Article Analysis

Article Analysis
Article: Striking a Blow for Democracy in Asia
Author: Jeffrey S. Brand

If the United States discontinued their aid in human rights education in Cambodia, democracy would never have a chance to develop there because there would not sufficient support of an "educated populace."

Audience: People that are well educated and internationally aware. People involved in politics or work in foreign affairs. (Scholars, Politicians, those well studied in law). Seems like an American audience.

Ethos: Writer establishes credibility though the formal format of the article, seems as if it would be in a newspaper or special political publication. Backs up everything with a lot of information and facts. Uses a lot of specific examples and names-he comes off as being very knowledgeable concerning the subject. He is a professor in law, as well as head of Cambodia Law and Democracy Program (he knows his stuff about this issue).

Pathos: Works off of the generally accepted American idea that having/establishing democracy is worth all costs (almost to a moral extent, esp. when he describes dictator and "genocidal war." He states that "beneficiaries of such aid are not political parties vying for power but ordinary Cambodians seeking an education denied them by a genocidal war." This helps the audience to see the Cambodians as real people that are oppressed and deserving of all aid. Democracy and education are things that in American culture are seen as being very important for all people, and this writer is definitely taking this into consideration. A final use of pathos in the last paragraph when he brings out the irony of America pulling out aid (like America itself would be hindering democracy), and that it is a tragedy.

Logos: Presents a lot of facts, names, and background information that are presented in a way that allows the argument taken to seem very logical and just. Naturally Americans are supporters of education, freedom, and democracy, so accepting this article's argument is presented as being very logical when considering these values.

Sufficient: sufficient reasoning with credible proof.
Typical: seems to be a position that can be supported with generally accepted sources.
Accurate: Quality of sources seem to be fine, as well as claim and reasons.
Relevant: All the information provided seem to support main argument. Made it relevant to audience.

Effective: I as a reader was convinced. I do not know how much this article accomplished as far as actual change in American aid policy, but it at least educated its audience and made other educated people aware of the situation.