I read an article in the New York Times called Global Warming. The article can be found at, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
The article talks about how global warming is becoming a larger issue and the “very likely” force that is driving the issue is human activity in the last 50 years. The article goes on to talk about how the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1990. They also mention that the debate of humans cause to global warming is no longer the issue but rather how to go about fixing the problem. The article never suggests a way to go about fixing it but it gives good information about how the greenhouse effect works and how it has been changing through the years. When first reading this article, it may not seem as though it is trying to persuade people into believing something. I think the article does so without have to actually state what is being persuaded. The article makes someone think about global warming and realize that it is an issue that does need to be addressed and worked on. For this reason, I believe this article can be considered a rhetorical situation by the definition that Aristotle gives.
The article is interacting with people. For example, I was able to read it and write this blog, which is an interaction. It is not necessarily directly between the writer and myself but it is about what the writer wrote and for the others to discuss. The persuasion that is being done can be difficult to see as persuasion right away, but can be seen because of the reaction the article has on people. The persuasion is about a larger issue. The issue is global warming, which is affecting the entire world. What is being said in the article is that humans are contributing to the cause and that is what needs to change. The change is not something that can be done right away or over night. It is going to take time. This is also part of Aristotle’s definition; it cannot just be done, for example if someone were to tell you to wash your hands. The article is backed up with proof. The author explains how the surface temperature of the earth is rising. He goes on to give predictions if this life style of ours continues. According to Aristotle’s definition I feel that this article is a good representation of a rhetorical situation.
Something that would not be considered a rhetorical situation by Aristotle would be if someone where to just tell someone to do something and the person can just do it on the spot. The example I gave was to wash your hands. You could try to think about it as a rhetorical situation because if you don’t wash your hands, sickness tends to spread. Sickness can be considered a larger issue that would need to be dealt with, but because a person can just wash their hands without thinking about the greater issue, I don’t believe Aristotle would consider it a rhetorical situation. Also what was said was more of a statement rather than a persuasion. It was simply do this. The article in the New York Times, was a statement but it was not telling someone to just do something it was giving facts which then made people realize something needs to be done. I feel this idea is a big difference between the two ideas and what makes something a rhetorical situation according to Aristotle.
