This paper examines the rhetorical strategies employed by H.L. Mencken and Anna Quindlen in their respective essays on capital punishment. The analysis explores how both authors use ambiguity, appeals to authority, figurative language, and informal fallacies — particularly hasty generalization — to persuade readers. Mencken's sardonic tone and deliberate use of double negatives and sarcasm create a layered argument that questions both sides of the debate, while Quindlen builds ethos through emotional appeals and personal authority. The paper argues that both essayists ultimately comment less on the mechanics of capital punishment than on the motivations of the society that practices it.
The paper models meta-rhetorical analysis — analyzing not just what the authors argue but how their chosen strategies either strengthen or undermine their stated positions. This is particularly effective in the treatment of Mencken, where the writer argues that the sarcastic tone itself signals authorial intent, turning the essay's surface argument against itself.
The paper opens with a combined introduction identifying the shared rhetorical strategies of both authors. It then dedicates two paragraphs to Quindlen — first her ethos-building and then her logical fallacies — before moving to Mencken's more complex ironic argument. A brief comparative conclusion synthesizes both analyses and closes with a personal evaluative judgment. This structure mirrors the comparative essay form common in undergraduate English composition courses.
H.L. Mencken and Anna Quindlen use rhetorical devices to convince readers to take a side on the controversial issue of capital punishment. Their two essays demonstrate how authors use ambiguity, various types of evidence, and — in many cases — errors of generalization or classification commonly known as informal fallacies. In Mencken's case, since he deconstructs arguments against his own proposals, critical reading becomes an analysis of an analysis, which this particularly sophisticated author would have appreciated given a sardonic tone that leaves the reader guessing whether he is really for or against capital punishment. Quindlen too uses techniques of reversal and qualification to build ethos with her reader. Though both essayists seemingly take positions opposing the choice they advocate, the result is a nuanced, subtle argument that forces the reader to look deeper than the surface.
Both authors take the line that capital punishment provides transformative release — katharsis, as Mencken sardonically attributes to "the aforesaid Aristotle." Likewise, both essayists propose that deterrence is not the real intent of the death sentence: Mencken by pointing out a generalization fallacy in which one aspect or attribute is mistaken as essential, and Quindlen by committing such generalizations herself. This is revealed any time the author either makes claims based on so-called common sense or uses figurative language to encourage the reader to identify with her as a person rather than defend assertions on their inherent merit. These instances suggest the author has not found more compelling evidence, which she would have employed had she set out to win her points in earnest.
Quindlen tries to build ethos from the very start, attempting to shock the reader with the catchy assertion that she and a notorious serial killer "go back a long way." This grabby opening allows her to imply that since she has been a crime reporter, she is therefore an authority on criminal behavior. She relates endearing images of victims and models the association her readers are encouraged to adopt by revealing how fascinated she became with intimate details of their lives. Since her victims were ordinary people and she identifies with those characteristics, we see a vulnerable side that fleshes out the hard-bitten crime reporter. If the reader sympathizes with the victims, and the author does too, then the reader should sympathize with the author as well and open themselves to her opinion on the titillating but macabre subject of capital punishment.
If the author is as seasoned a writer and student of human motivation as she implies, however, such deliberate manipulation of the reader's emotions actually encourages suspicion rather than bonding on the part of a critical reader. The appeal to ethos through personal biography is a recognized rhetorical strategy, but when it dominates the argument it can displace substantive reasoning rather than support it.
The result is that these two authors use argument from authority, constructed and real-life examples, and appeals to personal credibility in order to convince the reader of positions that seem opposite on the surface, but which on deeper reading actually refer to the intentions of the society that kills people for killing people. Neither of these essays takes the straightforward, literal approach of a judicial ruling. The figurative language reveals where and how they persuade us to reflect on our own perspectives and on whether revenge is a valid method of justice. Personally, Quindlen's emotional manipulation reads as unnecessary, insincere, and self-indulgent regardless of her position. At least Mencken's droll humor is entertaining, although it is difficult to treat any apparent candor without suspicion, given the sarcasm and reverse meaning underlying the other half of everything he says, here and anywhere else.
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.