Bridget Hepworth

Kelly Slivka

English 250

28 February 2017

Rhetorical Analysis

Opinions, a lot of times, are given for the purpose of strengthening an argument or

finding faults in another. In Anna Sauerbreys opinion article, Germany, Caught Between

Two Violent Extremes, she uses several strong and effective, rhetorical techniques like

background information, and ethos for her argument, which is that Germany has a hard

decision to make regarding Syrian refugees. However, along with these strong

techniques, she isnt entirely clear on her own stance on the Syrians.

Its important to know the background of this piece, and Sauerbrey does a good

job in giving it, though she doesnt go all the way in depth. Background information is an

ethological technique because the fact she knows whats behind the issue makes her more

credible. In 2015, Germany began letting in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees

into their country as a result of all the destruction and horror happening in Syria.

Sauerbrey points out Germanys pride in this act, as their reputation has continually been

cold-hearted in the minds of the rest of the world years after World War I and II.

Sauerbrey wrote this article in response to several attacks that were caused by Syrians,

most of which had very contrasting motives behind them.

Sauerbreys purpose in writing this article can be summed up in her quote, What

kind of extremism poses the greater danger to Germany-- the Islamic State, or the

German far right? Are we safer as a globally engaged society, or should we isolate
ourselves?() This question she poses tells the audience this is what she will be

considering throughout the article. The fact she offers the two conflicting sides show she

doesnt want the reader to focus on her stance just yet.

Sauerbrey uses a strong ethological appeal in this article. She herself is the ethos,

as shes writing this piece about a crisis in Germany from the perspective of an actual

German. Even if an American (whom the article is intended for) doesnt agree with what

she is saying, he still take into account the fact she knows way more about whats going

on in her country and what would be best for it than someone who doesnt live there. She

further proves she knows what shes talking about as a lot of her article is information

and not opinion. She gives facts-- facts about the attacks, facts about what is happening

on both sides, and facts about what the general disposition is of the German public is.

Another technique Sauerbrey uses, which can be viewed as both a weak and

strong technique, is refusing to appear on a side until the very end, and even then its not

a clear stance. This is effective in the way that she is giving both sides and perspectives

of the problem, that way the reader has enough information to decide for themself. This

can also be viewed as a weakness because at some points she appears to be all over the

place. Usually opinion articles have more specific points where the author is trying to

persuade the reader, and in this piece she doesnt have a strong enough stance to do that.

In the last sentences, she says, The only way to truly prevent such attacks is to renounce

the freedom and openness that make modern Germany worth defending. Accepting that

premise without accepting its conclusion is the greatest challenge facing us, and the

West. She doesnt seem to be saying this is what she personally wants to do, though it

would stop attacks from refugees. It could also be confusing to the reader that just before
that conclusion she points out that each attack needs to be investigated without political

bias (Sauerbrey).

The overall tone in this article is bleak, and a little pessimistic, which effectively

adds to the seriousness and pressure on this issue. Sauerbrey talks about the attacks, the

fear of more attacks, and what the attacks might mean for the countrys future and the

possibility of altering its policies again. Nowhere in the article does she give any hopeful

words or humor. She uses figurative language throughout the piece, for example using the

metaphors of Germanys protective shell being broken and the shedding and coming

of age that has happened as a result of the new terrorism. This language adds to the

reader being able to visualize the countrys status in a creative way, and by personifying

Germany its easier to imagine the seriousness of whats going on with this refugee

problem.

Overall, Anna Sauerbrey uses effective rhetorical techniques in her article, but she

herself doesnt effectively show her stance. She gives a lot of information on both sides

which helps the reader with context but confuses them on what to take away from the

article.