PROFESSIONAL PERSUASIVE WRITING: HIGHER LEVEL READING AND
WRITING
George Orwell (born Eric Blair, 1903-1950) is one of England's most well‐known authors and is the
author of the famous futuristic novel '1984'. He saw language as a very powerful medium and held
strong views about how it can be used and abused. He makes his views beautifully clear in the
following now very famous essay, written just after the Second World War in 1946. Despite being
over fifty years old, many of Orwell's points remain valid and true to this day.
Politics and the English Language
George Orwell
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way,
but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is
decadent and our language so the argument runs must inevitably share in the general collapse. It
follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring
candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half--‐conscious belief
that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is
not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause,
reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on
indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more
completely because he drinks. It is rather
the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our
thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish
thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full
of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary
trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first
step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the
exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that
time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five
specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.
These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad I could have quoted far
worse if I had chosen but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now
suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples. I number them so
that I can refer back to them when necessary:
1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a
seventeenth-‐‐ century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year,
more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.
Professor Harold Laski
(Essay in Freedom of Expression)
2. Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes
egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss forbewilder.
Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossia)
3. On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither
conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional
approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness another institutional pattern would alter their
1
number and intensity there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on
the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self--‐secure
integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there
a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?
Essay on psychology in Politics (New York)
4. All the best people from the gentlemens clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common
hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have
turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize
their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty--‐bourgeoisie to
chauvinistic fervour on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.
Communist pamphlet
5. If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform
which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will
bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for
instance, but the British lion roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer
Night’s Dream as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be
traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly
masquerading as standard English. When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o’clock, better far and
infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited,
school--‐maïamish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens!
Letter in Tribune
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are
common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery the other is lack of precision. The writer either
has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost
indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer
incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of
political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one
seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words
chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections
of a prefabricated henhouse. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of
which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged:
Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the
other hand a metaphor which is technically dead (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being
an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two
classes there is a huge dump of worn--‐out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are
merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are:
Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to
shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on
the order of the day, Achilles heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of
their meaning (what is a for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign
that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted
out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example,
toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now
always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that
breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying
would avoid perverting the original phrase. Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of
picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables
which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render.
2
Higher level material:
further writing on persuasive writing (not for the faint-hearted!)
Establishing Arguments Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion Summary:
These OWL resources will help you develop and refine the arguments in your writing.
Contributors: Stacy Weida, Karl Stolley
Last Edited: 2013-03-11 12:56:30
There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support
claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all
three appeals to make its case.
Logos
Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or
deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or
conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.
In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:
Fair trade agreements have raised the quality of life for coffee producers, so fair trade agreements could
be
used to help other farmers as well.
In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the
starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could
work for other farmers as well.
Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The
generalization
you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:
Genetically modified seeds have caused poverty, hunger, and a decline in bio-‐‐diversity everywhere
they have been introduced, so there is no reason the same thing will not occur when genetically
modified corn seeds are introduced in Mexico.
In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been
problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will
be affected in the same way.
3
Avoid Logical Fallacies
These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.Also, watch
out for these slips in other people's arguments.
Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a
series of small steps, through B, C,.., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't
want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:
If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all
cars, so we should not ban Hummers.
In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same
thing. Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other
words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.
In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the
first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and
reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook,
talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient
evidence to base a conclusion on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must
have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.
In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event
must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a
flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no
reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.
Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or
theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built
the car.
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim.Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion
that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed
in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example: George Bush is a
good communicator because he speaks effectively.
In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it
"he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language,
breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to
prove either half of the sentence.
4
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or
choices. Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of
choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and
emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments.
Example:
Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.
In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much
less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the
individuals in the group.
Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion,
democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand.
Example:
If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they
want.
In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be
associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even
though there is no inherent connection between the two.
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing
arguments rather than addressing them. Example:
The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families.
In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead
about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may effect the other, it
does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a
few individuals.
Ethos
Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer.There are
many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:
Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
 Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging
values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
 If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal
experiences you have had with the topic.
 Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of
logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example,
earliest to most recent example, etc.
5
 Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a
writer.
Pathos
Pathos, or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.
Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well.Emotional
appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving
picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been
abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year
because it would give a human face to the numbers.
Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from
the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten
people.
Weida, S., Stolley, K., ‘Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion’, last edited: 2013-‐‐03-‐‐11 12:56:30,
on Purdue Online Writing Lab, https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/, accessed
10/10/2013
6