The editorial Make Wall Street Risk it All has a very clear stance, as the title says. William Cohan sets a specific viewpoint and sticks with it. This editorial is very strong as editorials go because not only is there a clear stance, but the wording is clear, the paper is supported by claims and evidence, and the opposition is not only recognized but also refuted. Cohan’s commentary offers a main cause and a significant solution for the financial meltdown.
Cohan immediately starts out with the opposing viewpoint. He talks about plans that had been created to reform Wall Street. He also acknowledges the effects of one plan in particular—the Dodd-Frank plan, saying it did cause some change. However, as any strong argument is built, the acknowledgement of the opposition only lasts for a little bit. Cohan then delves straight into his argument, although he does keep bringing up the opposition throughout the paper before rebutting it.
Cohan sets up a very clear structure. He has a claim and then sets up a piece of evidence for it. For example, in the piece, one of his claims was that people are hugely overcompensated for generating revenue. He supports it with evidence by talking about a certain person—Goldman Sachs—and the immense amount of money he gained by generating revenue ($74 billion). This structure is repeated for each of his claims and allows the reader to follow the viewpoint very clearly.
An excellent use of rhetoric by Cohan is that with each claim, he acknowledges a point of the opposition before attacking it. He often asks a question that many people consider. He then answers the way the opposing viewpoint would answer it. Afterwards, he attacks the opposing viewpoint. For instance, Cohan asks, “How would Dodd-Frank change this” (Cohan)? Then, he goes through and answers the question the way a member of the opposing viewpoint may answer it. After doing so, he attacks it by saying, “yawn” and then going through to bash it some more. This is an excellent strategy because it places emphasis on his point and allows the readers to finish the piece with only his viewpoint in mind.
Cohan makes use of various literary techniques to make his piece much more effective. As mentioned earlier, he has a very clear structure, which can be attributed to his syntax choices, where he has short and concise sentences with high impact words at the end. Cohan also makes use of the diction choice of levels of formality. Cohan makes sure to keep all of his word choices plain and simple. This also gives way to the language, which is a common-day, "idiot-proof" type of writing.
Cohan’s structure allows the reader to get a very straightforward, no-nonsense tone, something that will appeal to the readers since this is a serious topic. Readers want a solution and Cohan’s tone works to assure the readers that a solution has been found and he makes sure to outline it very clearly. Thus, I found this piece to be excellent and very easy to understand.
This editorial would work well on the AP exam because not only does it have a strong, clear view supported by a series of claims and evidence, but it also does a good job acknowledging the opposing viewpoint.
Cohan immediately starts out with the opposing viewpoint. He talks about plans that had been created to reform Wall Street. He also acknowledges the effects of one plan in particular—the Dodd-Frank plan, saying it did cause some change. However, as any strong argument is built, the acknowledgement of the opposition only lasts for a little bit. Cohan then delves straight into his argument, although he does keep bringing up the opposition throughout the paper before rebutting it.
Cohan sets up a very clear structure. He has a claim and then sets up a piece of evidence for it. For example, in the piece, one of his claims was that people are hugely overcompensated for generating revenue. He supports it with evidence by talking about a certain person—Goldman Sachs—and the immense amount of money he gained by generating revenue ($74 billion). This structure is repeated for each of his claims and allows the reader to follow the viewpoint very clearly.
An excellent use of rhetoric by Cohan is that with each claim, he acknowledges a point of the opposition before attacking it. He often asks a question that many people consider. He then answers the way the opposing viewpoint would answer it. Afterwards, he attacks the opposing viewpoint. For instance, Cohan asks, “How would Dodd-Frank change this” (Cohan)? Then, he goes through and answers the question the way a member of the opposing viewpoint may answer it. After doing so, he attacks it by saying, “yawn” and then going through to bash it some more. This is an excellent strategy because it places emphasis on his point and allows the readers to finish the piece with only his viewpoint in mind.
Cohan makes use of various literary techniques to make his piece much more effective. As mentioned earlier, he has a very clear structure, which can be attributed to his syntax choices, where he has short and concise sentences with high impact words at the end. Cohan also makes use of the diction choice of levels of formality. Cohan makes sure to keep all of his word choices plain and simple. This also gives way to the language, which is a common-day, "idiot-proof" type of writing.
Cohan’s structure allows the reader to get a very straightforward, no-nonsense tone, something that will appeal to the readers since this is a serious topic. Readers want a solution and Cohan’s tone works to assure the readers that a solution has been found and he makes sure to outline it very clearly. Thus, I found this piece to be excellent and very easy to understand.
This editorial would work well on the AP exam because not only does it have a strong, clear view supported by a series of claims and evidence, but it also does a good job acknowledging the opposing viewpoint.
Pass
ReplyDeleteVery good analysis. One good aspect was how you recognized which parts were most important.
Pass --
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that when authors level with the reader in tone, and are direct with their arguments, the piece is much more effective and clear.
Pass
ReplyDeleteI really felt like you understood what this editorial was about. It showed through in your detailed writing.