example ethos. The article had strong commentary, but there weren’t statistics or facts to back up and support her claim, which made the audience thinking that she wasn’t as believable. Another difference would be that one of the sources, the video, was unbiased. In the introduction of the video, news anchor Michelle Tuzee said ¨Jovana Lara is live with both sides of the controversy.” the reporter said that they were reviewing both parts of the controversy, and that means that they weren’t on a specific side (yes/no) but they were

Open Document