https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=10151692702876258&set=vb.295429577163605&type=2&theater
This video is called "First World Problems Read by Third World People," It's by the organization Water is Life and it's trying to get people to donate money to help bring clean water to those in need. The video shows poeople from third world countries reading "problems" that first world countries often complain about, such as "I hate when my leather seats aren't heated." I think the author is trying to argue that we should help people in need because they have way bigger problems than "I hate when I tell them no pickles and they still give me pickles" or "I hate when my neighbor blocks his wifi." Having people from third world countries read the problems makes our problems look so silly compared to their's. That's how the author emotionalizes the video, by having poor kids and people read the problems while they're standing in their horrible living conditions, because that makes people feel sorry for the people and want to donate money to their cause. I think the video has a good cause behind it, but if I had to pick a rhetorical device that the author uses I would say either appeals to emotion or false cause. Overall, I think this video is more rhetorical writing (trying to persuade us to do something) than argumentative writing, though.
I agree that this video appeals to emotion, and it can be considered a false cause. Even though I know there are no facts given in the video, I still feel terrible for those children. They do a great job of making people feel bad for those children living in those conditions. Also, the video makes people feel that what we do here in the United States affects the way children live in third world countries. However, that is obviously not true because that falls under the fallacy of false cause. I think you chose a great video, and it definitely shows how advertisers try to strike a person's emotion so they will support a particular cause.
ReplyDelete