DeCastro 1

Ellen DeCastro

Yeaton

Pre-AP English 10H 6

5 March 2018

Citation

Nichols, John. “Senate Republicans Are Trying to Give the 1 Percent a $1.9 Trillion Tax

Break.” The Nation, 20 Oct. 2017, www.thenation.com/article/senate-republicans-are-

trying-to-give-the-1-percent-a-1-9-trillion-tax-break/.

Part 1: Article Analysis

John Nichols gives an update on the voting results of the Senate on the tax break bill. The bill’s

general purpose is a budget which in all provides a $1.9 trillion tax break for the top one percent

the population in the United States. The author then goes into the topic with his personal feelings

against the break saying how he believes it is “horrible” because it helps the top 1% at the

expense of the lower 99% which is his financial class.

Tone: In the beginning of the article, John Nichols’ tone can be interpreted as stolid. From the

beginning to the middle of the article, he doesn’t use heavily negative connotated words. The

only way to tell his opinion the subject is through the types of quotes he chose to use which are

also anti the tax cut bill, “ ‘This is not a bad budget bill, it is a horrific budget bill’ ” (Nichols). In

the end, John Nichols’ tone is more frustrated shown through the use of phrases such as:

“robbing from the rest of us,” “will burden working-class,” and “Robin Hood in reverse” relating

the new bill to an act of crime and selfishness.

 DeCastro 2

Context: Nichols includes a brief and echoed description of the purpose of the tax break bill and

the results of the vote, but in order for the reader to fully understand the article he/she should

hear the opinions of a person who is pro the tax break to recognize the reason why it was passed

and why it is such a controversy in the first place. Parts of the article, especially in the end,

include Nichols’ negative opinions on the bill being passed.

Appeals: The author appeals to logic through common sense with “ ‘the people on top are doing

unbelievably well … now is not the time’ ” (Nichols) which provides a relation between the well

being of the upper class to the lower class. He also appeals to pathos in “ ‘I don’t think its right

to make Wisconsin’s hard working middle class families pay for it by blowing a hole in the

deficit’ ” (Nichols) which specifically appeals to the audience’s sympathy and charity towards

the less privileged. Yet, the main appeal by Nichols is to ethos since throughout the article he

cites many well known sources and officials “Los Angeles Times” and “Bernie Sanders” which

boosts his credibility and legitimizes his opinion.

Strategies and Devices: A main strategy John Nichols uses is short, simple sentences which is

syntax. This sentence style is declarative and doesn’t offer room for the reader to be confused

and interpret the statement as anything other than what the author intended for it to mean.

Organization: The article follows a topical pattern where the claim is the main group followed

by multiple pieces of evidence.

 DeCastro 3

Diction/Word Choice: The article is easy to understand by its readers with simple/direct

vocabulary which follows the standard level of diction. This level of diction is written with a

professional tone and is intended for an audience who has average education, careful not to use

highly specialized words in order to appeal to the audience. Standard vocabulary includes words

ranging anywhere from “horrible” to “deficits” which could have been replaced with words like

“heinous” and “defalcations.”

Part 2: Personal Response

The author begins the article with context of the article. Here, Nichols’ includes the occasion, the

reason why the article was written, of the article which is that the Senate chose to back a bill

enacting tax cuts on the top 1% of Americans. The author’s main claim is that this bill is unjust

and should be re-evaluated because it is not beneficial for the majority of the population. John

Nichols’ concludes the article by restating his opinion with phrases having a frustrated tone like

“robbing from the rest of us” (Nichols). The intended audience seems to the working class of

Americans who don’t support the bill and “will [be burdened]” (Nichols) by its effects. Most of

the article is based on the author’s opinion which he forms from the facts of the “51-49 vote”

(Nichols). The author is repeatedly enforcing his negative opinion of the bill with quotes from

high-ranking officials who oppose the bill. Based on this article, and speaking as a person of the

middle-class, I am on the side of the author and am against the passing of this bill because to me

it seems that the losses outweigh the benefits especially since the losses affect the majority of

citizens.