I created my sentence chunk in a different page to avoid being caught up and deleted in the edit war.

(Thomas N. P7)- Both "Today's Kids Are, Like, Killing the English Language" by Kirk Johnson and "What Are Friends For?" by Marion Winik utilize contrasting diction; high, formal diction is used to promote the author's ethos while almost casual diction is used to juxtapose, providing humor and a sense of intimacy for the audience with the author. Johnson follows up his hypothetical statement "'If you're having broccoli for dinner... I'm, like, out of here!" by describing it as "less harsh and confrontational than saying flatly that the serving of an unpalatable vegetable would require a fleeing of the premises" (169). The more down-to-earth diction humors the reader with its absurdity, making the author feel closer to the audience in his thought processes. This is extended, but also juxtaposed with his subsequent erudite analyzation of the same absurd sentence; this intellectual observation even makes sense upon closer examination, giving credibility to the author. Winik does the same in her essay, describing former friends as "at best a wistful memory, at worst a dangerous enemy who is in possession of many of your deepest secrets", but then goes on to say that "cult religions" and "drugs" are major creators of these friends (2). The more scholarly part of her description describes a phenomenon that may connect with the reader, providing credibility because the audience is in agreement with her. However, Winik amuses the reader by listing strange situations in which these friends would be created, keeping the reader interested and feeling close with the author.