Response to "A small place"

1. This article uses a unique rhetorical strategy. How does this particular technique better for the intended message than others?

2. Why is it that the reader doesn't exactly feel offended by the accusations and insinuations made toward them?

3. The article makes some points that are seemingly central to the fundamental idea, however, there are many twists and turns of arguments. Why is this?

Response to question 3:

This reading was interesting, mainly because of it's seemingly confusing changes in tone and content. I think the author does a good job of appealing to ethos precisely because of how they help to establish a very detailed visual of desired perspective while at the same time establishing a particular atmosphere and emotion that changes gradually enough to where the reader doesn't have to make too big of leaps to connect with the author.

The funny thing is that the author is sort of incorporating some sarcasm but they do it in a way that makes the reader sort of de-personalize or make some sort of distinction between the themselves and a "tourist." The skill is that they don't make any direct accusations toward the reader at first. The author begins with phrases like "if you go to antigua," and "you may be the sort of tourist." So naturally, the reader feels as though this is some sort of hypothetical conjecture that they can surmise as a whim they can let play along with a little curiosity. This is effective because it interests the reader enough to participate in this engagement and continue the read. The funny part is the text concludes with the author placing the blame of the issue on the reader themselves, yet the reader actually makes it all the way to the end. Maybe they aren't necessarily agreeing with everything being stated, but at least "hypothetically" considering it.

Basically my point is that the author's rhetorical strategy is effective.

As far as the content of the article, it's interesting. At some point, I realized that the author was actually really good at appealing to ethos. They aren't one-sided (at least their logic doesn't deem so) because they establish an attitude of fairness and understanding to the misfortune of their country.

But.... they still make it clear that the repercussions of everything they describe is still oozing bitterness. You can tell. It's a good read and it's very convincing.