In this op-ed, a journalist writes about how comments on his social media about the passing of his family dog were more kind-hearted and sympathetic then the comments she received about an article she had written about Syrian refugees fleeing genocide. The purpose is to inform the audience that the general public seems to care more about a family dog than millions of human lives. The author provides several quotations of responses about the care and well-wished for his dog and the negative and heartless comments about leaving the refugees to fend for themselves. The evidence provided pertains mostly to the pathos area of the triangle. The author remains relatively informal throughout the entirety of the article. The tone suggests that she is attempting to relate to the reader in order to persuade him. The author uses rhetorical questions asked in order to emphasize his point. There are photos of the Syrian refugees and the family dog attached. The limitations involved with this piece is that the only evidence involved are quotations from the people who responded to his article, and that is a very limited group of individuals. The most effective rhetorical strategies used is the pathos. The author plays on the audience’s emotions in order to get his point across. He especially uses the general public’s guilt.