Tarquin MacManus
English 102
Ordover
Rhetorical Analysis – 18 Is The New 21
In analyzing my polemic I found it to be reasonably well rounded. At times I believe that I made
arguments that could have been supported better with some form of statistical analysis and factual
evidence. If I had the chance to do this again I would definitely elaborate and clarify some points and
potentially neglect others altogether. However I do feel that I managed to utilize the three methods of
analysis, logos, pathos and ethos, with logos and pathos taking the forefront of my analysis. The tone of
my polemic took an aggressive role in outlining and identifying flaws and raising questions about the
touchy issue of underage drinking for 18 to 21 year olds. The target audience for my argument is basically
anyone who will listen, I would say some parts are targeted at underage people however across the board
chances are they are already not in favor of the current legal drinking age, thus making them on my side.
One initial flaw was I based a bulk part of my argument around the issue of 18 year olds drinking,
as legal in almost all other counties in the world. If a younger legal drinking age was to come into effect
on this basis, it may be seen as conformity causing frustration among citizens and ridicule from the rest of
the world, potentially resulting in loss of respect as the most powerful country in the world. I therefore
think that my argument of “because the rest of the world is doing it so should we” was pushed a little too
strongly and maybe could have taken a back seat in my argument organization. Although I believe that if
I could prove statistically that the reduction in legal drinking age in other areas of the world has not
shown any negative effects and prove that it would be a worthy endeavor for the United States on social
and economic levels, the strength of my polemic would have increased. On the same note I was pleased
with the way I raised the question of why is the legal drinking age 18 in most countries while it remains
21 here? Is it because youths aren’t trusted to be responsible with their limitations, is a 19 year old in
England or Australia less likely to drink alcohol beyond their capabilities, or put themselves or others in
danger of any scale under the influence of alcohol? Personally I think this is not the case and I believe that
I portrayed this well in my polemic. I should have elaborated on my comparison between an 18 year old
drinking for the first time and a 21 year old reveling what I have witnessed and showing the reader that I
understand what I am talking about through personal experience, in turn incorporating more ethos into my
polemic.
The subject of war is a very serious matter however my point about underage drinking and
enrolment into the armed forces was purely to put the idea into the mind of the reader of a comparison
between two issues on totally different end of the scale. I tried to show that the prospects of war, and
young people going to war are a lot more dangerous then going to a bar. Hence, if it is legal to do
something like enroll in the armed forces being able to drink legally should be a given. I saw it a logical
comparison to sway the reader towards my viewpoint.
In my opening paragraph when I exaggerate on the severity of underage drinking saying, “So how
do we solve this growing epidemic of mindless youths taking part in the heinous practice of underage
drinking? It’s simple, make it legal.” I thought using a rhetorical question like this would really set up the
basis for my argument, and the sarcastic tone would immediately identify to the readers my views, that
underage drinking really isn’t that bad for 18-20 year olds. After peer evaluations I realized that the
inclusion of a word like so-called before saying the heinous practice of underage drinking would have
increased the note of sarcasm, not allowing the reader to take the phrase the wrong way and be apposed to
underage drinking because it sounds dangerous.
I also thought that it would be a good idea to define the term adult and what it is to be an adult as
the reality of it seems to be so up in the air. This was more aimed at the younger readers, I wanted to get
in their face and basically ask them, “well, do you think you are an adult?” Because everyone in the world
seems to consider themselves an adult figured I wouldn’t lose any interest with this definition, I do feel
that if I had used a rhetorical question at this point this point would have been conveyed what I was trying
to say a little more clearly. Like for example “do you consider yourself an adult?”
If I had the chance to do the polemic again and was to go into more detail I would definitely bring up the
idea of, what’s the best way to make young people do something? Tell them they are not supposed to do
it. I would obviously elaborate on this and give some example, even bring up the issue of reverse
psychology and why it works so well.
Even though I thought that my initial polemic was of a relatively good argumentative nature. I
believe that I only managed to get the point across as effectively as I wanted most of the time. With the
points that I have identified throughout my rhetorical analysis I would be able to reconstruct my polemic
and ultimately strengthen my argument on all levels, pathos, logos and ethos.