After the assassination of Martin Luther King, many people wanted to react violently because of this misfortune. Cesar Chavez seeks to persuade people to help them understand that the only way to achieve meaningful, impactful change is through nonviolent action. His use of juxtaposition and antithesis to MLK's core beliefs to persuade his readers to have no doubt about the impact of nonviolent actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayChavez juxtaposes the nonviolent moment with historical allusions to lend credibility to his argument in which he paints that peaceful protest has more impact than violent actions. Chavez uses Ghani, who is a highly respected advocate of nonviolence, to evade the impact he was supposed to get from protesting Indian laws. By using this example and then stating a violent movement in which poor people were killed, he conveys to his audience that the nonviolent movement is effective and successful. Furthermore, to further convey to his audience, Chavez portrays that many people support the cause of nonviolence, implying that nonviolence is more successful because it "attracts the support of the people" rather than the "total demoralization" of the people. Using these historical examples and juxtaposing the effects of nonviolent and violent protest demonstrates that peaceful protests are more successful, which encourages many readers to his cause which is supported by many. Chavez at the beginning of his essay, because he directly links the words "non-violence" to "power". This further proves his claim that “nonviolence offers the opportunity to remain on the offensive…”. This makes his audience understand that nonviolence is initially linked to power and to further persuade his audience he says that they are truly "committed to nonviolence only as a tactical tool... if it fails, our only alternative is to resort to violence." This gives his audience no choice to agree with nonviolent protest. Chavez also directly contrasts terms such as “no honor” with “vicious type of oppression” to persuade his audience that violence is an atrocious thong, yet nonviolence is more honorable and reflects “the American people.” However, Chavez mentions possible counterarguments. as when he says that “we are not blind to feelings of frustration,” he refuted and emphasized his argument that “nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause.” Chavez's use of antithesis demonstrates the good of nonviolence and the evil of nonviolence. , which also pushes them to support his cause more. In conclusion, Chavez uses antitheses and juxtapositions to persuade that his cases of nonviolence are more favorable and successful, and also to appeal to his audience that nonviolence is the only effective way to achieve change..