ENGL a couple of, MWF 12: 10 The nike jordan Morgan Nov 9, 2012 “A Pyrrhic Victory” Examination For years there has been the never ending controversial concern regarding condom being sent out within the United states of america high universities. January eight, 1994, Anna Quindlen puts out her content, “A Pyrrhic Victory, ” in the Nyc Times, where she says that not permitting condoms to become distributed in high colleges is self-defeating, harmful to students, and annoying for parents.
Quindlen attempts to persuade readers, but is not totally successful.
Quindlen provides a rhetorical example that is intended to show a need pertaining to condom division within the educational institutions. She, then, introduces Dr . Cohall while an expert figure and explains the opt-out idea, from the prior example, will probably be used. Quindlen provides organic numbers about sexually transmitted diseases and provide specific good examples that are designed to demonstrate that parents are not really adequately instructing their children.
Furthermore, she statements that many of her opponents live in Fantasyland and then offers a specific example that is intended to demonstrate this kind of. Finally, Quindlen claims that condoms aren’t the real issue, but further parent-child difficulties are. Quindlen was aiming for a specific reaction from the target audience. Her main goal is to persuade the reader enough that they will conclude viewing her opinion about condom syndication as if it were their particular. Because her article extends to out to readers of all ages, she’s hoping that it would move her visitors into taking action after this issue.
The lady wants college students in senior high school to starting demanding that their colleges provide them with condoms, and your woman hopes those who will be faculty for schools fully stand up and start releasing them. Resulting from her document, Quindlen is hoping to make a difference just by publishing her document. In the primary sentence of Quindlen’s article she says, “Pop quiz. ” By using his statement she’s identifying jobs. In school, the teacher is definitely the person who would give a put quiz after teaching anything. So simply by saying this kind of she produces a subject location that makes her the educator, and the viewers are the learners.
By proclaiming this period she is determining the responsibilities of the teacher and pupil. Quindlen, while the instructor, has the directly to teach that condom division is the way to go, while the readers are expected to just intake this info as if there are no other choices. She gives a scenario of the high school young man who was refused a condom from the university nurse and result, this individual got a sexually transmitted disease. After this scenario, the lady provides a multiple choice issue that means that there is merely one correct answer, hers.
Although Quindlen features identified whom the student and teacher will be, her application fails mainly because students, quite frequently, despise all their teachers. By immediately springing a take quiz for the reader, this wounderful woman has irritated readers by making these people emotionally poor to her. It is inefficient because Quindlen blindsides her readers with unexpected sentiment. Quindlen features Dr . Cohall, a doctor into her article in which she refers to him like a “champion of condom distribution. ” Because Dr . Cohall is a doctor does not produce him a champion of condom division, let alone a champion by any means.
Pediatricians work with young children who have are not sexually active, as a result sexually sent diseases probably would not be present and there would be not any reason to become distributing condoms in that job. Dr . Cohall later claims that there was one hundred and fifty instances of sexually transmitted disorders within the 3 high school treatment centers that this individual put on in 1992. Quindlen rephrases Cohall’s statement and writes this as “150 cases” to purposely catch the readers’ attention and to make them respond as if which is a large number of situations. Also, these types of cases may perhaps be a repeated case for the same person.
For instance , one scholar can include five cases, another could have three, and so on. This quantity misrepresents how many learners are reporting sexually transmitted diseases. As well, Dr . Cohall does not state the total quantity of students at each of the three schools. There could be two hundred students and a hundred and 60 cases could have a sexually transmitted disease, or there could be one hundred and fifty instances out of two thousand students. The whole number can be not discussed which weakens her disagreement. She also signifies the number of situations combined within just three colleges, which means that every school has approximately forty five cases.
That will not sound practically as exceptional as what she mentioned. Dr . Cohall is simply featuring raw figures, which leaves a lot of uncertainty. If perhaps Dr . Coholl had reported his numbers as a standard population he would have a far higher power. Therefore , Dr . Coholl features little creditability and is not much of a resource for Quindlen. Quindlen refers to Dr . Cohall, again, and tells the story of what happened into a girl whose mother discovered that the girl with sexually lively. According to the teen girl, her mother identified her birth control pills, grabbed her by the throat and said, “I brought you into our planet, I can consider you out of it. After this threat, the girl squeezed out of her single mother’s grip and jumped away her windowpane to escape her mother and in result, pennyless her lower leg. Quindlen uses this history as an example of her concept of parent-child sexual intercourse talks. This example is usually not rational. The reason the girl was looking to escape her mother to begin with is because the lady feared on her life, so it would make not any sense on her behalf to turn about and risk her existence by jumping out of the windows. Again, this kind of source is not reputable. The typical parent approaches this kind of subject really sensitive matter and avoids attacking the youngster.
Due to the fact that her source in not reliable and her example is too extreme, Quindlen’s argument is usually flawed and ineffective. Quindlen explains the problems she has with ABC Network because they have removed the commercials about condoms during primetime tv. ABC complained that condoms were also inappropriate for family-oriented tv, when actually the condom commercials had been mild and informative. Quindlen provides an example between condom commercials and the primetime tv program Roseanne. The lady states which the show is much more candid about sexual activity compared to the condom advertisements.
Roseanne reveals the indiscrete sexual marriage between her and her husband. Roseanne’s sister, Jackie, is known on the show for having 1 night stands and staying openly lesbian. Quindlen statements that ABC is being hypocritical in the sense that they will be showing Roseanne on the, apparent, family-oriented network during primetime, but refuses to show gentle condom commercials. Quindlen makes an efficient debate by proclaiming that youngsters are left more curious about sexual after observing Roseanne than they would be after seeing a condom commercial.
This example does support and enhance her debate in her article. In her content, Quindlen displays a character of brilliance and sarcasm. She clearly proves in the first paragraph that she feels the reader is ignorant and that she, becoming superior, need to teach someone the correct way to consider. Quindlen is merely weakening her argument by implying that her visitors need to be educated what to believe. Quindlen is usually showing her sarcasm by claim things, such as “Don’t you just love those mother-daughter sex talks? ” not only to entertain readers, but for also entertain herself.
Her persona results in as arrogant when the girl uses sarcasm in certain situations. For example , a female throwing himself out of any window could be a tragic celebration, but Quindlen is cynical about it which makes it seem that she is certainly not taking this seriously. Sarcasm, used properly, can be powerful, but in the case, it was facetious. When referring to serious things such as sexually transmitted disorders and condoms, readers will be stuck asking yourself Quindlen’s egocentric persona instead of focusing on the situation at hand.
In her Ny Times content, “A Pyrrhic Victory, ” Anna Quindlen takes her stand in condom distribution in substantial schools through the entire United States. She claims that we are doing harm to students simply by not distributing condoms in schools, which it really should not the parents’ responsibility because they are too ignorant to handle the situation. Her make an attempt to persuade you of her beliefs is usually flawed and ineffective. The lady starts the article by providing a topic position that creates thoughts within the target audience against Quindlen personally. Her statistics from Dr .
Cohall are imperfect and her reference to the woman in the story involves a source which is not credible. Alternatively, she does provide a good analogy about Roseanne and condom ads, but it is usually not sufficiently strong to compensate throughout the weak points throughout the content. Finally, Quindlen’s persona of sarcasm and superiority harms her debate by creating questions and doubt within the reader. Quindlen fails to influence readers that condom circulation is essential, and irritates you by pointing out their inefficiencies.
