The New York Times

The article that I read in The New York Times is fairly relevant to our current discussion on The Devil's Highway. The associated press asserts that immigrants are changing their migration routes from the usual, well-known paths in Arizona to paths throughout Texas. The change troubles the local governments due to the very few experience with these types of situations. It is quite conceivable that the author operates ethos, logo, and pathos into the article.

The author uses facts and statistics in the article. This implies that logos were used to appeal to logic. They convince the audience that they can support their claim. The author supports the article with facts and statistics. This implies that he gets a lot of credibility and pinpoints his facts. The author states, "Nearly a million people live in Pima County, and the 171 bodies found in 2012 were consistent with annual totals dating back to 2004, according to a report by the migration institute". With the statistical support, the author can show its readers that they have they have the knowledge.

The author also adduces pathos in the article. Throughout the article, there are many points where the author makes an emotional connection with its readers. He uses a mix of sympathy and frankness. The article states, "He would prefer for the government to erect a double-layer border fence. But in the meantime, he does not want to see people continue to die on the ranch. He estimates he has found 25 bodies on the property in the last 23 years". He shows sympathy for the immigrants, which really catches the readers' attention. The author is also very straightforward with what he says.

When the author uses ethos in the article, he is appealing to ethics or credibility. The author convinces their readers that they are qualified in what they are speaking of. Ethos are built up by logos. It is stated in the article, "I'm trying to expose the killing fields of Brooks County," Mr. Durham said. "If dead human beings don't catch your attention, what the hell else is going to? We're just trying to be human about it". This shows that the author is trying to catch your attention by appealing to a person's ethics. What catches your attention? The author is trying to persuade you by asking you questions and possibly emotionally shifting your opinion.

The article definitely conveys rhetoric devices.