A letter to Jim, Argument

The argument Rebekah Taylor makes in “A Letter To Jim” I well thought out and very personal. It’s a great argument because, as it sounds to the reader, she is very close with Jim and she uses this to her advantage. She first points out the differences in Jim’s and her own beliefs. Jim (like most other meat eaters) believes cruelty to animals is wrong. Rebekah believes hurting an animal in any way, including killing them for food, is wrong. Rebekah doesn’t use much of an ethos or logos argument. She is using pathos to her advantage. She can’t actually (like most other arguments) prove her point, but she can appeal to her audience pathetically. She tells us the story of being a small child and looking into the big, round eyes of a helpless seal and coming to the conclusion she will never eat meat again. She uses this to appeal to Jim’s emotion. I actually thought her point that she decided this when she was five and stuck with it was a good one. She’s is trying to portray that this was not just a childhood decision but one that stuck with her throughout the rest of her life. She also takes Jim’s argument and uses it to her advantage, which is to say if Jim is against cruelty t animals to animals he should be against any kind of cruelty to animals. Her argument is well thought out and she uses all she can to her advantage, I.E. she can’t really prove why cruelty to animals is wrong so she she uses emotional appeal throughout the entire letter