I hope this is okay - I broke the mold a little again, and chose an analysis of some upcoming software - the next version of Microsoft Windows.
I found very few "fallacies" in this review. They were very objective, avoided any "bandwagon appeals", and focused on specific features that the average person would find useful. That's good - because before even reading their motto, I got the impression that they were trying to gain the trust of their readers. Sure enough - there motto is exactly that. They made comparisons that showed what problems it does and doesn't solve, and took the role of a protector, honestly interested and invested in the well-being of their readers. Their opinion was that Vista was an attempt by Microsoft to solve the problems caused by their most recent version, and that Windows 7 has made a "good start". They took a fairly neutral stance that didn't create any hype or attract attention - which certainly helps to gain trust. They sound reasonable, not radical.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A neutral stance may help gain trust but it also doesn't provide a very good sense of rhetoric as we have defined it. Rhetoric is an argument, and to make an argument one must take a side.
I agree, if the argument is not strong, it will not convince the reader of what they are trying to promote. However, it is also different than what most advertisements do, so it may attract people
I think that any kind of objective review of a product should be fairly neutral. If they have a hidden agenda, i.e. the company pays them for a good review to help sales, then the entire piece of writing is of no value to the reader because they are not considered at all. Well put, reasonable, not radical.
I agree, if a fair analysis is going to be given it should take all aspects of both products and help the reader see for him/her self what it is they are trying to show with their analysis.
Post a Comment