AP Rhetorical Analysis Essay
AP Rhetorical Analysis Essay
Florence Kelley (1859-1932) was a United States social worker and reformer who fought successfully for child labor laws and improved conditions for working women. She delivered the following speech before the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in Philadelphia on July 22, 1905. Read the speech carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze the rhetorical strategies Kelley uses to convey her message about child labor to her audience. Support your analysis with specific references to the text.
Florence Kelley uses many strategies to get her point across. She hates that children have to work or work at ridiculous hours of the night. She thinks it is irrational for children to be heading to work when adults are coming home from work. Kelley uses rhetorical emotional and logical appeals to stress the importance that children should not be working the way they do.
“Tonight as we sleep, several thousand little girls will be working in textile mills.” This shows the disgust that Kelley has towards the laws. It makes no sense that children should have to be staying up through the night, when there are other people, other grown people capable of work. This would have great emotional appeal; especially to women because mothers hate to see their children suffer and get hurt. It also describes the conditions in which the children work. “A girl of six or seven years, just tall enough to reach the bobbins, may work eleven hours by day or by night.” The girls are not tall enough to even reach the bobbins, and yet they work. They work to earn their stay and food. They really have no choice as to how they work or the conditions of their work. The worse problem is that the owners don’t care about “the deafening noise of the spindles on the looms.” Kelley hates that they have to suffer, when they are barely able to do so.
Logically, Kelley attacks the state and government laws. She says they are stupid and not working for improvement, but even taking “a long step backwards.” “In Georgia there is no restriction whatever,” “New Jersey permits it [work] all night long,” and “North and South Carolina and Georgia place no restriction upon the work of children at night,” are a few examples of the laws that greatly disgust Kelley. There are no restrictions for work, so the children have to go to work at night, for all hours of the night. Most of the Southern states just care about getting the work done, so they could care less about who works, but children are easier to control. This is why the state uses them.
The states should be glad that they don’t have woman’s suffrage yet, or they would be out of work during the night. Kelley is drastically fighting for the woman’s right to vote, so that there will be no children working at night or at least not as long and hard. She gets het point across by using emotional and logical appeals, and she does it effectively.
Florence Kelley (1859-1932) was a United States social worker and reformer who fought successfully for child labor laws and improved conditions for working women. She delivered the following speech before the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in Philadelphia on July 22, 1905. Read the speech carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze the rhetorical strategies Kelley uses to convey her message about child labor to her audience. Support your analysis with specific references to the text.
Florence Kelley uses many strategies to get her point across. She hates that children have to work or work at ridiculous hours of the night. She thinks it is irrational for children to be heading to work when adults are coming home from work. Kelley uses rhetorical emotional and logical appeals to stress the importance that children should not be working the way they do.
“Tonight as we sleep, several thousand little girls will be working in textile mills.” This shows the disgust that Kelley has towards the laws. It makes no sense that children should have to be staying up through the night, when there are other people, other grown people capable of work. This would have great emotional appeal; especially to women because mothers hate to see their children suffer and get hurt. It also describes the conditions in which the children work. “A girl of six or seven years, just tall enough to reach the bobbins, may work eleven hours by day or by night.” The girls are not tall enough to even reach the bobbins, and yet they work. They work to earn their stay and food. They really have no choice as to how they work or the conditions of their work. The worse problem is that the owners don’t care about “the deafening noise of the spindles on the looms.” Kelley hates that they have to suffer, when they are barely able to do so.
Logically, Kelley attacks the state and government laws. She says they are stupid and not working for improvement, but even taking “a long step backwards.” “In Georgia there is no restriction whatever,” “New Jersey permits it [work] all night long,” and “North and South Carolina and Georgia place no restriction upon the work of children at night,” are a few examples of the laws that greatly disgust Kelley. There are no restrictions for work, so the children have to go to work at night, for all hours of the night. Most of the Southern states just care about getting the work done, so they could care less about who works, but children are easier to control. This is why the state uses them.
The states should be glad that they don’t have woman’s suffrage yet, or they would be out of work during the night. Kelley is drastically fighting for the woman’s right to vote, so that there will be no children working at night or at least not as long and hard. She gets het point across by using emotional and logical appeals, and she does it effectively.