I definitely see Jonathan Safran Foer using the rhetoric tools introduced in Heinrichs Thank You for Arguing. In chapter 6, Heinrichs introducing the tool of revealing a tactical flaw, which is what Foer does right at the beginning of Eating Animals. He writes about his journey with vegetarianism and how he hasn’t stuck with it the whole time. He explains how there has been some times where he has switched between being a carnivore and reverting back to being a vegetarian. It appeals to us because it shows he’s not perfect just like we aren’t and he appears more human to us.

I think he also appeals to the audience’s values; in this case the audience is meat-eaters. When he talks about his babysitter changing his view on meat, she used the word “hurt” to described what we do to animals. He then the word “hurt” to describe why he changed to vegetarianism. He knows this word affects our emotions because no one would want to intentionally hurt an animal. He’s using both the argument of pathos and appealing to our values. If he would have used the word kill, for example we kill animals, instead of hurt, we wouldn’t be as affected because when we kill something, we view it as over or done, but when we use the word hurt we see it as torture or an ongoing pain that we could stop but choose not to.

I’m interested to see what other tools of persuasion Foer uses in his book and connect them back to Thank You for Arguing.