After persuasive case for the audience from the

reading and analyzing two articles that have opposing views from Ruth Whippman
and Ginny Graves, I believe that readers will be more convinced by the article
from Ruth Whippman who shares the view of experiencing happiness through
interaction with others.


The use of appeal

has presented a more persuasive case for the audience from the use of appeals
as compared to Graves. From Graves’ argument, it is clear that she uses the appeal
of logic to convince her audience on her viewpoint. She presents her argument
in a structured and coherent way, with factual and agreed upon information to
provide a foundation for her claim. However, Whippman adopts an emotional and
ethical appeal. Whippman opens her argument with an anecdote which showcases
her own personal story of being “friendless and lonely”. (Whippman, 2017)
Whippman also mention that “she has spent the last few years researching and
writing a book about happiness”. (Whippman, 2017) This makes the audience feel
that she is trustworthy. In addition, from the use of her personal story, it
reveals to the audience that Whippman has a personal connection to the topic
she is claiming for. Her words will impact more on the audience as the topic
that she is claiming means something to her. As such, Whippman’s appeal to
emotions and ethics has shown that she is establishing trust with her audience
which can be more convincible to author who only appeal to facts.


Structure of argument

Based on the
argument’s structure, Whippman has clearly presented a more persuasive case for
the audience. Midway through Whippman’s argument, she attempts to convince the
audience that her viewpoint is better by explaining how self-reflection is
“part of a psychologically healthy life” instead of the cause of happiness. Whippman
went on to defend her point by appealing to authority as seen from “Study after
study shows that good relationships are the strongest, most consistent predictor
there is of a happy life.” On the other hand, Graves’ remains unbiased
throughout her argument by presenting a series of well-reasoned ideas rather
than offering any sort of opinion. This suggests that she tries to focus on
providing facts that will allow the audience to make the decision for
themselves as opposed to Whippman who attempt to convince the audience on taking
her viewpoint. As such, Whippman is more persuasive as compared to Graves. By
portraying views and beliefs that are contradictory to Whippman’s contention,
it indicates to the audience that her opinion is valid she has done extensive
research for both sides to support her claim.


use of evidence (Add credible sources in)

Graves’ and Whippman has strong evidence to support their claims. However,
Whippman’s use of evidence will be more persuasive as compared to Graves. Throughout
Graves’ argument, she uses numerous credible sources such as experts’ opinions
and research findings to strengthen her claims. In her article, she quotes
various opinions from author of books that are related associated with
happiness. In addition, she also cited authority that is a relevant expert of
the topic as seen from “David, who is a psychologist at Harvard Medical
School”. Whereas for Whippman, her source of evidence comes from her own
personal story, statistic and studies. From the emphasis of herself being an
author of books which relates to happiness, it suggests to the audience that
she is a qualified authority of the claim that she is making. Ultimately,
audience will still be convinced by personal story as it is more compelling and
better remembered as opposed than stating facts supported with experts’
opinions. As such, Whippman’s use of evidence has a more convincible case.




conclusion, audience will be more convinced by Whippman instead of Graves. Undeniably,
Graves’ has borrowed plenty of expert opinions to support her claim. The reason
for her doing so is that she is not a qualified authority to make the claim of
“Happiness is from within”. However, Whippman is proficient in the subject of
happiness which shows that she has sufficient background knowledge to make the
claim. Therefore, if we do not trust someone who has the competency to make the
claim, then who should we trust?