Compare Contrast Two Persuasive Arguments Essay -- Comparison Between

Compare Contrast Two Persuasive Arguments Should legendary coach Bobby Knight been fired from the University of Indiana? Does the punishment fit the crime? The two articles â€Å"The Knight Who Thought He Was King,† and â€Å"Knight Fall† try to answer these two controversial questions. Each of these articles present the debated issue in their own distinct ways. â€Å"Knight Fall† is written in a way that the reader really doesn’t know what side the author is choosing, that is until the last few sentences. On the other hand, the other article is very distinct, and the reader knows for a fact, just from reading the first few sentences, that the author is not what you call a â€Å"Bobby Knight fan.† Both of these articles use the three rhetoric appeals to help persuade their audience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"He also thought -indeed, no thought to the contrary seems ever to have made its way into his head- that he was larger than the university itself†¦he signed the papers placed before him and then blithely violated the very agreement he supposedly had accepted, obviously on the assumption that the policy simply did not apply to a god such as him.† (Yardley.) Well if this isn’t straightforward enough for one to understand, then the reader has problems. This is how Yardley uses intrinsic ethos. He is an author for the Washington Post, in the style section, and writing about sports. One who is reading this article is not expecting a remarkable well-informed sports article. Throughout the article he uses a sophisticated vocabulary and strong, powerful words to grasp the attention of his audience. This article doesn’t exactly give the reader much leeway in choosing a side; there is not one good thing about Bobby Knight in this article.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout this editorial, the author really tries to get to your emotions. He uses pathos to try to persuade the reader into not liking Bobby Knight. â€Å"He screamed at referees, berated and belittled members of his own team, heaved chairs.†(Yardley) He is trying to make you dislike Knight, for the things that he has done in the past. He is making Knight to be this immoral individual, who tries to hurt and inflict pain on others. He also states how Knight violated policies, only because they didn’t apply to him. All of this is mentioned just to get the reader to think â€Å"yea, I’m glad he was fired, he was a confused menace to society, who should have been fi... ...be a coach today. â€Å"Knight Fall† also uses cause and consequence. It brings up the point that if Harvey (the student) didn’t come forward and complain about Knight’s abuse, then Knight probably would still be coaching. But that incident was only the tip of the iceberg. Knight had done so many things before that, and in the article, each incident is brought up, and questioned; whether if Knight had not done that, if he still would be coaching. Of course all of this means nothing; it’s all too late. It’s just the two different perspectives.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Well these two articles aren’t too hard to compare. One uses such vulgarity, that it makes such an impact on the reader, that the reader has no choice but to believe what the author is telling you. The other, a very informative and thorough article, lets the reader read, and learn, before â€Å"choosing a side.† Reading this will help you understand the situation, from both points of view, and then only to see the authors point of view in the last paragraph of the entire article. In the other article, Yardley doesn’t waste any time in stating his opinion, opening his article with disgust for Knight. These are two perfect articles to compare.