Botox Babe Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis Shannon Cook, an entertainment contributor for Conn’s online news website, asks the question: “Does Bottom affect the ability to parent? ” on Conn’s Opinion section.

By using a question as the title of the article, Cook captures the eye of a reader that could be scrolling through the page. She begins the article by stating that Kelly Rips, of All My Children and the talk show Kelly and Michael, states that she uses Bottom as regularly as she trims her nails. Rips is a mother of three and states that her children are gauges for when she is due for a tune up.According to an interview with In Touch Weekly, Rips declares she needs a Bottom tune up when her children point out that she can frown.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Shannon Cook then speaks of the opposing viewpoint and Julia Roberts’ stance, as a mother, against the use of Bottom. Roberts proclaims that it is necessary for her children to know when she is poised off. Shannon Cook asks the question, “Does Bottom affect the ability to parent? ” She asks if the inability to furrow your brow or scowl when a child misbehaves will have an effect on the way they perceive right and wrong.Her question is stated to an audience of young to middle aged mothers who fear the signs of aging. Her audience is most likely consumers of trendy celebrity magazines; thus they are regularly exposed to images of beautiful middle aged women.

It is a logical presumption that with today’s society forever pushing back the clock of aging that the audience of this article is also worried about hiding their wrinkles. Shannon Cook then seaways into the question of freezing of facial expressions through Bottom and if it will harm the two way communication between mother and child.She follows it up with a quote from Dry. De Tricks, an associate professor of psychiatric and pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts.

By using a quote from a specialist from a prestigious university, Cook appeals to the audience’s ethos. By starting off with a strong statement against the use of Bottom, it would appear that Cook is against it. Although, it is also likely that Cook is Just trying to build credibility as an investigative reporter. Further into the article, Cook presents the opposing argument and suggests that Bottom is not a problem.Over the course of this analysis, Cooks article will be broken down into three parts: the anti-Bottom argument, the pro-Bottom argument, and the conclusion.

This analysis of “Does Bottom Affect the Ability to Parent? Will show the weakness or strength in Cooks writing and the overall effect or lack thereof on the audience. Under the title “Does Bottom affect the ability to parent? ” Conn’s Shannon Cook begins her article with a photograph of a young mother smiling over her baby. The baby appears to be trying to mimic its mother’s expression.To the left of the article is a small column of a highlight summary for the article. The highlights are “Babies pick up and mimic the facial expressions of their caregivers,” “Bottom smooth wrinkles and creases from the skin, which may limit facial expressions, dulling facial expressions loud affect parent communication, a researcher says,” and “a plastic surgeon disagrees, saying treatment that would cause such reaction is outlier. ” Before diving be discussing.

The photo plays a role in the emotional appeal by forcing the reader to ingrain the image of the smiling mother.Perhaps it is an indicator of which way the author’s opinion swings. Maybe the photo is simply plucked off the internet with no regards to the author’s opinion. Regardless of why the photo is placed, there is no doubt that a mother and baby conjure up emotions. The image causes the reader to e filled with the warm, fuzzy feelings associated with playing with babies. Under the photo in small text is “Babies take emotional cues from their caregivers, experts say. Could facial Bottom interfere with those signals? ” The text is placing questions in the audience’s head before they ever begin to read the article.A gut reaction, an honest opinion of the reader, is forced and also interest is peaked by asking a question.

The audience automatically will want an answer to the question and will want to read on. Although it is in a small font, the text grabs the audience’s attention like any article would do. Shannon Cook uses the opinions of two mega celebrities to start off her article. She begins with Kelly Rips, a popular talk show host as well as a famous soap star. Kelly Rips reportedly uses Bottom as often as she trims her nails.

It’s assumable that the average person trims their nails every other week and that Kelly Rips does as frequently.Perhaps Rips is exaggerating. There may actually be limitations about how much Bottom one is allowed to purchase within a certain time period. Even so, there is still shock factor in Rap’s statement. Cook uses a quote from Kelly Rips eating, “When my kids start asking me if I’m mad at them, and I say, Why do you think I’m mad at you? They say it’s because I’m frowning.

I go, ‘Oh no! I am? I’ll be right back! ” This statement sends a wave of shock to the audience. Just like the photo, this is an appeal to the audience’s emotions. The hope of the appeal is that the audience will be shocked and disgusted by how frequently Rips uses Bottom.

It could also be said that it is an appeal to the audience’s logic. The audience would think it absurd to consider all frowning a sign of anger. The human face turns down slightly in its trial relaxed state without Bottom. That doesn’t mean a relaxed face is showcasing anger.

The quote will also be the setup off back and forth style later seen in the article. To counter-argue Rips, Julia Roberts is also quoted on her avid stance against mothers using Bottom. Roberts believes that mirror face tells a story and it shouldn’t be a story about your drive to the doctor’s office. She states that “l want my kids to know when I’m poised, when I’m happy, and when I’m confounded. ” This emotive appeal is blended with the use of profanity. Profane language grabs the reader’s attention. It’s also logical to say that using Julia Roberts is an appeal to the audience’s ethos as well. Roberts is an Academy Award winning actress and a household name.

Cook used Julia Roberts as a representative from her anti-Bottom argument to play on the fact that the audience is most likely more familiar with the actress than a daytime television host such as Kelly Rips.This, tied in with the photo, suggests that Cook is tilting towards the argument that Bottom is harmful to bonding of mother and baby. To seaway in to the first section of Cooks paper, she uses the transitional sentences “Have we really talked about this, though? I mean, really talked about it. ” This phrasing tears some of her credibility as a professional writer apart. Writing writing something like that for a professional news website should seem illogical. The phrasing sounds immature and fluffy.

While Cook should write the way she speaks and speak the way she writes, such phrasing would be annoying to listen to in spoken word. Some of the credibility of the article is restored when the opening paragraph to the first main point starts off with a quote from an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics that works at the University of Massachusetts. The professor, Dry.

De Tricks, states that “(Bottom) likely does limit and distort parental-infant communication, possibly making the parent look flat’ emotionally. He goes on to say that “Facial expressions for parents and young children are really critical ways in which we communicate our intentions or whether we’re angry or sad, and that involves this very complex array of all the muscles that go into making facial expressions. So if you limit that range of expression, especially with very young children who are really attuned to reading facial expressions, then you limit the amount of information, the amount of emotion that you communicate using a facial expression. ” Dry.Tricks argument that Bottom limits the use of facial muscles and ultimately the range of expression is an appeal to the logos of the audience by stating a fact. The goal of this quote is to make the audience worry about looking apathetic to their infant. Starting off the section with a strong fact filled quote is a rhetorically effective approach to making the audience agree with the argument. After starting with such a strong opening quote, the reader would think that Cook would be able to follow it up with more appeals, facts and fugues.

Instead, Cook egging to talk off topic about how female babies are especially sensitive to their mother’s facial expressions. She writes of her own experience as a first time mother and trying to smile all the time. Cook says that she grossly exaggerated the role of facial expressions with her first child by attempting to appear cheery all the time. Cook reflects upon her previous statement and uses another statement by Dry. Tricks. He states that other forms of communication such as caressing, sighing, and singing are all very important as well.

While this all may be true and well, the content has little to nothing to do with Bottom and infants. It would be acceptable to have a personal testimony in an article, but the personal testimony should relate to the rest of the content. Cooks unrelated testimony may cause the audience to laugh and smile about her baby, but the fact that it’s unrelated may distract the audience from the original topic. In another attempt to appeal to the audience with a credible source, Cook mentions a paper published in the Journal of Social Psychology and Personality Science.The paper compares the effects of Bottom with a dermal filler called Restyle. The difference is that Bottom actually paralyzes the muscle while Restyle only fills in dermal holes. Cook says that Bottom reduces the emotion of empathy and that Restyle does not because the user can still slightly mimic expressions.

Cook quotes the co-author of the study, David Neal, saying injecting Colostomies Botulism will “subtly impair your ability to mimic other people’s facial expressions. ” According to Google, Colostomies Botulism is the food poisoning Botulism.The bulk of the first section has absolutely nothing to do with using Bottom as a parent or its effect on the adding meaningless fluff to her article. By filling more of her article with fluff, Cook sibyl lost a portion of her audience. At the end of the first part of the article, Cook adds some relevant information. She talks about experiments in which mothers are told to look at their baby with a blank face for a controlled length of time.

She goes back to data collected by Tricks stating that even infants Just a few months old will begin to cry within a minute or so.Cook ends the first segment with a logical statement from Tricks saying “if it [the blank face] lasts a minute or two, sometimes the babies end up getting upset or crying because of the lack of response on the part of the mother. ” This quote appeals to the motion of the audience and their wanting to comfort babies and play with them. It leaves the audience with an unsettling image of a stony-faced mother staring blankly at her baby who is begging for a reaction.

The second segment of the article discusses the opposing viewpoint. Cook begins with a quote from plastic surgeon, Steven Dana.Dana says that, “l categorically, overwhelmingly disagree that that’s even a possibility. You’d have to put so much Bottom in to reduce that much animation that the person would look like a stroke victim. Even when Eve put Bottom into the upper third of the face where it’s most molly used, you still have complete animation in the lower two-thirds of your face. ” By starting another section of the article off with this quote, Cook is forcing the audience to assume that it’s a response to the above quotes.

Cook does not address what question the Doctor’s quote is answering. That technique is very similar to using an equivocation.She leaves the audience wondering what the question to the answer was. While it is evident that Cook is trying to set up a balanced counter-argument, she begins with a weak opening statement that seems like a round of the popular game show Jeopardy. Dana says that the patients that aren’t able to move their face after leaving a Bottom appointment have probably gone to a bad doctor. This is a direct argument against Kelly Rap’s statement. If the audience remembers the article’s opening statement about Rips, the audience can assume without much education that Kelly Rips is wealthy enough to go to a good Bottom Doctor.

Rips mentioned that when she is able to frown, it is time for a tune up. The quote implies that her face is essentially frozen in a smile or blank expression most of the time. Cooks ethological appeals contradict each other.

Thus, a gap in her in her argument is created and once again destroys more of her credibility. Adman’s quotes take up much of this section. He is quoted saying “If these moms can’t make the angry face, or they can’t project this angry image, maybe they are presenting a more positive image to their kids. Maybe their [sic] happier, maybe they’re going to be better parents. The plastic surgeon’s quote is the first legitimate argument for the use of Bottom as a parent. Such a quote causes the audience to think that the inability to frown will portray genuine happiness. Although the parent may not be frowning on the outside, here is no scientific evidence in the article proving that not expressing anger at your child will mean you are actually happier.

That statement falls under the logical fallacy called “Lying with Statistics”. Dana states something as a fact without using a credible source to back it up. Dana knows well that the audience won’t question him because he is a surgeon.Cook is smart for adding this into her article because she the argument, it forces the audience to think deeply about what they believe is the right choice when it comes to Bottom. Cook uses another testimony in the second section of the article. It is smart because it balances out each side of the argument. So far, both sides have some sort of scholarly representative and now a personal testimony.

The problem, though, is that, once again, Cooks testimony has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to parent after a Bottom injection. The testimony comes from a stay-at-home mother.The mother, 39 year old Bobbie Gale, is the mother of three sons ages 8-12. She says that besides the frozen bag of peas on her face, her children did not notice anything different about her after she received a Bottom treatment. Gale testifies that her husband had a “strange warm and fuzzy reaction” o her more relaxed look. She said that the Bottom helped her look like she had control over all of her stress’s.

“l was trying to look my best so that my husband would always find me attractive. I didn’t realize that those brow lines were more than Just wrinkles.If one of Bottom’s side effects is making me look more rested and more approachable, then sign me up forever,” Gale said. Once again, Cook has added an unnecessary testimony to her article. Had Gale stated that her children reacted positively and listened better after she had a Bottom treatment, then it would be an appropriate testimony. Perhaps Cook was trying to have two irrelevant testimonies so that her article was full of pointlessness on both sides. If the audience is actually paying attention and not Just skimming the article, they will notice this.

Now that Cook has written poor arguments for each side of the debate on Bottom and parenting, she attempts to wrap it up in a way that leaves the question up for answering by the audience. Cook adds one more quote by Tricks in which he says, “It’s Just a momentary phenomenon. Very quickly you’re saying, ‘What is this person really feeling? What does this expression mean to me? And I think to the infant, they’re not eating any information from the facial expression and they’re wondering, in a sense, ‘Is this a positive facial expression or a negative one? ‘ There’s nothing to read because it’s not changing.

This statement is confusing much like the statement from Dana earlier. Cook fails to mention the question being answered in this quote. It could leave the audience feeling muddled about what they’ve Just read. It’s Just more fluff. In the last paragraph of the article, Cook finally mentions infants again. She talks about her uncertainty of trying Bottom treatments later in life and says she hasn’t decided.

At the time Cook wrote the article, September 27th, 2012, she was the mother of a two year old and had stated that for the time being she would not participate in Bottom treatments in case it would have detrimental effects on her child.Her closing statement, “But when they’re teeny and vulnerable and might be hanging on our every head tilt and smile and squint, would it be wise to hold off on cosmetically enhancing our facial features? The answer, perhaps, is on the little face looking back at us from the high chair,” is very strong and impacting. It forces the audience to go back to their gut reaction from the text under the photo at the ginning of the article. The problem, though, is that most of the article is fluff and not supported by statistical data and proof that Bottom does/doesn’t affect the ability to parent.Cooks inability to stay on topic for even one segment of her article causes her to appear as an uneducated writer. Even though the article is an POP-DE, there is by the fact that roughly 80% of her article has nothing to do with the topic at the top of the page.

Cook said she was going to talk about Bottom’s effects on parenting and she mostly spoke about things that are in the same topic range, but not directly under the category of Bottom’s effects on parenting. Cook also failed to speak about men who receive Bottom treatments and how it would affect their ability to parent.If her audience noticed this lack of information, it would raise several questions such as, ‘If a father gets Bottom and is seen as smiling all the time, will that portray a lack of masculine aggressiveness and cause the child to be a wimp? That question is not very farfetched.

There are many other holes in Cooks article that leave many questions in the audience’s mind. Her failure to stick to the topic and cover it thoroughly shows that perhaps she should take another English WI 31 class.