Nelson Okunlola November 18, 2015 Period 1

Evidence Type of Appeals Inference-Commentary

Quote: “If something captured my undisciplined imagination, I pursued it with a zeal bordering obsession, and from the age of seventeen until my late twenties that something was mountain climbing” (Krakauer 93).

Context: Krakauer relates McCandless’s wildness to his own as a child. He says his wild obsession was climbing mountains.

Type of Appeal: Ethical

Devices: Personal Story/Anecdote:He describes his own personal wildness as a youth, so that his audience can relate to him and see how he relations to McCandless.

Analysis: Krakauer explains how Chris isn’t alone in his recklessness but it is something that many young people do too. He discredits the presumption that Chris is a “Reckless idiot” and states that he was once a “reckless idiot”. By establishing this persona, he allows his audience to relate to him, and at the same time he draws a connection between himself and Chris. By showing this connection between himself and Chris, his audience can view him as a credible source, making it easier for him to convey his message.

Quote: “It probably misses the point, though, to castigate McCandless for being ill prepared. He was green, and he overestimated his resilience, but he was sufficiently skilled to last for sixteen weeks on little more than his wits and ten pounds of rice. And he was fully aware when he entered the bush that he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error. He knew precisely what was at stake,” (Krakauer 124).

Context: As Krakauer compare Chris to Franklins, he says although their similar, Chris is substantially different.

Type of Appeal: Logical

Devices: Facts, And Deductive Reasoning:Krakauer list facts and gives premises while connecting the dots. This is to appeal to his audience’s reasoning

My comparing and Contrasting Franklin to Chris, Krakauer notices some specific things about Chris. He notes that Chris knew what was ahead of him and what was at stake and yet he still ventured on this journey. Although some people though McCandless was crazy he was not, he went in there un prepared completely on purpose. With this , the author lets his audience ask questions like , “was Chris really a reckless idiot, or was he a noble idealist?” The normal thing to think is that he was just an idiot, but by employing this logic and reason he makes his audience truly think and possible go against their previous presumptions.

Quote: “It is hardly unusual for a young man to be drawn to a pursuit considered reckless by his elders; engaging in risky behavior is a rite of passage in our culture no less than in most others. Danger has always held a certain allure. That, in large part, is why so many teenagers drive too fast and drink too much and take too many drugs, why it has always been so easy for nations to recruit young men to go to war. It can be argued

Type of Appeal: Logic

Device: Deductive reasoning:He has little warrants and he sums it all up to conclude a claim.

Analysis: Krakauer is unable to reason out Chris’s actions so he automatically just concludes that Chris does the things he does because of his youth. Krakauer concludes that Chris’s behavior and action aren’t completely unusual but it is because he is young. Throughout the book, Chris is characterized as zealous, adventurous and with unusual intentions. By using deductive e reasoning to appeal to logic, Krakauer shows that Chris isn’t a noble idealist but rather a

Nelson Okunlola November 18, 2015 Period 1

that youthful derring-do is in fact evolutionarily adaptive, a behavior encoded in our genes. McCandless, in his fashion, merely took risk-taking to its logical extreme.”(Krakauer 124)

Context: Krakauer is unable to reason out Chris’s actions so he automatically just concludes that Chris does the things he does because of his youth.

“reckless idiot.” Krakauer tells his audience (teenagers) to not take their zeal to an extreme level.