In the blog I'm analyzing for class, Stu Burguiere wrote, "The president is basing a new law off of Warren Buffett. This means that we are basing US Tax Policy on what is happening to the top 0.0000006% of people. Does that seem sensible?" His first use of figurative language is a rhetorical question (which also happens to be rather ironic. Of course it's not sensible!). So what is he trying to accomplish with this? Was he successful?
It appears that Stu was trying to provoke thought on the overall subject of US Tax Policy, while simultaneously pointing out the absurdity of the basis for some recently proposed changes.
I'm willing to argue that only the most biased readers would not be persuaded of Mr. Burguiere's opinion that it is ridiculous, indeed, to write tax laws based on one or two people's financial circumstances. It seems that most people would read that sentence and, at the very least, be shocked. Many would be downright outraged.
I can only conclude that Stu's rhetorical question in his introduction of the post was an effective use of figurative language.
2 comments:
Wow I did not know this... I cant wait for your paper so i can read it.
I think his use of hyperbole is really effective as well as the rhetorical question. Your paper is going to be awesome!
Post a Comment