course materials

1. Provide a link to the clip and address the following: What is the context of
the
Provide a link to the clip and address the following:What is the context of the argument
being made?The context of the argument is about the Southern Border. Rep. Marjorie Taylor
Greene is part of the house oversight committee and is asking questions to Chief Maudlin
and Chief Chavez about how is the process when they encounter unaccompanied minors.
Her concern is that one of these minors as she called him “illegal alien and part of the MS-13
gang member” crossed the border and strangled an “autistic woman” if the border did not
let him pass, this girl could have been alive.Identify at least two or three rhetorical devices
used during this debate and explain their effect on the audience.According to Moore and
Parker, dysphemism is used when trying to produce a negative effect on someone’s attitude
about something. I believe in this case, Mrs. Greene was using dysphemism to generate a
negative effect on the audience when she referred to the 17-year-old that crossed the
border. Not only did she say he was an illegal alien but also part of a gang group. She also
made a stereotype remark by saying “autistic women” so the audience will have more
negative thoughts towards this 17-year-old. Usually, the concept of woman is thought of as
being innocent but the fact she was stereotyped as autistic makes her more vulnerable and
unprotected.Do you think the speakers use these intentionally? If so, for what purpose? If
not, explain your reasoning.I do believe she used these remarks intentionally and her
purpose was to prove that the southern border is not watched enough and that we need a
wall to keep away dangerous people that are murdering innocent
Americans.Reference:Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2021). Critical thinking. McGraw-Hill
Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvDyH9vMZKgLinks to an external
site.What is the context of the argument being made?Senator Ted Cruz is at the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing on February 9, 2023, stating his concerns about Charnelle
Bjelkengren, a nominated United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Washington, who President Joe Biden selected. The matter came after Bjelkengren could not
answer Senator John Kennedy’s questions regarding her knowledge of articles two and five
of the constitution. Senator Cruz expressed Bjelkengren was unqualified due to her lack of
basic constitutional understanding.Identify at least two or three rhetorical devices used
during this debate and explain their effect on the audience. Do you think the speakers use
these intentionally? If so, for what purpose? If not, explain your reasoning.Senator Ted Cruz,
who is the speaker in the video, states in regard to Mrs. Bjelkengren, “now the members of

2. this committee are aware of how wildly unqualified this nominee was” (Forbes Breaking
News, 2023, 0:00:23). Senator Cruz uses a Dysphemism, expressing an apparent negative
rhetorical force. “A dysphemism is used to produce a negative effect on someone’s attitude
about something, or to tone down the positive associations it may have.” He uses the word
“wildly” to convey to his audience that her lack of knowledge is to a ridiculous extreme. I
believe he is using this word intentionally because he wants to insinuate that she is beyond
underqualified due to her lack of basic knowledge and, therefore, should have never even
been considered in the first place.Senator Cruz then goes on to say, “and our colleague
Senator Kennedy whose cross-examinations on this committee have now become
legendary” (Forbes Breaking News, 2023, 0:00:31). In this statement, Senator Cruz is using
an Innuendo. Innuendo uses the power of suggestion to disparage. Senator Kennedy and
Senator Cruz are both part of the Republican party. Through his use of the words colleague
and legendary, his intention may be to insult the opposing party. He is suggesting that the
republican party should be celebrated for catching the democratic nominee’s mistake. I
believe he is doing this on purpose because he wants to establish that the republican party
is superior to the democratic party. Suggesting republicans would never make such a
mistake.He confirms this is his intention when he then asks a loaded question. He states,
“I’m confident that on the Republican side of the aisle, the members of this committee know
what Article 2 is. Are there any members of this committee who care to volunteer on the
Democrat side of the aisle that you don’t know what Article 2 is?” (Forbes Breaking News,
2023, 0:02:03) He knows that no one would answer or volunteer to say that they did not
understand what Article 2 was because that would then suggest that member would not be
qualified to serve in the committee.References:Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2021). Critical
thinking. McGraw-Hill Education[Forbes Breaking News]. (2023, February 14). Ted Cruz
Roasts’ Wildly Unqualified’ Biden Nom For ‘Stunning Display Of Her Lack Of Qualifications’
[Video]. YouTube. Reply