Question

Evaluate Reread the following paragraph:

"It sounds nice, but oddly enough, most of the people who perform such impulsive rescues say that they didn't really think before acting. Which means they weren't choosing"" civilization over instinct. If survival is an instinct, it seems to me that there must be something equally instinctive that drives us, sometimes, to run into danger instead of away from it."

1. Identify at least two rhetorical devices that Wallace uses in her argument.
2. Are they effective in advancing her argument? Explain.
3. As evidence for Wallace's claim, is this paragraph valid and relevant? Explain.

Answer 1

Wallace's use of anecdote and antithesis as rhetorical devices effectively advances his argument about human instincts by providing relatable examples and contrasting ideas. These devices are effective, and the paragraph in question is valid and relevant as it offers evidence that challenges traditional notions of survival instincts.

Step-by-step explanation:

In evaluating the provided paragraph, the rhetorical devices used by Wallace include anecdote and antithesis. The anecdote about people performing impulsive rescues without thinking taps into the reader's empathy and exemplifies the point about instinct versus civilization. The use of antithesis contrasts the concepts of 'running into danger' versus 'running away from it', effectively highlighting the two opposing instincts that humans possess.

The effectiveness of these devices is evident as they create a compelling narrative and clarify the argument by presenting it in more relatable terms. They also stimulate the reader's critical thinking, forcing them to reconsider their assumptions about instinct and rational decision-making.

As for the validity and relevance of the paragraph as evidence for Wallace's claim, it does provide an intriguing insight into human behavior that supports the argument about instinctive responses. It's relevant because it challenges the conventional understanding of survival instinct, proposing that there might be an equally strong instinct to protect or aid others even at personal risk.