Society should be more involved in taking action when witnessing violent or even life threatening encounters between people. In the article, “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police,” Martin Gansberg uses sarcasm within his tone as well as emotional appeal of sympathy to persuade readers into thinking changes must be made in current society’s mindset on public safety. Martin Gansberg uses sarcasm within his tone in hopes of persuading his audience to stand up for what is right. When speaking of Assistant Chief Inspector Frederick M. Lussen, Gansberg explained, “He can give a matter-of-fact recitation on many murders. But the Kew Gardens slaying baffles him because the ‘good people’ failed to call the police” (Gansberg par. 4). The author utilizes sarcasm within the development of the quote to show his audience that these witnesses are not actually “good people.” …show more content…
Frederick M. Lussen, an Assistant Chief Inspector, stated, “‘If we had been called when he first attacked, the woman might not be dead now’” (Gansberg par. 5). The author uses pathos within this quote from an individual who worked on the case in order to draw potential bystanders in and show them the effects of their actions. This helps achieve Gansberg’s purpose by grasping the emotions of potential bystanders to persuade them that society needs to take action against possibly dangerous situations. Gansberg uses sympathetic pathos in his article in hopes of his audience responding with compassion when seeing the hurt in this situation and want to take a stand in order to prevent distress when something like this occurs. Unlike the bystanders who failed to do anything in the murder of Catherine Genovese. By using emotional appeal of sympathy, Gansberg effectively connects his audience to the situation in hopes of persuading them to take