Although this response paper was supposed to point-out and counter many of the fallacies Romney made in his speech, I felt that the author only managed to use up the same fallacies within their own work. They regarded how Romney's speech was tailored only to the religious in America, but made the same choice by appealing only to the non-religious in America. Either way, a portion of the population was cut out, and I think the response paper was greatly weakened by their polarized point of view. Their language was also off putting to a third-party audience, and in doing so, lead the reader to focus more on that point than the overall massage of the paper.
I do seen how this paper would be convincing to the intended audience, who might have also seen the one-sighted view of Romney's original speech. It would also work to affirm the opinions of those who did not like Romney's ideas on religion. I think he used a lot of Logos and Pathos to draw in the audience.
I agree that Romney created a sound argument in his speech that demonstrated how strong of an impact religion has on his own personal life, but how little it would carry through to this role as president.
ReplyDelete