In The New York Times issue, “An Hourly Worker’s Questions for the President”, Mr. Henderson is seeking out an argument using the 10 components to achieve the successfulness of a great letter to the editor. Observing the letter from the first glance you realize that the letter is missing the clear citation as it is not shown who the initial writer of the article. Reading deeper into the letter, Mr. Henderson applies the component of an objection by stating the inabilities to live a prideful and happy life while being a low-wage, hourly worker. Although he uses the component in his letter to the editor, that doesn’t mean that it was extremely clear as it could’ve been seen as many different subjects of an objection. Mr. Henderson rightfully uses the component of clarification for the fact of him being a low-wage and hourly worker that is completely involved in the situation. He, as a person and worker, experiences the objection because the issue is affecting his personal and financial life. Same being with his credentials applied into the letter about him talking about how he is a 65 year old man with a low-wage job that is struggling with the scheduling and pay.
Later inside of the letter he introduces the component of a premise. He begins to talk about how the job creation and increased wages is not being lived out by everyone like the president and labor department say. He argues that they basically say their doing one thing to help hourly workers when in reality they’re making only a small positive impact on workers from what Mr. Henderson can see. Mr. Henderson then gives a sort of unclear fact about workers around the world stating that all his hometown and the millions of workers waiting for the next week schedule are all dealing with this issue. I personally say its a unclear fact because its not shown completely that this is happening to the millions of employees getting paid hourly.
At the end of his letter he talks about the truth and how if the president cant solve these issues like said he would, that the people of the country can’t do better than what they already are doing to get their income. The writer also uses the call to action component when he lists three questions he believes need answers to by the president in order to succeed in the country. He is putting out there that he wants to promote the questions and wants more people in the country to wonder the same thing and push the issue onto the president.
Inside of this letter to the editor I don’t believe to have found the components, hopeful proposal and rhetorical flourish throughout at all. There was no clear point to give hope that all is not lost yet because it ends on the point that the president isn’t pursuing the issues like said he would. Then the rhetorical flourish isn’t provided to where he gives that last little bit of hope that connects the reader to the initial letter.
In conclusion, this letter to the editor was not overly terrible in my personal opinion, but it did miss many key components that would have made it extremely affectable to the paper. Missing some of the little things of components can make huge change is your letter to the editor and can even get you published into the paper if done perfectly.