Table of ContentsRhetorical Strategies to UseAnalysis of Cause and EffectComparison and ContrastClear Definition and Description of the PolicyUse of Examples and Instances real to connect with the audienceUse of sensual language, Denotative diction in presentationUse of instructional languageResponding and rejecting criticismLogic appealThe increase in the number of recurring crimes and robberies using firearms has led to the need to come up with a policy that restricts their use, with the aim of reducing crime and increasing security. If this policy is introduced, it will be more difficult for people with bad intentions to obtain firearms and firearms to threaten security and steal people's property. The objective is to convince Parliament to approve this bill in order to effectively meet this requirement. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayRhetorical Strategies to UseRhetorical strategies are the methods and techniques used to make the presentation or idea more effective and convincing. Compelling arguments inspire action and thus the arguments put forward gain public support. These strategies must be appropriate, relevant and effective to achieve the objectives set in the presentation. In presenting a strict gun policy to parliament, the minister or MP (speaker) can use the following rhetorical strategies to convince and condemn the other. parliamentarians (audience) to support the policy: Cause and effect analysis By inferring the events that lead to the increase in criminal activity (demand), the speaker will be able to show how the cause (lenient policies on guns) is linked to the effect (insecurity due to increased crime). This strategy will show parliamentarians how such leniency in gun regulation has been responsible for increased criminal activity (W. W Norton & Company, p. 1). Compare and Contrast One of the most effective means of persuasion is inferring the similarities and differences of different scenarios about the same problem. If the speaker were to give a situation in which a citizen was attacked by a robber, who carries a knife in scenario 1 and a gun in scenario 2, then state the possible outcomes of each scenario concluding which one is the more aggravated (the gun scenario, obviously), it would help convince parliamentarians why it is important to have strict gun policies. In Bill Clinton's DNC speech, she contrasts the Republican "you're on your own" type of government with the Democrats' "we're in this together" type of government (Poynter, pp. 1-6). Clear definition and description of the policyThe term “strict gun policy” is too vague and, therefore, some parliamentarians may reject it simply because they do not understand what it means. Providing a clear picture of what the policy encompasses will allow reluctant minds to explore it. The speaker may need to explain the terms of this policy, such as: how stringent gun ownership will go, how people with a "high risk" profile will be affected by such a policy , whether ordinary people can still own firearms provided they have the appropriate permits. documentation, and whether the government provided.