Identify Examples of Bias, Fallacies, and Specific Rhetorical Devices in the Speech

Identify examples of bias, fallacies, and specific rhetorical devices in the speech.

One example of bias in this case is that he proposes to speak to the poor, working class people. He wants to make them feel that the other candidate, "Boss" Jim Getty's, does not understand them or understand what they need, but that he Charles Foster Kane does understand them and will be in their corner, tending to their needs and fighting for what their interests are. Whether those interests are, being underfed, being underpaid or being underprivileged, he understands and has the answers. He also focuses his speech towards the underdogs as opposed to the upper class citizens.

I think it's difficult to pinpoint what is a fallacy without knowing the full background of the competition and the speaker, but it could be that his first official act will be to hire a special district attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Jim W. Gettys. It's also possible that he will have many more things to focus on and take care of, especially for his first official act, than to run down his former competitor.

Specific rhetorical phrases include "friend of the working man", "in complete control of the government of this state", "The decent, ordinary citizens", amongst others. Additionally, his use of the word "boss" is rhetoric as it makes his competitor look like he's a big shot, or at the very least thinks he's a big shot. His rhetoric makes a subtle comparison between the 'boss' and the underclass people in an attempt to point out, in my opinion, a class difference, and to insinuate that the "Boss" Jim Getty doesn't care about them.

How did the speaker address arguments and counterarguments?

He claims that he made no campaign promises, because he had no hope of being elected, but now that he feels he has the support of the 'ordinary' citizens and the working class, he feels that he has a chance and will implement the change that the community needs.

Were the speaker's arguments effective?

It is my opinion that the speakers arguments were not effective. I didn't feel that his arguments were completely effective because he focused so much on putting his competition down and making Jim Getty's look like the bad guy, and like he had committed some crime, even though he never actually pinpointed what these supposed crimes are. He puts his assurance in what the people believe without really knowing or sure what the people believe. I'm of the opinion that effective arguing should focus on true, valid strengths, even if you feel the need to put your competition down. He claims that he will 'protect' the underprivileged, underfed and underpaid, but he doesn't state clearly, how he will protect them. He talks about these 'promises' that he made and that he intends to keep, but never actually states what those promises are. His argument would have been more effective if he had of stated the specific promises and what he planned to do to keep those promises.