Essay 1.2: Shortcomings of Logical Argument

Sun Tzu, a Chinese general during China’s “Spring and Autumn Period” and author of Art of War, comments that “Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory”. Megan Weitraut, a journalist for The Ithacan, published an essay on January 26, 2011 crying out for the instatement of stricter gun laws. Her approach is clearly that of the latter strategist however; she enters battle looking only to fight with nothing but facts and then tries to salvage her argument with late dabbles in other facets of essay writing. In her essay “Government should create stricter gun laws”, she creates a fact sheet of information and statistics to inform the reader about gun usage, failing to make the argument that she attempts to make. Her argument, while filled with logos, lacks the balance of ethos and pathos to hold the reader’s attention, her attempt to acknowledge and respond fails as it is misplaced and misused, and her conclusion does not succeed in supporting her original purpose.

            Although it is essential for any argument to be supported by facts and data from varieties of sources to be convincing, when appealing to an audience of mostly students, one must entice them with emotion and attempt to gain credibility so any conclusion formed can be taken seriously. Weitraut does a great job of incorporating logos, logical arguments, that nail down the point that she is trying to make. Among her eleven pieces of evidence that incorporate logos, she states “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms, and this accounts for our higher rate of homicide” and “Many of the 70 million American gun owners claim they own guns for self defense”(Weintraut, par. 3). These statements directly relate to her claim that “Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival. Why bother owning one?”(par. 2) However, she makes one statement incorporating pathos at the end of the passage stating that “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and most recently the Arizona shooting have forced us to address the issue” (par. 6). She includes zero statements that lead a reader to feel any confidence that she might have an above average knowledge of what she is claiming. Her use of ethos and pathos is extremely overshadowed by her listing of fact after fact, making the reading extremely dry. Grabbing readers’ attention so they would be able to maintain focus until the end of the article to even get to her conclusion is surely not something Weintraut has accomplished.

            Arguments are only completely sound if the writer acknowledges the possible reciprocation of opposing viewpoints and explains the faults in any of those ways of thinking. While Weintraut does provide an acknowledgement of opposing viewpoints, she not only does so before making her claim, but she stretches her response to the point that it becomes unbelievable. She states that during the 1800’s

“many families lived in isolation, and it was necessary to hunt and kill animals to supply food. Guns were essential in protecting and providing for families. But today… we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government [and] we have companies that raise and kill animals for mass food production.” (par. 1-2)

Essentially, she is asserting that we should not have guns because we can kill things in other ways. This point is rather counterproductive. If one follows her logic, surely they will never have the urge to own any kind of weapon. However, if one simply enjoys using guns for sport or other recreational uses, or even just because they feel the need to kill, then they will. Her point here does not advocate for laws to be put in effect; it is more of a call to action to individual citizens to stop them selves from buying weapons.

  Conclusions are meant to sum up the paper and not only restate the claim of the writer, but then to also show some possible solution towards reaching their claim. Weintraut does a decent job of providing a solution, calling for “focusing on what really causes the problems: bullets” , and quoting the comedian Chris Rock, who says “Everybody is talking about gun control … I think we need some bullet control! … If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders” is a nice way to appeal to her audience and back up her previous claim (par. 6). However, her claim at the beginning of the essay calls for gun control, not bullet control. A sudden switch of focus leaves the reader confused as to what Weintraut is really trying to say.

            Megan Weintraut fought to convince readers that gun laws should be tightened in America. Although she provided many good examples and connected with her audience to really seal the deal at the end, over emphasizing the facts and nothing else left readers struggling to get through the reading to reach her overall conclusion.