Index Rhetorical strategies to use Cause and effect analysis Compare and contrast Clear definition and description of the policy Using real-life examples and instances to connect with the public Use of sensuality, Denotative diction in presentationUse of didactic languageConfronting and repelling criticsLogical appealThe increase in the number of recurring crimes and robberies with firearms has prompted the need to propose a policy that limits the use of such weapons, in an attempt to reduce crime and increase safety. If this policy is introduced, it will make it more difficult for malicious people to obtain firearms and guns to threaten security and rob people of their belongings. The objective is to convince Parliament to approve this bill to effectively respond to the need. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Rhetorical Strategies to Use Rhetorical strategies are the methods, techniques used to make the presentation or idea more effective and convincing. Convincing arguments incite action and thus the points made gain public support. These strategies must be appropriate, relevant and effective in achieving the intended objectives of the presentation. When presenting the strict gun policy to parliament, the minister or member of parliament (speaker) can use the following rhetorical strategies to convince and condemn other parliamentarians (audience) to support the policy: Cause and effect analysis Inferring events leading to increased criminal activity (need), the speaker will be able to show how the cause (lenient gun and firearms policies) relates to the policy effect (insecurity due to increased crime) . This strategy will show lawmakers how such leniency in firearms regulation has been responsible for the increase in criminal activity (W. W Norton & Company, p. 1).Compare and ContrastOne of the most effective methods of persuasion is the inference of the similarities and differences of different scenarios on the same problem. If the speaker were to describe a situation in which a citizen was attacked by a robber, carrying a knife in scenario 1 and carrying a gun in scenario 2, and then indicate the possible outcomes of each scenario concluding which was more aggravated ( the gun scenario, of course), this would help convince parliamentarians why it is important to have strict gun policies. In Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC, she contrasts the Republican "you're on your own" type of government with the "we're-in-this-together" type of government of the Democrats (Poynter, pp. 1-6). Clear definition and description of the policyThe term "strict gun policy" is too vague and as such some MPs may reject it simply because they don't understand what it means. Providing a clear picture of what the policy entails will allow reluctant minds to explore it. The speaker may need to explain the terms of the policy such as: how far the crackdown on gun ownership will go, how those with a “high risk” profile will be affected by the policy, whether ordinary people will be able still possess firearms as long as they have the proper documentation and if the government provided additional protection as it would take away people's means to defend themselves (W. W Norton & Company, pp. 4). Using real-life examples and instances to connect with audiences Providing stories and examples of how innocent civilians became victims of crime, simply because firearms were.