4. idiomatically i think that makes me the perfect person to speak about this because fentanyl transcends partisanship and ideology. this is a totally different problem
rhetorical device?
5. i was speaking outside to the media, and to set a statistic, about a 737 aircraft plane. could you imagine the national attention it would get if they were reported of a plane crash every day and killing 190 people?
rhetorical device?
9. but, because it is 180 drug addicts, we dont feel that way, because america is known to bully and shame drug addicts, instead of dealing with and understanding the root of the problem
but the sad news is, the narrative is changing because the two statistics say that in all likelihood, almost every person in this room has lost a friend, family member or colleague to the disease known as addiction. i have attended more funerals than i care to share with yall. i could cry for days about the caske ts i have carried and the people i love, dearly, deeply, in my soul. good people, not just drug addicts. uncles, friends, cousins, normal people, some people that just got into a car wreck and started taking a pain pill to manage it. one thing led to another, how fast it spirals out of control, and i dont think people truly understand -so many people.
rhetorical device?
rhetorical devices?
i am not here to defend the use of illegal drugs and i also understand the paradox of my

Question

Accepted Answer

The text appears to be about analyzing rhetorical devices in different statements. Let's take the first underlined statement: "I WAS SPEAKING OUTSIDE TO THE MEDIA, AND TO SET A STATISTIC, ABOUT A 737 AIRCRAFT PLANE. COULD YOU IMAGINE THE NATIONAL ATTENTION IT WOULD GET IF THEY WERE REPORTED OF A PLANE CRASH EVERY DAY AND KILLING 190 PEOPLE?"

# Brief Explanations:
This statement uses a rhetorical device called **comparison (or analogy)**. The speaker compares the attention a single plane crash (with 190 deaths) would get if it happened daily to the attention (or lack thereof) given to other issues (implied, like the fentanyl crisis or drug addiction issues mentioned elsewhere). By positing a hypothetical scenario of daily plane crashes with 190 deaths, the speaker is trying to emphasize the magnitude of a problem (likely the drug crisis, as context suggests) by drawing a parallel to a situation (plane crashes) that the audience would recognize as extremely serious and newsworthy. Another possible device here is **hypothetical reasoning** (creating a "what if" scenario) to make a point about public attention and the severity of an issue. It could also be seen as **appeal to emotion** or **appeal to logic** (logos) by using a vivid, relatable example (plane crashes) to make the audience grasp the seriousness of the problem being discussed (like drug-related deaths, which might be as frequent or impactful but not getting the same attention).

For the second underlined statement: "BUT, BECAUSE IT IS 180 DRUG ADDICTS, WE DON'T FEEL THAT WAY, BECAUSE AMERICA IS KNOWN TO BULLY AND SHAME DRUG ADDICTS, INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH AND UNDERSTANDING THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM"

# Brief Explanations:
This uses **contrast** (comparing the reaction to 180 drug addicts dying vs. 180 people dying in a plane crash) to highlight societal hypocrisy or misplaced priorities. It also employs **social commentary** (about America's approach to drug addicts—bullying and shaming instead of addressing root causes) and could be seen as an **appeal to pathos** (evoking empathy or frustration about the unfair treatment of drug addicts) and **logos** (presenting a logical critique of the system's approach).

For the third underlined statement: "BUT THE SAD NEWS IS, THE NARRATIVE IS CHANGING BECAUSE THE TWO STATISTICS SAY THAT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, ALMOST EVERY PERSON IN THIS ROOM HAS LOST A FRIEND, FAMILY MEMBER OR COLLEAGUE TO THE DISEASE KNOWN AS ADDICTION. I HAVE ATTENDED MORE FUNERALS THAN I CARE TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL. I COULD CRY FOR DAYS ABOUT THE CASKE TS I HAVE CARRIED AND THE PEOPLE I LOVE, DEARLY, DEEPLY, IN MY SOUL. GOOD PEOPLE, NOT JUST DRUG ADDICTS. COUSINS, NORMAL PEOPLE, SOME PEOPLE THAT JUST GOT INTO A CAR WRECK AND STARTED TAKING A PAIN PILL TO MANAGE IT. ONE THING LED TO ANOTHER, HOW FAST IT SPIRALS OUT OF CONTROL, AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE TRULY UNDERSTAND - SO MANY PEOPLE."

# Brief Explanations:
This uses **anecdotal evidence** (the speaker's personal experiences with funerals, loved ones lost to addiction) to humanize the issue of addiction, moving from the abstract (statistics) to the personal (individual stories). It also uses **emotional appeal (pathos)** through vivid descriptions of grief ("could cry for days," "carried caskets," "people I love") to make the audience feel the impact of addiction. Additionally, there's **redefinition** or **expansion of the narrative**—shifting from seeing addiction as a problem of "drug addicts" to "normal people" (cousins, car wreck victims who got addicted to pain pills), broadening the audience's perception of who is affected. The phrase "how fast it spirals out of control" is a **metaphor** (comparing addiction's progression to a spiral) to illustrate its rapid and uncontrollable nature.

Since the question is about identifying rhetorical devices, and the subfield under Arts related to language and rhetoric is **Linguistics** (specifically rhetoric or discourse analysis, which falls under Linguistics or Literature, but more closely Linguistics for rhetorical devices).

### For the first statement (about plane crash statistic):
# Brief Explanations:
The device here is **hypothetical scenario/analogy**. The speaker creates a hypothetical situation (daily plane crashes with 190 deaths) to compare with the actual issue (likely drug deaths) to highlight the disparity in public attention. By asking "Could you imagine...", it's also a **rhetorical question** to engage the audience and make them reflect on the attention such a scenario would get, implicitly criticizing the lack of attention to the real issue (drug crisis).

# Answer:
Rhetorical devices: Hypothetical Scenario (Analogy), Rhetorical Question. The speaker uses a hypothetical daily plane crash scenario (with 190 deaths) to analogize the severity of an unaddressed issue (implied drug crisis) and asks a rhetorical question to highlight public attention disparity.

### For the second statement (about 180 drug addicts):
# Brief Explanations:
The device is **Contrast** (comparing reaction to 180 drug deaths vs. 180 plane crash deaths) and **Social Commentary** (criticizing America's bullying/shaming of drug addicts instead of solving the problem). It contrasts societal empathy for plane crash victims with the lack of empathy for drug addicts, highlighting hypocrisy.

# Answer:
Rhetorical devices: Contrast, Social Commentary. The speaker contrasts reactions to 180 drug deaths vs. plane crash deaths, critiquing America’s approach to drug addicts.

### For the third statement (personal stories of addiction):
# Brief Explanations:
The devices are **Anecdotal Evidence** (sharing personal funeral experiences), **Pathos (Emotional Appeal)** (vivid grief descriptions), **Metaphor** ("spirals out of control" for addiction’s progression), and **Redefinition** (expanding "addicts" to "normal people"). The speaker uses personal stories to humanize addiction, evokes emotion, and broadens the audience’s perception of those affected.

# Answer:
Rhetorical devices: Anecdotal Evidence, Pathos, Metaphor, Redefinition. The speaker shares personal stories, uses emotional language, a spiral metaphor, and redefines addiction’s victims to engage the audience.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

For the first statement (about plane crash statistic):

Answer:

For the second statement (about 180 drug addicts):