Writer's Blog Post: Pg 80

In Bret Weinstein’s article, Let’s not get it wrong this time: The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution, he uses all of the components needed in an effective argument. His position is made clear in his statement we can limit terrorist attacks once we know what terrorism is. He makes this statement while also referencing the opinion those who, “are convinced the word (terrorism) is inherently so vague as to be meaningless.”

                Creating an authoritative tone, Weinstein gives statistics like, “9/11 perpetrators killed about 3,000 people, and did about $13 billion in physical damage to the United States.” Numbers create what appears to be an informed author. He provides good background information explaining the terrorist attack of 9/11, giving the audience a relatable example supporting his claim. He addresses other possible arguments when he says, “There is much we do not know, and there is much we ma[y] never know about ISIS and its objectives.” Lastly, he creates a personal and emotional connection with the audience, making it matter very deeply to them. By mentioning the recent attack in Paris in the first paragraph, Weinstein draws immediate attention and importance to his plea. In addition to this, he brings the feelings of brotherhood through this statement about 9/11 when he says, “For every American that was killed in the attack, we sacrificed more than two on the battle felid.”