The Muslim community has been looked at differently comparing to other religions and ethnicities in America. Furthermore, after the 9/11 tragedies, Americans felt as if they had more of a reason to pick on the Muslim community. In the book called Argument by Seyler Gooch, there is an article of the name "Flailing after Muslims" by Bob Herbert. According to New York Times, Herbert is a journalist for them. His main topic that he wrote about was politics, which makes him a credible author for this article. In this article, A Republican from Long Island and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee named Peter King decided to have committee hearings because he believed the Muslim community was threatening America with terrorist plots. Herbert's point in this article is King's investigations on the Muslim community violates American principles. Herbert achieved this effective argument and convinced his audience with rhetorical devices such as emotional, logical, ethical appeals, even though he had one fallacy. .
There has shown to be a use of pathos in this article. The reason behind this is because of the emotional type of words and the argument itself. In the article, the rhetorical device is shown to be right after Herbert mentions the attacks on 9/11. "They will intensify the already overheated anti-Muslim feeling in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with the relentless investigation of terrorism. That's essential. But that is not the same as singling out, stereotyping and harassing an entire community" (Herbert 91). The use of words such as "intensify" "overheated", and "terrorism" creates tension for Herbert's audience, which makes the argument seem more believable. Herbert shows to have success using this specific rhetorical device. .
Herbert employs a credible source, which makes his argument much more trustworthy. The rhetorical device he uses, known as ethos, helps the audience build trust in the author with his reliable source.
