Jeremy Rifkin is a master of rhetoric. Using all three branches of the persuasive technique (pathos, logos, and ethos), he is able to appeal to the reader about the "humanity" of animals and how they should be treated with more respect like those of a small child. Through his use of modern events, as well as presenting the state of animal rights as a progressive and natural path for people to take, he creates a logically compelling argument for change, both in society and in the individual. It is logical, he argues, that all humanity should engage and advance such matters in a continuous discovery and improvement of human beings. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This is demonstrated by his use of ethics by establishing several major food industries such as McDonalds and Burger King, as leaders in research on animal behaviors and mindsets. These industries are so ingrained in the public consciousness as the antithesis of those of animal activists, whose corporate foundations are built on the slaughter and sale of animals, that the mere mention of their ongoing animal research into the cognitive and emotional senses should raise some curious. eyebrows. These companies are primarily concerned with profit, but by claiming that they are actively pursuing research on such a topic, it must mean something significant to the average reader Rifkin is writing to. But the use of multinationals could also distance people from Rifkin's thesis. Then Rifkin brings up government ethics, a higher and more important factor, to further persuade all opponents of animal rights. If the US government itself is enacting laws that prohibit the abuse of specific animals, as well as creating and implementing laws that promote their goodwill and being, then surely it must be a cause worth funding the money for of taxpayers (readers). And to further solidify the government case, Rifkin not only uses the U.S. government as an example; uses Germany and other nation states to persuade the reader that this is a global and progressive natural course for humanity to take. No individual wants to be interpreted as a fool or as a regressor. Rifkin uses such practical knowledge to speak personally to the reader, presenting the mistreatment of social animals as barbaric, backward, and wrong. By his assurance that governments in different countries around the world are participating in a progressive and natural way of recognizing and protecting animal rights, he is implicitly saying that one is barbaric, backward and simply wrong to argue against such natural progression. . It is becoming law and custom that animals have rights, and opposing those rights would paint you in an unfavorable light in the eyes of corporations and governments. The reader would therefore like to dissociate himself from such negative connotations by instead “adapting” to the “flow” and presenting himself as a progressive, enlightened and “just” animal rights supporter. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay While Rifkin mentions research that a good portion of animals are social beings who often participate with their young in their own learning experience, he raises several questions to get the reader thinking. Like “should we discourage the selling and buying of fur?” and what should happen to the "millions of pets raised in the.