Werrick 1

Ally Werrick

Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft

Fielding

February 16, 2018

Alcohol on College Campuses

Imagine a young college student at a party. They are probably drinking a little more

than they should be, leading to an opening of possible bad decisions. Another college student

may notice that, and take advantage of the person who had one too many. Who is in the

wrong here? The person who drank too much or the other student who took advantage of

that?

These are the questions that are in big debate today. Sexual assault on college

campuses has become an epidemic, with twenty percent of women saying they have been

sexually assault within their four years at university, according to the Washington Post-Kaiser

Family Foundation poll (Anderson). Additionally, they found that thirty percent of the

incidents were alcohol related. Although Daniel Luzer recognizes this is an issue, in his

article Is Alcohol Really to Blame for the Prevalence of Sexual Assault on College Campuses,

Luzer does not believe alcohol is the issue. Instead, it is the coed environment college

students live in regularly today. Although Luzer establishes his argument with outside

sources and statistical evidence, he fails to recognize how social norms in America’s culture

have changed. Specifically, social pressures from social media, binge drinking and gender

role expectations. Luzer’s argument is stuck in the past and therefore fails to effectively

convince his audience that sexual assault is the result of unrestricted male and female

interaction.
 Werrick 2

In Is Alcohol Really to Blame for the Prevalence of Sexual Assault on College

Campuses?, Daniel Luzer’s main argument is that alcohol is not the problem, the close proximity

that female and male college students are living in, is the primary issue causing sexual assault.

To support this claim, Luzer cites statistics throughout his article and tells a logical story to

evoke pathos out of his audience. It can be inferred that his audience are middle aged adults,

which is shown from the story told from an older adult, who explained what it was like “back in

the day”. As well, Luzer is actively talking about the current millenials, not talking to them. The

article was written in a topical format, it categorizes various aspects and sides of the argument

Luzer is trying to make.

At the readers initial look at the article, the second paragraph accounts for all the works

of writing and contributions Daniel Luzer has made. This contributes to his credibility and his

ethos because it shows that Luzer is an experienced writer and editor. As stated on the front

page, “Luzer is a writer and an editor who serves as the news editor of Governing magazine. He

also has contributed to publications including Columbia Journalism Review, Mother Jones, and

Pacific Standard.” (par. 2). Although the type of publications are not identified, the multiple

places that he submitted work to still show that Luzer is a knowledgeable writer. Mentioning his

credentials, the readers feel trust for the author and what he is about to talk about. However, in

the second paragraph, there is no other area where the audience gets ethos. As the article

continues, Luzer no longer produces ethos, disconnecting from his audience.

Throughout the article, Luzer consistently implements outside sources to reinforce the

evidence he provides. The strongest way he conveyed his evidence was through statistics; “A

2010 article in the Washington Examiner explained that ‘women are increasingly being

victimized on college campuses across the Washington region’ and ‘five out of eight’ campuses
 Werrick 3

in the area indicated an increase in sexual offenses committed from 2007 to 2008.” (par. 11).

Using facts to put emphasis on the crisis at hand is a strong writing technique Luzer uses in his

piece. Another aspect of logos Luzer uses is through citing other opinions to either contrast or

support his argument. He contradicts his own argument when he cites, “According to the 2007

Campus Sexual Assault Study published by the U.S. Department of Justice, ‘alcohol consumption

is a major risk factor for sexual assault.’” (par. 4). Although it is a strong technique to include

opposing sides to an argument, Luzer fails to see the entire picture. Following the notable

quotation, Luzer quickly shuts down the factor alcohol plays in sexual assault. After using such a

strong statement, it becomes too contradictory that in his opinion, alcohol actually does not play

a role in sexual assault. Doing so, it can very likely leave the audience confused. Overall, Luzer

does not make his use of logical evidence enough for his audience to comprehend his main point

that alcohol is not the main player in sexual assault in college.

Luzer delivers a sense of emotion through pathos to his audience. However, instead of

achieving positive emotions, the language Luzer uses provokes unfavorable and aversive

reactions. Assuming at least half of the readers are women, Luzer quotes narrow minded ideas.

He offends his audience by generalizing women: “Katie McDonough responded at Salon the

very next day. "[W]omen's behavior is the real reason they are victimized,” (par. 10). Accusing

women of asking for rape is unethical enough, but Luzer does nothing to reject what Katie

McDonough had said either. The use of pathos by Luzer is not executed in an ethical way.

Sexual assault is a very complex and sensitive issue, that varies on a case by case basis.

Therefore, to stereotype women’s actions, especially in reference to sexual assault, is unjust.

Despite the heavy use of quotations and citations, Daniel Luzer does not make a strong

enough argument that alcohol should not be blamed for sexual assault on college campuses. The
 Werrick 4

author is not effective because he fails to account for the other prevalent factors contributing to

sexual assault. From the use of social media today, social expectations and pressures, to binge

drinking culture, they all are highly impactful to why sexual assault is at an all time high. It is

necessary to acknowledge and create change towards this issue because it is more likely than not

to affect you or someone you know. Gender is a major factor as well because women are four

times more likely to be sexual assaulted than men (Statistics). The conversation of sexual assault

needs to be discussed, and it is clear that men need to be a part of the discussion. Sexual assault

encompases anything from unwanted touching to rape. The lines can be blurry, especially when

alcohol is added to the situation, and men and women do not always know when they might be

crossing that line. Friends, peers, and even bystanders all have a responsibility to help limit

sexual assault on college campuses.

Work Cited

Anderson, Nick. “Poll Shows That 20 Percent of Women Are Sexually Assaulted in College.”

The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 June 2015.

 Werrick 5

Luzer, Daniel. "Is Alcohol Really to Blame for the Prevalence of Sexual Assault on College

Campuses?" Sexual Assault on Campus, edited by Jack Lasky, Greenhaven Press, 2016.

Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accessed 31 Jan. 2018.

Originally published in Pacific Standard, 18 Nov. 2013.

“Statistics.” Know Your IX, www.knowyourix.org/issues/statistics/.

Wallace, Kelly. “Study: 23% of Women Sexually Assaulted in College.” CNN, Cable News

Network, 23 Sept. 2015.