Throughout "A Modest Proposal", Jonathan Swift obviously utilizes biting satire to illustrate the English as "savages" for forcing the Irish into their terrible conditions. At the time of the writing, Ireland was completely dominated by England and was essentially a "conquered territory". Similar to their treatment of the Americans, the English withheld the right to vote, buy land, or receive an education from the Irish, and thus pushed the Irish to resent the English and eventually begin a revolution. In his essay, Swift mentions that the Americans under English control consume "schoolboys", and thus, like the Irish, are savages. Similarly, Swift writes that "a native from the island Formosa" told him that "the carcass [of a human]... [is] a prime dainty", painting the people of Formosa as savages. However, because the Formosans were not under the English's control and actually were known for consuming small children, while the Americans and Irish were comparatively civilized, Swift can be interpreted as saying that the English's forceful rule will eventually drive both the Americans and Irish into states of savagery. Consequently, Swift portrays the English as the true "savages", pushing the two territories they control into poverty and starvation.

Swift similarly uses a paradox to emphasize the English as the real savages, writing that "Those who are more thrifty may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen". By juxtaposing "carcass" and "admirable gloves... fine gentlemen", Swift brings out the negative qualities of the English. As those who were regarded as "ladies" and "fine gentlemen" during this period were the English, Swift associates the obviously uncivilized "carcass... skin" with the supposedly civilized English, thus criticizing the English for creating the conditions that the Irish are forced to live in. Furthermore, when Swift suggests that the English would wear the carcass on their "gloves [and]... boots" indicates that, to the English, the Ireland is nothing more than a decoration or accessory to their nation, rather than an integral part of it.

Wallace, in the early stages of the piece, mainly develops his ethos by simply describing the area and the festival itself, illustrating the festival as "joyful and lucrative and loud" with "attendance over 100,000". He even notices the "free pamphlets with recipes, eating tips, and Lobster Fun Facts", proving his knowledge of everything involving the festival. In the next few paragraphs, Wallace goes on to explain the entomology and eating history of the lobster to his audience of high class eaters, again proving his validity and understanding of the topic over his already knowledgeable audience. Later, Wallace writes that he isn't "trying to give... a PETA-like screed here", separating himself from a group that most likely isn't supported by the readers of the essay. Thus, he establishes himself as a neutral speaker who can, and should, be trusted.

Wallace's use of ethos eventually allows his use of logos to further strengthen his argument. By successfully establishing himself as a voice to be trusted, Wallace is able to lead a scientific discussion about the human and lobster "cerebral complex", and eventually disprove the Main Lobster Promotion Council's claim that lobsters have "no cerebral cortex, which in humans is the area of the brain that gives the experience of pain." Wallace also utilizes deductive reasoning to argue how the consumption of lobster is unethical. He begins with the general statement that "the... criterion [if an animal is in pain] is whether the animal demonstrates behavior associated with pain", and then smugly points out how "it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics... not to see struggling [and] thrashing... as just such pain-behavior."

Much of Wallace's argument ultimately relies on pathos, relating the lobster's pain to a human's. He vividly describes "ways to kill your lobster", including "driv[ing] a sharp heavy knife point-first into... the midpoint between the lobster's eyestalks", then relates this to the third eye on a human's body, forcing the readers to visualize such a violent action on a human rather than a lobster. Throughout the piece, also, Wallace repeatedly personifies the lobster, reporting that the lobster "cling[s]" to the container, "like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof". By describing the lobster as an emotional, aware being, Wallace is able to disprove the argument that "lobsters' brains [can't feel]", successfully questioning the ethics of consuming lobsters.

In "Just Walk on By: Black Men and Public Space", Staples utilizes numerous paradoxes to both support his argument and invoke thought in the reader. One such paradox is "accustomed to but never comfortable". Staples, by writing this, illustrates the difficulties that African Americans, like Staples, are forced to live with. Most people are able to interchange the phrases "accustomed to" and "comfortable [with]", however Staples draws a strict line between the two. By separating the two above phrases with "never", Staples emphasizes how his life is completely different from the life that most people live. Furthermore, Staples  could've wrote the phrase "but never comfortable" as a non-essential phrase - a phrase that can be taken out of the sentence entirely. However, he decides to include it as an essential phrase, reflecting how the situation that Staples is trapped within is universal for all like him. It is impossible to escape such racism, rather, it is a fact of life as is food and water.

The last sentence of the piece also acts as a paradox. The reference Staples makes refers to how hikers who hike in dangerous areas commonly wear bells to safely warn bears of their presence. By comparing his whistling to the hikers' bells, he implies that he is required to act careful around "bear country", or white society, and that he does this to ensure his own safety. However, unlike the hikers, Staples constantly lives in his own "bear country" and is thus required to always wear his figurative "cowbell" to stay safe from his "predators", or white society.

Form Meets Content

Ms. Valentino mentioned the idea of "form meets content" several times over the last few weeks and "Shooting Dad" appears to contain many instances in which the sentence structure and diction of the piece matches its content.

One of Vowell's purposes is to illustrate how truly similar she and her father are despite their differences in opinions regarding politics, guns, etc. As she describes her and her father's differences in the first half of the piece, the sentence structure seems to foreshadow her eventual realization that she and her father are more alike than she thinks. Vowell says "All he ever cared about were guns. All I ever cared about was art." The parallelism and repetition of the phrase "All he/I ever cared about" hints at their similarities. Despite the slight difference between the sentences at the end, guns vs. art, the majority of both sentences are the same. This indicates that both Vowell and her father are largely the same - both have an intense passion for their respective arts. The only difference between the two is what they're passionate about. Vowell later describes a similar situation when she writes "available flat surfaces were buried under a million scraps... available flat surfaces were buried under piles of staff paper". Again, Vowell repeats the beginning phrase, "available flat surfaces were buried under...", and leaves the end of the sentence to describe their differences. This parallelism and repetition serves to emphasize their likeness - like the sentence structure, the father-daughter pair parallel much of each other. The fact that their differences are forced to the end of these sentences reflect how their disagreements are relatively insignificant