Remy Melina: LiveScience Writer
Recently, LiveScience has conducted a study in which humans are put into a 3D world in which they had to pull a switch to determine the fate of 6 individuals. In the 3D world, the subjects could choose to do nothing and allow the train to kill five hikers, or pull a switch to reroute the boxcar to a different track, where it would kill one hiker. 147 people volunteered to test the experiment: 14 people allowed the train to kill the 5 hikers, while 133 people chose to kill 1 hiker and save the 5 others. The experiment study encapsulates the ideals of what's morally correct/incorrect, by asking the rhetorical question: What would you do?
The use of the question is effective because it allows the audience to think to themselves whether or not they would kill 1 person or 5 people, and which is more important. In the end, someone is dying. But what if that 1 person was going to be the next president, or scientist? What if those 5 people had nothing going for them, but you still chose to save them over the person with potential? The question is rhetorically effective because it makes the audience think about themselves while reading the article, which allows the audience to put themselves in the position of the hikers or the subjects of the experiment. Overall, the use of the one, simple question stimulates the audience's visualization and thoughts, which is very effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment