RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

Rachel Pierce
RC 2001
September 2, 2015
Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetoric is a tool that can be utilized in many different ways. Authors use it to make their
discussions more elaborate and more relatable for the intended audience. The two articles, About
Alzheimers Disease: Alzheimers Basics and Running exercise delays neurodegeneration in
amygdala and hippocampus of Alzheimers disease (APP/PS1)in transgenic mice, both utilize
several different rhetorical techniques such as pathos, logos, and ethos to convey their points and
appropriately address their audience. They both discuss topics regarding Alzheimers, but the
first one is much more basic and easy to understand, where as the second one definitely requires
to knowledge in the field in order to understand it. They are somewhat similar in the topics they
discuss, but they both utilize different rhetorical techniques to convey their point.
The first article I read was called About Alzheimers Disease: Alzheimers Basics. It just
explained the basic concepts of the disease and what it is and how it affects people and their
brains. Throughout the article, I found it very easy to follow and understand, very formal, and
impersonal. It was clear that the purpose of the article was to inform the general public about the
disease, as it was found on a website that consisted of current topics in psychology. I was
surprised at how easy it was to understand what the article was saying how well it conveyed the
point without using an abundance of jargon that the average person would not understand.
While reading the article, I made sure to pay careful attention to what adjectives, if any,
they used to describe the disease. Throughout the entire article I only counted the one; the use of
the word devastating. Which of course is true, but I found it very interesting that the author(s)
decided to keep it strictly factual. When covering topics such as Alzheimers it is almost

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

impossible to discuss it without human nature interfering and using pathos or certain vocabulary
to help the reader better understand the full capacity of the disease. So I found it almost
impressive that the author was able to fully explain in detail what Alzheimers is, how it affects
people and how the rate of deaths from Alzheimers is increasing very rapidly without including
any emotion. So with that being said, it is clear the author focused mainly on utilizing logos, not
pathos. Throughout the article, the author does not site any specific sources. However, I believe
it is still a credible document and has good ethos because it comes from the National Institute on
Aging website.
The purpose of this article was probably to satisfy the exigency of the average population
not being very well versed when it comes to Alzheimers disease and how it affects people. Even
doctors and researchers do not know everything there is to know about this disease, so of course
the general public knows even less. But with an increasing death rate from Alzheimers, due to
the aging population, there needs to be a more common knowledge of the disease and what kind
of preventative measures there are that can be taken and what type of symptoms to know to look
for in order to catch them sooner and begin treatment. The visuals in the article were not really
very good; the article itself only included one picture of a brain. This could be an example of
logos; the author decided to not include many illustrations to better help the reader focus on the
facts of the reading and not evoke any emotions with pictures. However, it did include a link to a
short animated video that better explained the process of Alzheimers and what exactly it does to
the brain itself. It was very clear and easy to follow, and in my opinion, very helpful. The
organization of the article made it very easy to read and follow. It was divided up into sections by
questions that are common about the disease. The purpose of this could have been an effort to
keep the reader engrossed in the article. When addressing the general public about this topic, the

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

author probably realized that the average person might not be too interested in brain
degeneration; so the easy to follow organization of the article might make it a little easier for the
reader to remain engaged throughout.
Overall, the tone in this article was formal, but not to the extent that it could be
intimidating to a reader. There was no medical jargon that the average person would not
understand, and it was very easy to follow and understand the purpose of the article. The author
did an excellent job of excluded any emotions in an effort to persuade the reader, it was
completely factual. So, in my opinion, this article was very effective for its intended purpose.
The second article I read was called Running exercise delays neurodegeneration in
amygdala and hippocampus of Alzheimers disease (APP/PS1) transgenic mice. It was
significantly harder to follow and understand and it took me a very long time to get through it
because I had to stop and look up the things I was reading about. It was full of medical and
scientific jargon like, Pathologically, Alzheimers Disease is characterized by extracellular
deposition of A peptides in the amyloid plaques and intracellular accumulation of hyper
phosphorylated tau in the neurofibrillary tangles. (About Alzheimers Disease) Clearly, it was
not an article meant for the average population, since most people do not have a background and
are not familiar with neurodegeneration and the different parts of the brain that Alzheimers
affects. It was meant for a particular discourse community such as a group of researchers,
scientists, or professors that have the required knowledge to comprehend this reading and have it
be useful to them.
This article also did not use any emotional adjectives, but that was not expected for this
type of material anyway. It was very formal and very impersonal, and talked only about the
research for that particular experiment; it did not give any background information on the

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

disease. It was implied that anyone reading that article would already have knowledge of the
information and would be reading it for a certain purpose, not just for leisure or out of curiosity.
In this article, no pathos was used; it was mostly just logos. There was also some ethos
because the author seemed very knowledgeable in the field and had many citations of other
creditable sources. The exigency of this piece was to address the research and the experiment
that had been conducted, and results that were found. It was the opposite of the other article
where the main purpose was to inform the public of a disease and symptoms they should look
for. This article was not meant to be informative to just anyone, only those who have the
knowledge to understand and utilize the information.
The visuals in this article were excellent. There were several different types of graphs to
support the research they had done, and other images of the work as well. They are all very well
labeled, but once again even the wording in the labels on the graphs are hard to understand if the
reader has no existing knowledge prior to reading. The organization was also very good; the
article was broken up into numbered sections that followed and corresponded with the
experiment and the steps that were taken. Overall, this article was much more difficult to
understand and somewhat intimidating to a reader who has no knowledge of the vocabulary and
concepts that are being discussed. However, the purpose of the article was satisfied because it is
not meant for the general public; it was written to document and discuss an experiment within
that field to further the research of the disease.
Both of the articles succeeded in their intended purpose. Although the second article was
significantly harder to read and understand, it would not have been so for its intended discourse
community. It laid out all the facts of the research very clearly, and discussed the findings and
conclusions very well. It did exactly what that particular community would need it to do. As did

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

the first article I discussed. It was very well organized with all the facts that one might need to
know about the disease, it was just intended for a different community. The author clearly had a
very good understanding that its intended discourse community would not have the knowledge
and vocabulary that a scientist or researcher would know, and therefore constructed it to fit the
needs of that community. Both articles fit their discourse communities very well, and satisfy the
purpose they were needed for.