Analysis of "Let Them Eat Dog" In his persuasive piece "Let Them Eat Dog," Jonathan Foer presents a strong case for the consumption of dogs, which is an unexpected subject for an essay. It is, nevertheless, quite hard to avoid the excellent reasoning he employs throughout the article after reading his extract. Foer is convincing and rational in his arguments, which cover a wide range from criticism of the flavor of dog meat to concerns about the ecological impact if Americans started eating dogs. The argument is so rational that it asks the reader to wonder why he would spend so much time arguing for eating dogs, a position that most people won't alter their beliefs on regardless of how compelling it is. This short paper presents a rhetorical analysis of Foer’s essay. In his book "Let Them Eat Dog," Jonathan Foer makes the argument that people in society should eat the millions of dogs that are about to be put down in shelters to end hunger. In his essay "A Modest Proposal," Jonathan Swift advises that Ireland use the excess children as a food supply to fight the famine at the time. The humorous arguments in "Let Them Eat Dog" and "A Modest Proposal" aim to educate society about the long-standing issue of apathy (Foer 604). Foer and Swift urge society to acknowledge the issue, inspire concern for a solution, and educate people on the limitations of intuitive thinking. The author is addressing a neutral audience. He is addressing Americans on how they can solve the problem of hunger by eating dog meat. There is no indication in the essay showing that the audience was hostile to the author. Even though the audience might not agree with the author’s sentiments, they are likely to just leave the matter as proposed without making any altercation. The author uses pathos or emotional appeal in conjunction with appeals of logos and ethos. Incidentally, his story has credibility due to the personal research he has undertaken on the issue. They made the most effective emotional appeal to the majority of individuals. Even if a person is intellectual, something or someone will still appeal to their emotions, and who does not adore puppies or infants? In the United States, eating dogs is only forbidden in six states, although eating human flesh is forbidden everywhere (Foer 605). Most individuals are more opposed to eating their dog or child than they are to millions of other children, parents, and other family members suffering without food and potentially passing away from hunger. By conducting a considerable personal investigation, Foer successfully establishes his credibility. He also uses reasoning and emotional appeal to persuade his audience that something has to be done to solve our flawed food supply system. Jonathan Safran Foer succeeds in his goal of educating readers about the unfairness and corruption that exist in the realm of factory farming and persuading the audience to think thoughtfully about their dietary choices via his comprehensive utilization of logic, rational thought, and argumentation, emotional appeals, as well as the personal credibility created by independent evaluation. In conclusion, Foer uses a combination of emotional (pathos), logical (logos) and ethos appeals to present the argument that dog meat can alleviate the problem of hunger.