He quotes Rushdie several times and then states his own beliefs in similar ways. As Rushdie believes that migration brings diversity, Sanders believes that this brings destruction. The rhetorical question in lines 40-42 condemns the group of people who do migrate, and then criticizes the audience's ethics and humanity's ability to destroy the environment and then simply move on without remorse. He uses this device to question humans selfish ideas and values imposing on new land and help rid of its occurrence. Through the evaluation of ethos, the author displays pathos by also instilling guilt into the reader’s emotions. He questions what we lose by uprooting ourselves, and this applies to all humans who have ever moved rather than staying in one place. Sanders uses factual evidence and examples of how migration can damage a region. He acknowledges people that move to new areas, that bring with them their same methods and customs used in previous locations that may not be useful to the new one. He uses examples like the Dust Bowl and how it was not because of drought but the practices used before were suitable to wetter regions. This logos persuades the reader through logic reasoning that migrating into a new area where you are not suited causes destruction of ideals. In lines 65-70, Sanders repeats the beginnings of each clause to appeal to the reader the argument that Rushdie is trying to make. He repeats, “that” at the start of each clause to emphasize the many arguments that Rushdie makes. He uses this to examine Rushdie's points, so he can show his audience how Rushdie's views are different from his own. His use of anaphora makes it more clear in showing the different approach Rushdie has to his own. Sanders’s respectful tone does not attack Rushdie but simply addresses his beliefs with Rushdie. He relates to the audience and Rushdie with his informal yet respectful voice. Sanders could have attacked Rushdie with their different opinions, but instead he uses euphemism to deflate any aggression towards Rushdie. In lines 63-66 he says, “I quarrel with Rushdie because he articulates as eloquently as anyone the orthodoxy that I wish to counter.” With two different arguments, Sanders respectfully addresses
He quotes Rushdie several times and then states his own beliefs in similar ways. As Rushdie believes that migration brings diversity, Sanders believes that this brings destruction. The rhetorical question in lines 40-42 condemns the group of people who do migrate, and then criticizes the audience's ethics and humanity's ability to destroy the environment and then simply move on without remorse. He uses this device to question humans selfish ideas and values imposing on new land and help rid of its occurrence. Through the evaluation of ethos, the author displays pathos by also instilling guilt into the reader’s emotions. He questions what we lose by uprooting ourselves, and this applies to all humans who have ever moved rather than staying in one place. Sanders uses factual evidence and examples of how migration can damage a region. He acknowledges people that move to new areas, that bring with them their same methods and customs used in previous locations that may not be useful to the new one. He uses examples like the Dust Bowl and how it was not because of drought but the practices used before were suitable to wetter regions. This logos persuades the reader through logic reasoning that migrating into a new area where you are not suited causes destruction of ideals. In lines 65-70, Sanders repeats the beginnings of each clause to appeal to the reader the argument that Rushdie is trying to make. He repeats, “that” at the start of each clause to emphasize the many arguments that Rushdie makes. He uses this to examine Rushdie's points, so he can show his audience how Rushdie's views are different from his own. His use of anaphora makes it more clear in showing the different approach Rushdie has to his own. Sanders’s respectful tone does not attack Rushdie but simply addresses his beliefs with Rushdie. He relates to the audience and Rushdie with his informal yet respectful voice. Sanders could have attacked Rushdie with their different opinions, but instead he uses euphemism to deflate any aggression towards Rushdie. In lines 63-66 he says, “I quarrel with Rushdie because he articulates as eloquently as anyone the orthodoxy that I wish to counter.” With two different arguments, Sanders respectfully addresses