Write a paper analyzing Coates’s style: Do you find his language engaging or off-putting?

For much of the semester the class has been practicing “reading with the grain,” which involves taking the author’s argument and agreeing, expanding and working with it. We have also been practicing “reading against the grain,” which could be characterized as not just disagreeing with an author but actively working against an author by trying to find weaknesses in an argument or by providing alternative or even exaggerated readings. In some ways both of these activities are forms of rhetorical analysis in which you look at how an author has put together an argument in order to engage you.The most recent essay that class has read is Coates’ “The Case for Reparations,” which some could say reads against the grain of a particular American history.Question 6 from the reader asks:Coates’s language can appear extreme. He describes the “tyranny” of “the acquisitive warlords of the South” (para 13), condemns America’s 250-year “war upon black families and black people” (para. 71), and refers to the “plunder” of black bodies and labor over a dozen times. He also draws extensively on scholarship, quoting historians, sociologists, and law professors throughout the essay. Write a paper analyzing Coates’s style: Do you find his language engaging or off-putting? How does he deploy evidence? Is it convincing? How might opponents of reparations object to his arguments, and how might he respond?