Question

As an author, you are always making choices about how you are going to present your argument. Every word you write is a choice in how you are going to communicate to your reader. Answer the following questions... Bryson uses the word ‘slaves’ in her thesis, then she uses the definition pattern in her introduction to redefine this term more specifically, such as to 'servants'. Was she successful? Why or why not? What are some reasons why she might have chosen to use the word ‘slaves’ despite the controversy she seems aware it would generate? In your view as an analytical reader of the essay, was it ultimately an advantageous choice to use the word ‘slaves’ in the thesis, or was it a disadvantageous choice? Why

Answer 1

The success of Bryson redefining 'slaves' to 'servants' depends on whether readers can follow the transition without losing the intent. Using 'slaves' can engage or alienate readers, and its effectiveness depends on how well the essay supports the term with reasoning and evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

As an author, the choice of words is crucial in shaping the argument and communicating with readers effectively. In the context of using the word ‘slaves’ and then redefining it to ‘servants’, the success of this stratagem depends on the clarity and impact it has on the reader. By using a controversial term like ‘slaves’ initially, the author may have aimed to capture the reader’s attention and signal the significance or severity of the subject being discussed. Then, by refining the term to ‘servants’, the author provides a specific context that can help narrow down the argument and make it more relatable or accurate. However, this risk can either pay off by drawing readers into a deeper engagement or it could alienate them if the term seems inappropriately used or defined.

If Bryson was successful in redefining the term, it would mean that readers followed her down the path from the broad, emotionally charged term to a more nuanced understanding without losing the gravity of the initial word. Successful communication, in this case, would involve readers grasping the intended meaning without distraction or misunderstanding.

Regarding the controversy that the word ‘slaves’ carries, an author might decide to use such a word knowing it provokes strong emotions and therefore ensures the reader’s engagement with the material. This strategy also opens a space for critical thinking and debate which could be beneficial for the intended argument.

From the perspective of an analytical reader, whether it was advantageous to use ‘slaves’ in the thesis depends on how effectively it was supported throughout the essay. The rhetorical strength lies in the ability to align such a claim with logical reasoning and evidence that returns readers to the original thesis, ensuring that each point made is meaningful and supports the overarching claim.