Stylistic Choices

It encourages readers to accept arguments at face value without questioning them.

It reduces complexity by presenting issues without any bias or hidden meanings.

It fosters immediate acceptance based on shared political beliefs with no further thought.

It invites readers to critically analyze underlying assumptions or flaws being mocked.

Employing deductive reasoning by starting with generally accepted truths and logically demonstrating why they don't apply in this particular case.

Utilizing poignant anecdotes from personal experience, aiming to evoke empathy and bolster one's perspective over others.

Resorting exclusively to ethical appeals to establish one's own credibility, thus implicitly questioning opponents' ethics.

Overwhelming the thesis with multiple citations from varied sources regardless of their direct relevance to the specific point being contested.

The detailed jargon increases understanding for all levels of readership.

This approach will ensure that arguments are perceived as unbiased.

The specialized terminology may confuse readers who are not experts in that field.

The use of specific terms adds humor and lightness to a complex topic.

Use of casual diction generally detracts from speaker authority, leading to diminished trustworthiness.

It can make complex ideas more accessible through familiar terms and expressions.

Colloquialisms could unintentionally condescend, suggesting listeners cannot grasp formal discourse.

It might obscure important details by forsaking technical specificity for common vernacular.

They illustrate multiple perspectives, enabling multifaceted approaches toward issues discussed.

They could weaken the speaker’s authority by creating confusion about agency.

They enhance engagement through variety, thus keeping listener’s attention engaged.

They provide clarity about intentions, clearly distinguishing between actions taken and received.

It creates a sense of intimacy and credibility.

It emphasizes the logical over personal experience.

It reduces the emotional appeal to the audience.

It makes the argument less specific and more general.

Analogical evidence

Testimonial evidence

Statistical evidence

Anecdotal evidence

They expose authors' biases towards certain regions at the expense of narrative neutrality.

They diminish emotional appeal by distracting readers with linguistics rather than substance.

They confuse non-native speakers thereby reducing overall comprehension of critical points made.

They authenticate characters' voices and ground societal critiques in specific cultural contexts.

A paradox adds emotional depth by evoking sympathy towards individuals facing injustices highlighted through contradictory circumstances described.

Paradox offers narrative variety breaking monotony common in social discourse ensuring sustained engagement with the issue discussed.

Paradox creates immediacy and urgency compelling action and resolution as apparent contradictions represent unresolved societal tension.

A paradox engages readers intellectually challenging them to reconcile contradictory elements revealing deeper truths about social complexities.

To ensure that arguments are presented in chronological sequence.

To present the information in an inviting and casual manner for easy reading.

To emphasize processes and discoveries over individual actions or achievements.

To foster a personal connection with the reader by using relatable language.