The author uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to deliver a strong effect on their readers. These rhetorical strategies are the writer’s analogies, ethos, and logos.
	The author starts off his essay first by addressing the issue: can nude statues be shown in public, where children and scholars alike can see them in the open? After presenting both sides of the argument, he immediately moves on to an analogy that the general public, especially at his time due to the lack of digital advancements, would be familiar with, this being the public library. He argues that everyone that sometimes the library must “reserve certain books from general circulation.” If such is done in a library, then why should we not the same for these statues? The writer moves on to explain that if a “considerable number of persons” find a book’s content disturbing or inappropriate, then it should be placed on the “reserved list, even though a considerable number of other persons may find no harm in it.” This is not only logical but already in place; in fact, most if not all of the general population will agree in it. The author then states that if it is so in libraries, it should be so for museums, using a developed analogy to deliver his point.
	The writer also uses a considerable amount of ethos, the matter at hand being a matter mainly of ethics. He first establishes his own personal ethics regarding the issue, claiming that he “[finds] no harm” in the statues. He then relates this to the creator of the statues’ intent, this being the purpose of beauty rather than a perverse delight at the human body. The writer then reasons that “[the statue] was, in Pompeii, so placed that only adults saw it.” However, the reader might say, this is not Pompeii two thousand years ago; this is the America in the present, and ethics have changed since then. The author refutes this possible argument by saying that if the American citizen finds offense due to his different point of view, and that if his child finds offense due to his wildly different point of view, that “[the author] will not blame him.” By establishing the fact that people’s ethics will differ, he establishes the fact that he is not attacking them for thinking different from him, allowing him then to use simple logic to win his audience over.
	It is most logical to assume that every American knows his or her duty as a citizen, and that they recognize each others’ duties and responsibilities. If so, the author logically comes to the conclusion that the offended person “as a citizen, pays the taxes that support his museum.” He then reasons that if they carry out the duties called from him as a citizen, then his opinion deserves respect, “even though he may be, from my point of view, uncultivated, intolerant, and unreasonable.” This completely logical argument states that even if the offended party might seem to be lower than oneself in every aspect imaginable, their opinion deserves respect especially in this matter because both sides are citizens that, through their taxes, allow the museum to stand in the first place. The next logical step, then, would be to say that if these tax-paying citizens with different opinions disagree with one’s, then they should consider a compromise. This compromise stands as the one introduced in the analogy of the library and its forbidden books. He ends his essay by stating that nobody should “oppose our canon of taste, however, cultivated, to a canon of morals held by a considerable number of sincere persons, however mistaken.” By delivering this line, the author has the audience realize that because they are, as citizens, the same, and that even if different opinions may arise they should not demean someone else who carry out their duties much as the same as they do.