Write a rhetorical precis of the article
Four-SentenceRhetorical PrécisFrame
1.Main Idea:________________________________, __________________________________, in his/her
(author’s credentials—optional) (author’s first and last name)
________________ , ______________________ ____________________________(pick a
rhetorically-accurate-verb
)
(genre: artcile, speach)(title of text)
that _____________________________________________________________________________.
(major assertion of author’s text)
2.Support (remember that support/evidence is likely aType of Claim
):
She/he supports her/his claim by first __________________________________________
___________________________________________________ , then __________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________ , then _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________ , and finally_______________
__________________________________________________________________________________.
3.Purpose:_______________________ ’s purpose is to ____________________________________________
(author’s last name) (purpose)
__________________________________________________________________________ in order to
__________________________________________________________________________________ .
(to accomplish what?)
4.Tone:She/he ___________________________ a(n) _____________________________________ tone for
(verb: adopts, establishes, creates, etc.) (tone:
155 Words to Describe an Authors Tone
)
__________________________________________________________________________________ .
(intended audience).
To understand the gravity of the court's error, consider the parents' point of view. They are from Gozo, an island in Malta. After being told of their daughters’ condition, while the twins were in utero, they went to Manchester, England, seeking out the best possible medical care. Yet, after the birth on Aug. 8, the parents were told that they needed to separate the twins, which would be fatal for Mary. They protested, telling the court: "We cannot begin to accept or contemplate that one of our children should die to enable the other one to survive. That is not God's will. Everyone has a right to life, so why should we kill one of our daughters to enable the other one to survive?" And yet, a court in a country in which they sought refuge has overruled their wishes. This is a clear evil: coercion against the parents and coercion against their child, justified in the name of a speculative medical calculus. The parents’ phrase "God's will" is easily caricatured, as if they believed divine revelation were guiding them to ignore science. In fact, they believe in the merit of science, or they would not have gone to Britain for help in the first place. But utilitarian rationality has overtaken their case. The lawyer appointed by the court to represent Jodie insisted that Mary's was "a futile life." That is a dangerous statement -- sending us down a slippery slope where lives can be measured for their supposed value and discarded if deemed not useful enough. Some might argue that in thinking about the twins, we should apply the philosophical principle known as "double effect," which, in some circumstances, permits the loss of a life when it is an unintended consequence of saving another. But in this case, ending Mary's life would be a deliberate decision, not an unintended effect. Can we ever take one life in favor of another? No, not even in this case, however fateful the consequences.