Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Does Congress Matter? John Murtha's airport is dumb.

In Glenn Beck's article “Does Congress Matter?,” he commits some logical fallacies. The first one is oversimplification which is seen throughout the entire report. Beck “reduces complex issues to a simple argument” (Writing and Rhetoric 79). Questioning whether congress matters or not is a broad and complex issue that Beck oversimplifies down to a plea for 56 “re-founders” (par. 5). He basically skips over a discussion of the actual question posed and rambles on about John Murtha's airport (par. 6-10). Glenn Beck's quick banter gets readers and listeners riled up about things that are beyond the question at hand. This is direct result of Beck's oversimplification. Another fallacy committed in the article is that of guilt by association. As Meggie discusses in her analysis, “Beck assumes that all of congress and politics are corrupt. He doesn't give the reader or listener a chance to even think that maybe Congress isn't all completely corrupt” (Meggie Savage). This leads to hasty, sweeping generalities being made. Beck's generalization of the character of all Congress members doesn't allow any wiggle room for those in Congress who may be different. He says he wants “56 brave men and women...to stand up to the corruption and the special interests in [their] own party, [to] stand up to what Washington, D.C. has become” (par. 5). Here he infers that all of Washington needs reform and also that people aren't already standing up to the “corruption and special interests” of their respective parties (par. 5).
Yes, Glenn Beck is quit-witted and smart and maybe has some good ideas, but audiences always need to be aware of the tactics, such as logical fallacies, used to persuade them. The logical fallacies he commits are important to understand so readers don't get swept up along with his generalizations or caught up in his oversimplifications and ramblings about airports.

We are "the Children of 9/11"

Peggy Noonan's article called “The Children of 9/11 Grow Up” is a well-written discussion of how the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 shaped the lives of those who were children at the time. She uses pathos beautifully and is very aware of her audience. This article, written for The Wall Street Journal, appeals to both college students and their older parents or grandparents, along with everyone in between.
First of all, Noonan captures those who were ten or twelve on 9/11 who are now college students. She describes this audience as being “old enough to understand that something dreadful had happened but young enough still to be in childhood” on 9/11 (par.2). This group of people, which includes myself, are drawn in by her early comments and the title. We are “the children of 9/11.” As Noonan describes the events of the day and quotes students she has talked to, we all find ourselves nodding our heads and remembering back to the “first moment of historical consciousness” in our lives (par.4). It happened just like she described it. People that were children back in 2001 will read it because they are interested to see what other people their age are saying. Noonan pulls readers in because she knows her audience would be interested to see her thoughts on how 9/11 affected them growing up.

However, Noonan is also interested in the readers her age. The people who can remember November 22, 1963 make up a large part of the readership of the Journal. She invites this audience to read as she draws parallels between JFK's assassination and the attacks of 9/11. The situtations were quite similar: the “hushed tones”, the teachers sobbing, the “shocked parents”, and how “everyone went home and watched TV all day, and the next” (par. 6). This article will help people understand how the events of 9/11 largely affected the children at the time.

By paying attention to her multiple audiences, Peggy Noonan is able to reach out to her readers. She captures their attention and intrigues them. Throughout the article, she remembers her intended audience and realizes what do they already know. Noonan wrote this to be inclusive and to reach all potential readers

Noonan, Peggy. "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up." Wall Street Journal (2009). The Wall Street Journal.
12 Sept. 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2009. .

Friday, October 9, 2009

The Confidence of a Great Leader

There have been many great leaders of America that have used all of the powers of ethos to make the American people love them. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of these great leaders. One example of when President roosevelt used his ethos to present an issue was on December 8, 1941. President Roosevelt was addressing many important members of the government and the American people about the Pearl Harbor attack that had happened just the day before.

President Roosevelt already had almost 'built-in' ethos just from being the President. As so, he held the highest position of authority in the country. He was able to influence many people because they respected and honored his words.

Roosevelt cuts right to the chase and begins addressing how there had been "no threat or hint of war or of armed attack." (par.4) Many people were shocked at how the Japanese had been able to sneak behind the back of the U.S. President Roosevelt begins to speak as if he is just a regular citizen who is just as shocked as everyone else. He appeals to people and their emotions because it indeed was a tragic day. He shows sincere emotion and speaks with profound clairy when he says, " I regret to tell you that many American lives have been lost." (par.6) He is very truthful with the audience and this gives him even more credibility then he already has. This is also a very smart way to involve pathos, by appealing to the citizens emotions of shock and fear.

The President then uses an interesting tactic. He uses repition to address the places where Japan had attacked the United States. (par.6) By doing this, he over emphasizes how real and detrimental the situation is. It arouses a sense of fear in the audience when they begin to realize all of the damage that the Japaneses empire has caused in such short time.

However, right after the bold statements, the President uses ethos to reassure his nation, as noted by Madeline in her analysis in the fourth paragraph. He begins by stating, "As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be take for our defense." (par.8) Not only is he the President of the country, but he restates his position as commander of the armed forces. He speaks with courage and confidence when he says, "the American people in their righteous might will win through absolute victory." (par.9) He shows that he has determination to protect the American people. He uses his authority to publicly display his determination in a time of severe crisis. He continutes with his wave of confidence by stating, "with confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain inevitable triumph."(par.12) He shows the people and the members of Congress and Senate that he plans on protecting and defending the country's rights by any means.

President Roosevelt uses ethos in the form of confidence and courage to his great advantage in his speech. He also relates to the american people by saying 'we' instead of 'I'. Some of the ethos used is to boost the confidence of the United States, and is strictly for the people. His sheer conviction regarding the issue and the confidence he shows makes the people want to support him and give their support to whatever he may ask of them. President Roosevelt gains the trust and support of the American people by the way he presents the issue with such authority and formality.

“If we don’t come together...we, too, will be destroyed”

In the movie “Remember the Titans”, Coach Boone takes his segregated football team for a run in the middle of the night while they are up at camp. They run through all sorts of trees and rivers until it is morning when they stop.
Coach Boone tells them that they are standing where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought. He then goes on to deliver a profound speech. He uses strong imagery, refers to an event that is a part of their lives, and appeals to their emotions all in an effort to encourage his team to come together, respect each other, and play the “game like men”. Coach Boone really gets his players’ attention and is able to reach out to them through using a huge part of their heritage and what they know. He takes them to Gettysburg where history happened. They all live in Virginia and are very aware of the Civil War and how segregation is a part of their lives. This is all happening in a time when prejudice and hatred between blacks and whites was at one of its heights. He starts his speech out talking about the battle and how men died right there “fighting the same fight that [they’re] still fighting amongst [themselves]”. Coach Boone points out that the battle hasn’t ended, that the terrible hatred and fighting is still happening, that they are still fighting their own Battle of Gettysburg. The players have all seen this but Coach Boone puts it in a way that really makes them think and realize how terrible it is. He asks them to take a lesson from the dead. He refers back to the battle again when he says, “If we don't come together, right now, on this hallowed ground, then we, too, will be destroyed. Just like they were.”
When talking about the battle, Coach Boone uses the rhetorical strategy of strong imagery to captivate his audience and really get them to picture the scene. He describes all the colors and how the battle really happened when he says, “This green field right here was painted red. Bubbling with the blood of young boys. Smoke and hot lead pouring right through their bodies.” Everyone there must have been able to clearly visualize what it was like, how the field was soaked with blood. He describes how horrible the fighting really was when he talks about the “smoke and hot lead pouring right through” the bodies of the soldiers. Coach Boone uses this to draw the connection between present day and the past. He is able to say that they are still fighting the same way, that there is figurative, and literal, smoke and hot lead pouring through their bodies.
All this is for an appeal to their emotion. The reference to the Battle of Gettysburg becomes the basis of his speech. It brings with it heavy emotional baggage and feelings, some tender and some of intense hatred. Before the speech, the white and black players were constantly going up against each other and tensions ran high. But in Coach Boone’s speech he recognizes this and compares it to the tension felt on the field at Gettysburg. The boys are all able to relate to this and recognize the truth in their coach’s words.
So with the speech, their coach is able to inspire them to work together and resolve this century-long issue within the team. Afterwards, the team takes steady steps to becoming unified and they are eventually able to overcome their past issues and historical tensions. Coach Boone’s words of emotion, imagery, and familiar ideas put in a new perspective really affect the boys. He is able to help spur on a huge change that affected a whole town and made a very big difference in many people’s lives.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Stale Beer: A Not-So-Sober Crowd

As a citizen from Bountiful, Utah, I frequently read the local newspaper, "The Davis County Clipper." Over the summer, when JoAnn Hamilton reintroduced the liquor law issue in an attempt to campaign against Mayor Joe Johnson, I became extremely interested: I was raised in the neighborhood of both Mayor Joe and Sister Hamilton. As a member of the audience to whom JoAnn Hamilton wrote, I am now a better educated community member; through studying rhetorical techniques I have been able to recognize the manner in which argumentation and persuasion has a personal effect on my life.

First and foremost, it is clear to whom JoAnn Hamilton was writing: a nearly homogeneous, LDS, family-oriented population. Throughout her letter to the editor, Hamilton repeatedly refers to a "child-appropriate resolution," or "an ordinance to protect children" (par. 2, 3). Appealing to the majority of her audience, as was mentioned in a previous blog post on pathos, Hamilton creates a situation in which those who don't agree with her suddenly become in the wrong: i.e. if you don't agree with me, then you must not want to protect children. In this manner, many people, convinced that the mention of the words "beer" and "children" in the same sentence is the recipe for juvenile delinquents, sided with Hamilton at the time of the liquor law issue.

The question arises, however, concerning about the "other" members of Hamilton's audience. What was their response? The answer is found in her biased reporting of their actions against her: they threw beer cans all over her lawn after she complained about them (par. 13). Seemingly, because of Hamilton's presentation of her opinion, a lack of tolerance became evident in members of both parties. Though I do not drink beer, I know people who do. It is understandable to me, therefore, as to why the mayor supported the interests of the minority of Hamilton's audience. By having an attitude of tolerance, Mayor Johnson gained the support of many community members, both those who do and do not consume alcoholic beverages.

With that said, the liquor law ruckus occurred over two years ago. In reviving the issue, Hamilton seemed to expect that her audience of LDS, child-protecting citizens, would once again agree with her; however, in reading responses to her recent letter to the editor, Hamilton's audience seems to have changed. Because both Hamilton and Mayor Johnson are members of my neighborhood, I have been able to see on a personal level the way a mostly homogeneous community can be polarized on an issue. For example, children of both Johnson and Hamilton joined the fray, as well as other neighbors. Even Sheryl Allen, a representative for the Utah State Legislature, expressed her opinion concerning Hamilton's letter. Near the time of the primary election, it was interesting to see who had the campaign signs lining the lawns in support of Mayor Joe versus those with signs for Jeff Novak. I was able to both see and hear different responses and opinions expressed by numerous people whom I look up to and respect. In this manner, I had a personal application for audience analysis. It became obvious to me that an audience, no matter how similar their background, will always having varying responses to an argument.

Though several months after the publication of Hamilton's letter, there are still several weeks until the mayoral election. Interestingly, Mayor Joe leads the polls, indicating a clear and decisive victory. Hamilton, in censuring Johnson, seems to have given him the election by eliciting support from a variety of citizens, including those who once supported her stance on the liquor law issue. Thus, in addressing an audience, a number of factors become important in attempting to create an effective and persuasive argument. As is seen with JoAnn Hamilton's letter to the editor, one must be careful: an audience may react differently than expected as a result of the presentation of an issue.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Stale Beer: An Emotional Appeal

When people care about or have concern for a topic, they generally feel very strongly about their opinion. Their arguments, in an attempt to sway others' beliefs, are often filled with emotion. An example of this is found in the article referenced by the Stale Beer blog post. In this untimely letter to the editor, there are many examples of emotional appeals, as seen in the passionate language used by the author. Although written and published too late to be effective when considering the kairos of an issue, JoAnn Hamilton, in using pathos, also known as emotional appeals intent on influencing readers, is still able to present a persuasive argument.

The most important manner in which Hamilton creates an emotionally appealing argument is by using concrete examples. With vivid imagery and personal experiences, Hamilton creates a connection with readers. Her appeal concerning the unfair treatment she and others received while dealing with the Bountiful City Council is able to take on a more realistic and personal light for readers who may otherwise be apathetic. As she describes such experiences as being "a lady in a wheelchair, sitting on her front lawn surrounded by beer cans," it becomes easier to sympathize with her opinion (par. 14). Hamilton also appeals to the values of her audience, a predominately LDS community, as she describes the mayor use of profanity when talking about her (par. 12). By revealing such details, community members are able to picture the situation, creating their own, emotionally-charged, version of her experience. With such personal examples, Hamilton's letter becomes emotionally appealing to those with similar values.

Hamilton's word choice also contributes to the pathos of her letter to the Davis County Clipper. Her diction immediately conveys her anger and dissatisfaction for Mayor Johnson and the Bountiful City Council. In describing the liquor laws as a "beer variance" or "beer license," Hamilton creates a negative connotation by using a more base description of the city ordinance (par. 2, 6). Conversely, Hamilton repeatedly brings up the phrase "the ordinance to protect children," and "a child-appropriate resolution," so-called god terms which gain a positive association because they are related to family values (par. 2, 3). With these and other such emotional overtones found in the diction of her argument, Hamilton is further able to persuade her audience.

Hamilton's syntax is also significant when considering the use of pathos in her letter. She begins her argument by saying, "I have known Mayor Joe Johnson and John Marcus Knight for years and like them," and then proceeds to censure them in an extremely critical manner (par. 1). As a letter that was written to garner support against the incumbent in the mayoral election, it is interesting that Hamilton would spend the opening paragraphs of her letter criticizing members of the city council. Granted, the mayor and city council work together on many issues, but the manner in which Hamilton introduces her complaint against the mayor seems to spend more time on criticizing the dealings between the city government and liquor-serving restaurants. Focusing on past issues to heighten emotional arousal, it is not until the final paragraph of her argument that Hamilton mentions the name of her candidate, Jeff Novak. In this manner, however, her letter seems anticlimactic. Hamilton, although successful in heightening emotions in support of protecting children against alcohol and in criticizing the current mayor, does not make a compelling argument for Jeff Novak. One possible reason for diminished emotional support at the end of Hamilton's letter is weakened logos: she does not fully explain a logical connection for how Novak would change city functions. As a result of this lack of logos, Hamilton loses pathos and emotional appeal for her argument.

In reading Hamilton's argument, it becomes evident that emotional appeals, no matter how strong and persuasive, are only effective when used in conjunction with the remaining corners of the rhetoric triangle, ethos and logos. Hamilton, in using effective pathos in some aspects of her article, most notably her personal examples and word choice, is able to make a persuasive argument; her appeal, however, is limited to those who think passionately with their hearts, rather than critically with their minds.

Beauty for All

It is highly unlikely that one has watched television or read a magazine without seeing a Proactiv Solution advertisement. Their commercials have become so popular due to their promised guarantee, that they are virtually everywhere.

I did not really notice that ProActiv focuses primarily on Caucasians until I read Ben's analysis. Most, if not all of the women and men on their website, commercials and magazine articles are Caucasias. It is true that 'the average white does have a higher income than African-Americans or Hispanics.' (par.3) This is so proved in an article called "Race and Income", which states that, "White incomes have risen a bit, on average, while incomes for black and Hispanic families have declined." (par.2) So, by appealing to the more wealthy, they hope to draw in more money. It is unclear as to if the company is trying to say that white people are more beautiful than the other races or not. Some people may take offense to the fact that there are primarily whites on the advertisements and commercials. In looking up other articles I came across one that noted P. Diddy and the Williams sisters. That is the first time I have seen African Americans mentioned in a ProActiv advertisement. It is true that even though they hardly do it, when they do, they mention famous athletes and musical artists to draw in the crowd.

It is true that the site is primarily focused on women in their late teens and older. They have gotten gorgeous actresses, dancers and other Hollywood starts to promote their products. The Proactiv company has ingeniously used these not only attractive, but rich and famous, people to promote their products. Many women become tricked by this and think that if they use Proactiv, they too will become beautiful like the beautiful women who endorse it. These stars also always look precisely immaculate in the commercials, leading consumers to believe they will be happy and immaculate too with the use of these products. As silly as it sounds, it works. Most women are so concerned about their looks that they will do anything to become more beautiful than the next girl. These women will also usually go to any cost, however extreme, to make beauty happen for them. Proactiv can charge whatever they want because they target the female audience so well with their endorsers. It is an ingenious tactic and other companies should learn from their example.


Proactiv located their two main target consumers and used tactics to persuade and draw them in to purchasing their products. The company was obviously very smart in determining the audience they would show their products to. Being aware of the audience can help to make writing or advertisements more successful.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Ignorance of Authority

In 1949, in the state of Illinois, there was a bill proposed called "An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats", or for short, the "Cat Bill". The article I read was the veto statement made by the governor, Adlai Stevenson. There are many fallacies he uses when he addresses his stand he took regarding the bill. However, there are three that are the most noticeable.

Stevenson begins by stating all of the reasons why he denied the bill. Right off the bat, he starts to become very ignorant. He is allotted to have his own opinions, especially because of the position that he holds. However, he takes his side and pushes it on the reader as if there is no way anyone could feel differently than he does. He does give reasons for why he thought the proposal was not significant, but the way he writes makes it appear that he is saying, 'this law is completely ridiculous and should not have been considered at all'. This can be shown by his statement, "Whatever the reasons for passage at this session, I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law or that it could, as a practical matter, be enforced." (par.3) His complete disbelief and ignorance is quite insulting, as there are obviously people who take the issue seriously. He uses his authority and an 'appeal to ignorance' to try to persuade the reader his opinion is right.

Another fallacy that is found is 'stacking the deck'. Stevenson only presents his side of the argument. He thinks that no one would doubt his statements, no matter how irrational, due to his authoritative position. However, in reality, reading his reasons created negative ethos for himself. As a leader and a governor, one expects him to be rational and to equally present both sides of the argument, regardless of his stand on it. He leaves out anything about why the supporters of the proposal felt the way they did. He ignores their opinions and arguments because they do not support his own.

The last fallacy is that of the 'slippery slope'. In the veto he says, "If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. " (par.5) He tries to make the reader feel that the proposed bill is incompetent because it will just cause more problems.

Stevenson tries to use logical fallacies to persuade the reader that his points are the most valid. However, they work against him and make him look rude and completely biased.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Cats or Birds?

What has more priority- a cat or a bird? In 1949, the governor of Illinois, Adlai E. Stevenson, wrote the “Cat Bill” veto, addressing “An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats”. In this, Stevenson makes his stance on the matter, and in doing so he creates numerous logical fallacies. Those which predominantly appear are “slippery slope”, the “appeal to tradition”, “stacking the deck”, and “false dilemma”.

In his declaration, Stevenson overreacts, or makes the issue larger than it needs to be. He comments, saying that if you try to restrict cats from attacking birds, many negative repercussions will come from it. He says, “It would impose fines on owners or keepers who permitted their cats to run at large off their premises. It would permit any person to capture or call upon the police to pick up and imprison cats at large. It would permit the use of traps” (par.3). From this statement, he argues that by restraining cats, all these events are inevitable. The state will become chaotic because cats will be running around all the time and the police will have to use their time trying to capture cats when they have other important matters to be taking care of. This is an extreme statement, because most likely, cats will go on as they always have, without trouble. People will not always have to call the police or use traps to imprison cats. Stevenson makes the situation sound worse than it needs to be. Therefore, he uses the slippery slope fallacy to support his argument.

Being that this veto was in the year 1949, the people were not used to change. They were old-fashioned and followed the traditions of their parents. Therefore, Stevenson makes the fallacy of appealing to tradition. This is apparent when he states, “The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm” (par.6). He undermines the issue at hand, because he sees no relevance. He thinks that just because cats have always killed birds, that the issue can be passed by. Therefore, he is unable to look past the norms of society, and appeals to tradition, creating another fallacy.

Stevenson deliberately ignores the concerns of those who want to save the birds. He ignores their arguments and brushes them by. He does not see the legitimacy of the issue, which is shown clearly when he states, “I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law” (par.4). But to make himself look correct, he uses the fallacy of “stacking the deck”. This is when somebody ignores the evidence or argument that doesn’t support his decision. This is clear because he makes the situation look less important than it is when he states that he doesn’t see any “demand for [the] law”. He does not address the points they had discussed. He only points out that “this Bill could only create discord, recrimination and enmity” (par.5). Therefore, by “stacking the deck” and only showing his opinion on the matter, he creates a logical fallacy.

Finally, Stevenson uses the “false dilemma” approach. This means that he only sees, or only presents two situations. Either he does not pass the law and birds are in more trouble, or he passes the law and then the state becomes more hectic. He has this mentality and therefore says “not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93” (par.7). He feels the need to add this information, stating that he is not biased. But perhaps, if he had thought more or considered the matter more, he would have realized that this issue could be more than just passing or not passing the law.

Stevenson, although not meaning to, created many logical fallacies in his argument. These were very apparent as he presented only his opinion, overreacted, and was not open to new ideas. If he had addressed more of the concerns of the people and had been more open-minded, these fallacies would have eliminated themselves on their own. Therefore, in order to make an argument ethical and logical, one must point out all sides of an argument and try to avoid any fallacies. By doing this, one becomes more credible and the argument becomes more reliable.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Touching Lives

A wonderful man who made a difference in the world is Martin Luther King, Jr. His famous speech “I have a dream” is widely known and referred to frequently. Before August 28, 1963, the date of his speech, the United States was greatly segregated. Black people were not treated equally, and white people were seen as better people who deserved everything. The country was racist. Something had to be done and King was the one to do it. He was courageous and bold and stood up for what he believed in. The most effective tactic he used during that speech was the audience he spoke to. With the correct audience, nearly anything can be achieved.

Martin Luther King, Jr. knew his audience. He knew who he was addressing and how to speak to them. On that day in August, over 200,000 civil rights supporters gathered to hear his message and act accordingly. The people in attendance, predominantly black, came because they were passionate about freedom and equal rights. Any speaker or author, like King, needs to recognize the beliefs of their audience, because this is the key in gaining their support and word. Martin states, “the Negro still is not free…the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination…the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity...the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition” (par.3). With this, he stirs the emotions of people, using pathos, and creates an image for all to recognize and relate to. Martin Luther King knew his audience and what they had been through.

Another important factor in touching those you are speaking to is by relating to them and understanding their circumstances. King knew exactly what the people were challenged with because he faced the same problem. He understood the feeling of segregation and being hated just because of the color of your skin. He could empathize with the people. Therefore, his argument becomes even more effective.

The crowd was filled with those who could relate, mainly black people, but white people still were in attendance, as many supported his beliefs as well. King showed his respect for all people. He reiterates “that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’” (par.4). King relates black men to white men, proving that all are equal and are granted the same freedoms. He also shows that respect should be given, even to those who have not shown mercy on black men. He says, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence” (par.8). King exemplifies to the people that although times have been hard, all must act with poise and rationally. He knows how the people must feel and their animosity towards those repressing them, but he speaks calmly, explaining that irrational judgment is not going to bring about anything good. King knows what the people are thinking, and therefore is able to alleviate their concerns.

Lastly, the people needed a leader with confidence. They have gone through horrible times; times of slavery and unjust punishments. Martin Luther King exemplified a fearless leader who stood up for his beliefs. He truly expresses his love for the people as he proclaims, “when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last” (par. 32)!
Martin Luther King, Jr. made a difference in the world because he stood up for what he wanted and was able to touch the lives of many. He knew his audience and addressed them in the appropriate manner, which he knew would be most effective.

Smoking Effects

The legitimacy of an argument can be formulated by the author’s credibility, their ability to appeal to their reader’s emotions, and by using logic. This type of appeal is called Logos. Paul Paryski, author of “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing” analyzes a subject which has not been touched thoroughly. He discusses the negative effects of smoking and how they affect our bones and joints and the healing process. In this article, Paryski uses logos to enhance his argument in showing the effects of smoking by using relevant facts and evidence which many believe to be acceptable.

The world has already familiarized itself with the knowledge that smoking has harmful effects to oneself and those around you. There are many studies and records proving that smoking leads to lung cancer and respiratory problems, yet, people continue to smoke. Two scientists have recently looked farther into the effects of smoking on their body. Paryski refers to these scientist’s conclusions, enhancing his credibility and ethos which in turn increases his logos because readers can trust his argument and become more convinced. Based off 82 studies, these scientists concluded that “healing is affected by smoking. [An] adequate degree of oxygenation is necessary to form mature collagen, which closes wounds...[and] smoking reduces the blood flow and the amount of available oxygen in the tissues under the skin” (par.5). Therefore, they are stating that when somebody smokes, they lose oxygen, affecting the ability to heal the body. Clearly, these facts and conclusions are logical. Readers have a strong reason to believe that smoking effects healing, therefore, his argument and use of logos becomes more acceptable.

One conclusion that Paryski addresses from the scientist’s discoveries is the greater effect of smoking on older people. Logically, this makes sense. Older people’s ability to recover from mishap and harm is significantly weaker than a strong adolescent. This is common knowledge and is an accepted part of life. Because their studies have shown how smoking creates problems for healing, the elderly will have an even harder time just due to what their body is capable of doing. Common knowledge enhances a logical argument because the reader can agree with what the author has to say. Therefore, the logos in this article increases.

Evidence is important in persuading an audience of the reader’s argument. In Paryski’s article he states that “smoking decreases the amount of oxygen available for the brain and the body tissues, including those of the musculoskeletal system. Analysis of the studies showed that the related adverse effects are: decreased bone density, lumbar disk problems, higher risk of sustaining hip and wrist fractures, a high risk of failure of bone fusion in fractures and grafts, low back pain, decreased wound healing ability, increase risk of postoperative infection” (par.9). These conclusions were based from studies whose purpose was to try and understand more effects of smoking than just the respiratory system. This conclusion and evidence allows readers to believe Paryski in his argument that there are effects of smoking on bones, joints, and healing.

One other inference readers can make from this article is that the study of smoking effects on bones, joints, and healing is very recent. This increases the ethos of Paryski’s article because readers can recognize that not much research has been done and there will be more to come in the future. Logos, or the use of logic, allows this article to be understandable and relatable.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Negative Effects of Divorce

One very effective way of persuading an audience comes from when you appeal to their emotions. Pathos stirs up the emotions in people. Karl Zinsmeister effectively stirs people’s emotions, feelings, and opinions on divorce and the negative effects on children in his article, “Divorce’s Toll on Children”. He “argues that divorce causes damage from which children never recover and that the conflict within a marriage will not cause the same amount of problems for children that the breakup of a marriage creates”. Zinsmeister effectively reaches the emotions of people by concrete examples or fact, word choice, and appealing to the emotion of fear in the readers.

His first appeal to readers is the facts, statistics, and examples. He begins stating that “since 1972, more than a million youngsters have been invoked in a divorce each year” (par.1) and that “around half of today’s children will go through a marital rupture” (par.2). These facts are blunt and overwhelming. Those reading this article will automatically recognize the enormity of divorce and how many children are affected. Zinsmeister then adds that “overall, only about one youngster in five is able to maintain a close relationship with both parents” (par.3). Facts, whether they are correct, have the power to be mind-blowing. So is the case with these facts. Readers are hit with how many children are truly affected in the world by divorce and begin understanding why Zinsmeister “argues that divorce causes damage”. Long-term studies show that “two-thirds of all the children showed symptoms of stress, and half thought their life had been destroyed by the divorce. Five years down the road, over a third were still seriously disturbed, and another third were having psychological difficulties” (par.21). These facts bring fear into the hearts of those that are reading this article. They may have recognized that children are affected by divorce, but these facts reinstate their concerns. Zinsmeister uses these facts to persuade people to believe that divorce negatively affects children.

Another successful tactic Zinsmeister uses is his word choice. Words contain much weight and portray various meanings. One must choose their words very carefully in order to persuade the audience in their favor. Karl’s argument statement uses the phrase “children will never recover”. The word “never” creates a negative connotation and makes readers feel hopeless and fearful. They believe anybody with children who files for divorce has sentenced their child to a life of misery. Does divorce have an effect on children? Many studies have proven that there are many effects. Will children never recover? This statement is quite bold, especially because all children react differently in situations. Nevertheless, people will believe him when he says that they will never recover. Another word he uses frequently is “youngsters”. This word creates an innocent impression on children, and allows readers to assume that children cannot overcome divorce due to their naivety. It adds to his argument that divorce creates damage on children which they will never get over. Readers then begin to believe and support her argument.

Finally, Zinsmeister effectively appeals to the emotion of fear. The people who read his article already are concerned or are looking for a reason to believe that divorce has a negative effect on children. By the facts and examples he uses, plus her word choice, the readers become scared of divorce and think negatively towards anybody who has done that to their children. Therefore, Zinsmeister stirs up the emotions of people, enhancing his argument with pathos and speaking to people’s feelings.

Smoking is Silly

Paul Paryski's article called “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints, and Healing” begins with a question. Paryski asks, “can smoking affect surgery, bone health and healing?” and the answer, according to 44 studies, is yes (caption). Instead of just saying that smoking is bad or that it causes cancer, the article discusses some specific ways smoking causes harm. The logic Paryski presents clearly shows the negative effects that smoking has on the human body. He uses a rational argument to convince the reader that smoking affects bone health, healing, “is the leading avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States”, and harms the musculoskeletal system (par. 2). By the end of the article, the reader realizes that it's illogical and irrational to smoke. In short, smoking is a dumb idea.

Paryski begins the paper with a strong statement that introduces the illogicality of smoking when he says, “there are roughly 50 million smokers in the United States in spite of a great deal of publicity about the negative effects of smoking on health (par. 1). He makes the reader wonder why so many people still smoke even though everyone knows it is such a harmful activity. Then he points out that “there is growing and conclusive evidence that smoking is the leading avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States” (par. 2).

In the next paragraph, Paryski begins to explain the afore mentioned negative effects, specifically the effects on the musculoskeletal system. He says that “healing is affected by smoking, since an adequate degree of oxygenation is necessary to form mature collagen, which closes wounds” (par. 5). By using the specific terms and an explanation of how healing is affected by smoking, Paryski shows the particular medical effects of smoking. Instead of just using a general statement like “smoking is bad for you” he explains a specific reason why it is bad.

As he discusses the effects on healing, Paryski is building a relationship with readers who are about to undergo the healing process. Not only will smoking kill you, but it will happen sooner than you think. People will go into surgery for something completely unrelated but will be unable to heal because of their smoking addiction. Obviously the rational thing to do is to quit smoking.

As Hailey said, Paryski “gives facts and statistics to support the argument. The author also cites a credible and authoritative source (a book written by and orthopedic surgeon) to back up his facts.” By using the specific examples of the effects on the muscoloskeletal system and how it affects the healing process, Paryski appeals to the rational thinking of his readers. The logic he employs, could convince anyone that smoking is bad and that he or she should quit immediately.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Smoker's Bones

In American culture, phrases such as "smoker's lung" are commonplace, illustrating our society's shared knowledge that smoking is harmful, especially to the human respiratory system. Other effects, including harm to the musculoskeletal system, are not as well known to the general public as a result of limited research on the topic. In his article, "The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing," Paul Paryski examines research on smoking and orthopaedic health in order to educate consumers on the additional dangers of smoking; however, Paryski, although making a compelling argument, could strengthen his logical appeal to better persuade his audience.

Supporting the general belief that smoking is a deadly habit, the evidence provided by Paryski is not necessarily completely relevant to the topic of bone and joint health. Granted, depending on the characteristics and intelligence level of his audience, Paryski's outline of smoking's dangers may be adequate; however, his article is extremely general. Because his article is mainly a summary rather than the documented proceedings of a scientific experiment, it is broad in nature, addressing many negative aspects of smoking. Smoking's negative effect on the lungs, a relatively well known phenomenon, is restated throughout the article, especially in the eighth paragraph in which the many toxic chemicals produced by smoking are enumerated. Although these toxic chemicals are related to overall decline in bone and joint health, the specific manner in which they effect the musculoskeltal system is not described. Providing greater evidence of smoking's negative effect on bone and joint health, especially information that is not overly technical or scientific in understanding, would add greater relevance to Paryski's article.

Added descriptions and specific examples would also give Paryski's article increased acceptibility by his audience. Although he briefly describes a study to show the correlation between smoking and the reduction of blood flow to tissue, as well as an additional study reporting the observed differences between the bone density of smokers and nonsmokers, Paryski's article may not be compelling to all members of his audience (par. 5, 10). Describing these studies more in depth would help readers to better understand why smoking is harmful to bones, joints, and healing, allowing them to decide whether they believe these facts are true, rather than forcing them to blindly swallow the truth. Understanding increases acceptability; the same is true for Paryski's article.

Although providing general evidence that smoking is harmful to health, especially to the bones and joints, Paryski does not take into consideration other, potential causes for bad bone health. Smoking is known to be a deadly habit; however, healthcare professionals have never been able to actually test this hypothesis without being unethical. For smoking's negative effects on bone health to be validated, scientists would have to divide experimental subjects into two groups of individuals at similar levels of bone health, give one group cigarettes, and then compare the relative levels of each groups' bone health at the end of a specified amount of time. Because research of this type is highly questionable, it is impossible for researchers to know whether smoking truly affects the musculoskeletal system. Although there is a high correlation between bad bones and smoking as seen in the list of "related adverse effects," including "decreased bone density, lumbar disk problems, etc." there is the possibility that other health behaviors or predispositions could contribute to weakened bones (par. 9). Though a brief overview of smoking's negative effects on bone health, Paryski's article, although giving the most likely cause for weakened bones, fails to account for other explanations.

In Paryski's defence, because his article is written for an audience of "non healthcare professionals," his use of logos, a logical appeal of rhetoric, is more than likely adequate in persuading his audience that smoking is dangerous to bone health. These suggestions, although extremely analytical in nature, however, could strengthen the article's appeal to consumers, especially those asking the questions, "Why?" and "So what?" With added relevance, acceptability, and accountability, Paryski's article will gain persuasive power in further convincing consumers, especially those with "smoker's bones," that smoking is indeed harmful.

Paryski, Paul. "The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing." Health and Age.com. N.p, 18 June 2009.Web. 25 September 2009.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Divorce and Negativity

Karl Zinsmeister's article "Divorce's Toll on Children" begins with a very strong statistic, "Since 1972, more than a million youngsters have been involved in a divorce each year." (par.1) He automatically starts off by assuming that the readers of his article are more educated than the 'youngsters' he refers to.

Like Madeline stated in her analysis of this article, the author does use quite a bit of overstatement to get his point across. He tries to convince the reader of the idea that children are emotionally affected when their parents are divorced. It is "more common" for children to be more greatly hurt by a divorce than other stressful events. He also talks about how divoced family interaction is "particularly likely" to happen. Using words and phrases such as these alarm the reader and continue to convince them that divorce is truly a negative experience for all of those involved.

In the next part of the article, Zinsmeister uses a somewhat serious and very earnest tone to get his points across. He ways, "children's view of divorce...is a disaster." (par.9) He talks about how to many children, the only thing more difficult to deal with is the death of a loved one. To many kids, divorce could be related to the death of a family, seeing that after divorce it is generally hard to keep strong family ties. Children want to grow up in a 'normal' family home, with both a mother and father. by addressing these things, the author is using his more serious tone to express the severity of teh issue. By using quotations from credible sources, he is able to address the topic with much more authority and believability.

Madeline also stated in her analysis that the author was completely one-sided regarding the issue of divorce. The author only wants to talk about the horrendous and terrible things that divorce can do to a family. While his credible facts completely back up his argument, it is important to be open minded to the other side as well.

The anger he shows towards the issue makes one believe he has had some sort of close encounter with divorce, or divorce related situations. The passion he puts into addressing the effects it has on children make the reader aware of what exactly it can do. Girls are more likely to develop habits like "substance abuse, running away and early sexual activity." (par.30) On the other hand, boys are more likely to become "depressed and angry." (par.30) This makes the reader become emotionally afraid for all children in divorced familites.

The author projects all of his emotions and attitudes through the way and order he expresses his ideas. He makes himself clear through ethos, logos and pathos. He expresses emotion through statements regarding family. He also uses imagery to present the issue in a negative way. It is very effective because he makes the reader want to become more informed about the issue, and also helps him to use his serious tone effectively. He gives reasons and statistics showing that divorce truly does harm families, and makes himself and his words more legitimate by using very well known sources. Karl Zinsmeister succeeded in creating a negative image of divorce by using language tools throughout the entire article.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Why Smoke?

There are many activities that people participate in that are damaging to themselves and those around them. I read the article, “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints, and Healing” by Paul Paryski, MA. He divides the article into three sections: Introduction, Results, and Conclusion. He uses these three categories to organize his facts about the negative effects of smoking on the human body.

He starts off by stating that, “There are roughly 50 million smokers in the United States in spite of a great deal of publicity about the negative effects of smoking on health.” (par.1) By beginning such an article with such a statement, he draws the reader to already reconsider the logic of choosing to smoke. He continues to address how cigarette smoking is becoming rapidly more popular in other countries as well as the United States. He states that they “can least afford either the cost of cigarettes or the cost of their negative effect on health.” (par.1) This is saying that many countries prefer to take part in cigarette smoking, not noting how it effects their health. Also, most struggling countries have so many other health issues to take care of that the effects of smoking might get pushed aside.

The next few paragraphs in the Introduction section talk about the effects that smoking has on health that are hardly ever addressed to the public or by doctors. He says, “The effects of smoking on the musculoskeletal system (bones, joints, muscles) have not been the subject of much publicity, and it has not been given the same attention as other smoking related diseases.” (I.e. cancer) (par.3) The article continues with facts about studies showing that smoking can be directly related to healing. By using information from scientists and other doctors, he makes his claim full of clarity. It makes his supportive evidence more effective.
The author starts off the Results part of the article by stating a statistic. He says, “Of 82 studies, 44 strongly suggest that smoking had a very serious negative impact on the musculoskeletal system.” (par.7) He then lists a few of the 500 different poisonous gases that are released into the lungs during early smoking. Most of them listed are common, yet harmful gases. He continues to talk about the analysis of a study regarding the effect of those harmful chemical and gases. All of the things listed are all horrifyingly painful and would be terrible to live with.

He then concludes by simply stating, “It should be remembered that annually over 500,000 deaths in the United States and millions throughout the world, are caused by smoking.” (par.11)

Not only does this article give reason for why smoking is incredibly harmful, but it gives facts and statistics to support the argument. The author also cites a credible and authoritative source (a book written by and orthopedic surgeon) to back up his facts. If people would read this article, their logic and thoughts towards smoking would be changed. If the reader was not a smoker, they would just be assured more that smoking is something that is extremely harmful to everyone. If the reader was a smoker, the facts and ideas stated in the article would influence him to rethink his reasons for why he smokes and thus causing his logic to change. Not only does the author prove once again that smoking is harmful, but that it has hidden damages that it causes. Many people think that the only thing that smoking does is cause cancer and shorten lives, however, there are many things that occur in the human body that many are not aware of. The author opens their eyes to the many other life threatening problems smoking can cause. Smoking not only can damage and eventually kill you, but can also hurt those around you.


Paryski, Paul. "The Negative Effects of Smoking on bones, Joints and Healing." Health and Age.com. N.p, 18 June 2009.Web. 25 September 2009.

The musculoskeletal effects of smoking. SE. Porter, EN. Hanley Jr, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2001, vol.9, pp.9--17.


A Man of God

May You Have Courage

If a BYU student stood up one day in the Wilkinson Center and began preaching against the doctrine of the Church, people would be astounded. First of all, nobody would listen, because what credibility does this person have? They are just an ordinary student with no particular significance. Also, they are preaching to the wrong audience. They are trying to convince to members of the Church, who made the conscious decision to attend Brigham Young University, a private-LDS college, that the Church is proclaiming false doctrine. Obviously, they do not understand who they are addressing. Along with this, they are not credible. Therefore, this person’s proclamation would not be effective because their ethos, or credibility, is not sufficient.

In order to gain the respect of others, one must act how they want to be treated. If one wants to be trusted, they must prove they are trustworthy. If somebody else wants to stand as a faithful Latter-day Saint, they must prove through their actions that they live the standards and stand up for what they believe. Their credibility and honor stand out to others and they become believable. One such man with a great ethos is the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Thomas S. Monson.

Whenever President Monson addresses a group of people, they listen attentively as if what he has to say will change their lives forever. Why does he have such power? In his recent address in April 2009, President Monson spoke to the young women of the church. He begins, “My dear young sisters, what a glorious sight you are” (par. 1). He addresses the women in a respectful and dignified manner. He talks with elegance and poise, truly speaking as the servant of the Lord. In our day, manners become rarer with each encounter. People degrade each other and speak negatively about others. President Monson expresses his love for the young women of the church, and they recognize his honesty and sincerity.

Other powerful attributes which enhance President Monson’s ethos is his intelligence and humility. He relies on the Savior’s teaching and life to portray the only perfect example. He quotes him to support his claim that we should love everybody; “’By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another’” (par. 12). President Monson turns to the Savior because he recognizes that he is only a man, and in order to become perfected in Christ, we must turn to him and his teachings in all things. Therefore, his credibility increases as he admits he must rely on the Savior, just as all of us must.

President Monson does not falter or justify the Church’s teachings. He boldly states, “The commandments of our Heavenly Father are not negotiable” (par. 24)! He sticks up for the truth and presents his authority as the spokesperson of our Heavenly Father. This power of inspiration truly comes as he addresses what the daughters of God on the earth need to hear. Our world is full of hatred, viciousness, technological and virtuous problems. The purpose of his address was to show to women that they need to stand for courage in this day. He uses great examples, modern and scriptural, to appeal to women of how to be faithful and courageous. You know he loves you as he says, “My earnest prayer is that you will have courage…as you do so,…your life will be filled with love and peace and joy” (par. 55). He clearly demonstrates his concern for all the young women of the church through his love for the Savior and our Heavenly Father.

President Monson is a miraculous man. There is no question of his authority as he addresses and presents himself. His credibility, kindness, generosity, humility, and love for the Savior stand out and all people recognize the person he is.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

"a date that will live in infamy"


On December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a speech to the vice president, the speaker of the House, members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives, and to the American people. The attack on the Hawaiian islands was a shock to everyone, especially because the Japanese had appeared to be cooperating previously. Roosevelt uses ethos to appeal to his audience by his formality, his position, and his concise reasoning which all lead the U.S. to declare war.

The reasoning Roosevelt uses is simple and builds his credibility because he knows what he's talking about. He explains that “the United States was at peace with [Japan] and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific” (par. 2). This is backed up with proof in the next paragraph about the U.S. receiving a letter from Japan an hour after the attack that contained no threats of war. Roosevelt continues to clarify the situation as he discusses the immediate effects of the attack. Also discussed are the other attacks Japan made in the same day. The specific names and places and details all work together to build his credibility.

Along these lines, Roosevelt speaks with clarity and formality to build the ethos of his argument for declaring war. He address the important leaders in the government in an official way. As he speaks, he uses formal language to reinforce his position and the fact that he knows what he's doing. FDR doesn't sugar-coat anything or beat around the bush. He just states things how they are. An example of this is when he says “The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost” (par. 5). He keeps the speech focused and just shares the reality of the situation. This formality establishes his credibility and makes him sound like someone who should be listened to.

However, Roosevelt already had ethos on his side because of his rank. At the time, he was president of the United States of America. This is a very high position and people usually listen to the president. He also is “commander in chief of the Army and Navy” and specifically uses this to remind the audience of his status and place (par. 8). However, Roosevelt doesn't place himself too far about the regular people of America. He uses phrases like “our whole nation” and “no matter how long it may take us” and “we will gain the inevitable triumph” to include himself in the whole of America (par. 8, 9, 12). This keeps him credible but also doesn't distance him from the audience too much.

All of these tactics help build the ethos of his speech. Roosevelt presents himself as a credible person with moral character who should be paid attention to. The formality, clarity, and clear reasoning, along with his position as president of the United States, establish him to be the person he is and gives him great influence. It would be difficult to not declare war after a person like Roosevelt presents such a solid argument.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

If Kids Stay in School...

When President Obama announced his plans to speak to schoolchildren across the United States, many parents, especially those of the "Right-Wing," became very upset. Believing the President intended to brainwash their children with his "socialist policies," some parents chose to remove their children from school for the day, allowing their fears of socialism to dominate rationality. In his political cartoon, Bill Schorr illustrates the logical fallacies used by opponents to Obama's speech, errors in reasoning that reveal the irrationalities of their opinions.

Using three different panels in his political cartoon, Bill Schorr shows how logical fallacies can arise when logical syllogisms are used incorrectly. As defined by Aristotle, logical syllogisms are a form of logic in which Statement A equals Statement B, Statement B equals Statement C, with a conclusion that Statement A must equal Statement C. With each of the panels representing a statement, an easy conclusion is drawn between panels A and B; that is, if children go to school, they will be educated voters. Likewise, panels B and C can also be seen to correlate, although through a hasty generalization. Using Aristotle's logic, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must also equal C. In this case, Obama's opponents, as parodied by Schorr, utilize a failed logical syllogism. Children attending school are not indicative of the eventual political power of the Republican Party: there are too many outside variables influencing not only the choices of voters, but the type of education children earn as well. In this manner, a logical fallacy is created, an unfounded syllogism stemming from the irrationality of overly concerned parents.

As mentioned above, a hasty generalization is also made between panels B and C, resulting in a logical fallacy. Jumping to the conclusion that educated voters will lead to the demise of the Republican Party is a false notion. As seen throughout history, educated voters belong to both major political parties in about equal numbers, resulting in the continual change in power within American politics. Simply believing that educated voters are preventing the Republican Party from returning to power is also a denial of other, more conclusive factors that affect the choices of voters, educated and casual supporters alike. This conclusion, made by members of the GOP and other individuals, needs more evidence before the platform of the Republican Party is dismantled by hopeless party leaders.

Another logical fallacy also occurs in the oversimplification of the concerns surrounding President Obama's speech. As illustrated above, the GOP is afraid of losing all power; however, not only do they misattribute this fear to Obama's speech, but they also define their fear by a single issue. Rather than identifying the many causes of the Democratic Party's current control of law-making in the federal government, Republican parents who pulled their children out of school are using the President's pep talk as an easy explanation for grievances concerning their political party. Oversimplifying the reasons for an event may be easier to explain to a general audience, but such explanations do not strengthen an argument, especially when extreme measures, such as keeping children home from school, are taken.

Though limited in its scope in addressing the concerns of antagonists to President Obama's speech, Bill Schorr's political cartoon provides a clear illustration of faulty logical reasoning. Arising in many aspects of the arguments given by parents and members of the GOP alike, logical fallacies show the irrationality of the hype concerning the President's supposed brainwashing pep talk. Socialist or not, better logical reasoning is needed before keeping children home from school in order to prevent them from hearing a speech by the President of the United States.

Schorr, Bill. "Cagle Cartoons." Cartoon. Daryl Cagle's Poltical Cartoon Index. msnbc.com, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

The Power of A Ban

One article can be emotionally appealing to many different types of people. I read the article the “Anatomy of a Ban”, written by Alina Hoffman and Ann Friedman. This article compares two proposed abortion bans and compares the language that is presented in both of them. The law in South Dakota was not nearly as strongly worded as the one (H.B.1) proposed in Georgia. By reading the texts compared, it makes it clear that the anti-abortionists in Georgia are much more emotionally attached to the issue.
Pathos is more about getting the reader to experience a single emotion. The legislation that will be proposed by Georgia not only makes a much bolder statement, it is a much more effectively worded document. In the article, the Georgia proposal quotes the Roe v. Wade document, making their argument very credible and believable. It quotes, “man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [to the question of when life begins] (par.5).” The emotion portrayed in this statement shows that the writers of the document do think that knowledge is present, but that it cannot be the determining factor in all decisions.
The article then moves on to talk about if women should be prosecuted for having abortions. South Dakota talked about how they should not be bothered for their personal decisions. However; Georgia went into detail about how women “should be convicted of felony and punished” for the killing of a human fetus (par.9). They present their argument in such a forceful way that makes me believe that this issue is very important to them. Reading the article makes me question if this issue is as important to me as it is to them. Feelings are aroused through the strength of their words, and the position that they are taking on this ongoing issue.
Many reasons are given as to why the anti-abortionists feel that abortion should be banned. Not only do they give reasons as to why it should be illegal, but also ways that legalized abortion has damaged communities and homes in our country. They state facts that make the reader know that what they say is credible, and they also arouse an emotion of fear as they present the harmful damages that abortions can cause families.
The writers of H.B.1 also reach out to another crowd when they reference to Susan B. Anthony. As one of the greatest women in American history, her words about any issue are going to be greatly respected, regardless of the subject. She called abortion “child murder (par.12).” Due to the face that she cared so much about the rights and safety of other people, her statements are very credible. The bill also states that “legalized abortion has had a profound detrimental effect on the health and well-being of citizens of this state as well as the health of the community (par.12).” This poses a threat against citizens of the country and can invoke fear in the hearts of the readers and get them to start to side with their thoughts. The writers of the bill use pathos to get readers to become emotionally attached to the issue. Those reading it start to see the emotion put into the argument and from the fury of the arguers, they begin to feel some of the same fury towards the issue of legalization of abortion.
H.B.1 lays out the ideas of the anti-abortionists very strongly and quite explicitly. However; it is not inappropriate in any way. It is very radical, and many people do not expect it to pass due to its’ extreme nature. The article is bursting with passion and anger as the wishes of the groups are vividly expressed. They start to make one wonder about their moral beliefs by presenting a credible and valid argument with strong and powerful emotion.



Hoffman, Alina and Friedman, Ann. "Anatomy of a Ban." The American Prospect, 22 January 2007. Web. 23 Sep. 2009.

Human Effects on the Environment

The correct language used in an article has a strong affect on how people respond to the author’s argument. One must know their audience and how to approach them in a dignified and respectful manner, as well as saying what they believe and want to convince the readers of. In Perspectives of the Environment, Jutka Terris writes an article titled, “Unwelcome (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife”. Many emotions can be stirred with this article and the type of language she uses will be analyzed.

In order to successfully reach out to an audience, you must know how they think and react to certain situations. Terris reaches out to those who are eco-friendly, care about the environment, and especially those who care about animal conservation. But what about the readers who do not agree with animal conservation? If they were to read this article, would they be convinced through Terri’s argument to become conservationists? The first thing a reader notices is the title. It catches their attention and makes them curious. This title, “Unwelcome (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife”, is unique and may catch the attention of readers, perhaps not in a good way. Nobody likes to hear that humans are unwelcome. As a society, power has become the norm and anything depriving somebody of that power is assumed to be bad. Thus, when this author states that people are unwelcome, the suggestion that animals are more important and more powerful comes to mind. This may increase the number of people who read the article, just out of anger, or there are those who readily agree with Terris. Thus, the phrasing of this title affects certain audiences in different ways.

The language an author uses is very important. Terris enhances the effect of human expansion on animals by using imagery. Such an example follows, “In just the last few decades, rapidly growing human settlements have consumed large amounts of land in our country, while wildlife habitats have shrunk, fragmented, or disappeared altogether” (Terris, 45). The words “consumed”, “shrunk”, “fragmented”, and “disappeared” all create a negative connotation. This connotation allows readers to recognize how our own development in rural and urban communities destroys the habitats of animals. It also allows readers to imagine what is occurring and people can literally see how their own growth affects not only themselves, but the animals around them. Terris reaches out to the emotion of people, or pathos, assuming that by creating a visualization of the destruction of animal habitats, people will want to change how they live and change society. Therefore, the use of imagery allows readers to understand and relate emotionally to the author’s argument.

Another writing tactic to entice readers is overstatement, or hyperbole. The use of exaggeration makes readers think a situation is worse or better than it actually may be. Terris enhances her argument by using overstatements like when stating, “In Southern California, another booming area, the coastal sage ecosystem is unraveling. Sprawling developments has wiped out…this landscape…and, as a result, the region has experienced a dramatic loss of native species” (Terris, 47). By using “wiped out” and “dramatic loss” an exaggeration causes readers to think that all species living in Southern California are annihilated and cannot live there. Terris does not specify what has exactly happened to unravel the ecosystem, creating an overstatement and a generalization. Readers should question where this information comes from and how reliable the source is. Thus, when overstatements and generalizations are used, readers should be wary and inquire of the credibility of the author and their ethos.

The language used affects readers in certain ways. Language catches their attention and encourages them to read further to understand what argument is being presented. Other types of language will distract readers and leave them uninterested. In Terris’ article, she tries to connect with readers emotionally through imagery and overstatements. Her generalizations can reach many types of audiences, but ultimately she reaches out to those who desire to help the ecosystem and animal habitats. Thus, her use of language affects her argument and supports how people should be wary of the effect they have on the ecosystem.

FASTSKIN: PRO Advertising

For people all around the world, the Olympics are a greatly anticipated event. With millions of eyes glued to television screens, hours are spent watching prime-time television, allowing viewers to be exploited by commercial advertisers. Products used in actual Olympic events grow in popularity: companies such as Speedo use successful athletes to promote their merchandise. In one such commercial, Speedo advertises the FASTSKIN FS-PRO competition suit using the athletic success of champion swimmer, Michael Phelps.

Though only thirty seconds long, Speedo, in their 2007 commercial featuring Michael Phelps, manages to send a clear message to viewers. Using energetic music that increases in intensity until the end of the video clip, the advertisement excites viewers not only aurally, but visually as well: the sight of an American flag on Phelps’ swim cap promotes patriotism, the show of Phelps’ muscular physique gives the ad a sexual appeal, and the use of the color red, a symbol of authority, represents Phelps’ domineering athletic success. Each of these examples subtly increases Phelps’ credibility as a representative for Speedo, giving consumers greater incentive to purchase a FASTSKIN suit.

Speedo further establishes ethos, a sense of credibility for their product, by presenting a brief résumé of Phelps’ accomplishments in the swimming pool. Periodically flashing text across the screen, Speedo lists Phelps’ achievements, immediately identifying him as one of the world’s greatest athletes. Citing his credentials in descending order, beginning with the 13th FINA World Championships 2007, to his 7 Olympic Gold Medals and 5 World Records, anyone who doesn’t know the identity of Michael Phelps can now be assured of his swimming prowess.* By listing Phelps’ accomplishments, Speedo seemingly says, “Michael is a winner. He wears our suit,” thus encouraging consumers that, in order to be winners like Michael, one must wear a FASTSKIN suit. In this manner, viewers come to believe and trust that Speedo’s product must be the best if Michael Phelps wears it.

In using Michael Phelps to endorse the FASTSKIN FS-PRO competition suit, however, Speedo presents a flawed argument with the fallacy of false authority. Phelps’ athletic ability in the swimming pool has nothing to do with the suit he wears. Granted, some swimming suits, depending on the material from which they are made, decrease water resistance and increase speed; however, wearing a fast suit does not guarantee becoming an Olympic Medalist. Furthermore, Phelps’ does not have any authority to officially endorse the FASTSKIN suit. While an expert in textiles can explain the reasoning behind the advantages of wearing a FASTSKIN suit as opposed to a polyester-spandex blend, Michael Phelps does not have a college degree, let alone education in chemical engineering or textiles. Because of Phelps’ false authority, consumers must keep in mind that swimming suits are only as fast as the person who wears them.

Sans music, flashing lights, and the Olympic Medalist, Michael Phelps, Speedo’s advertisement for the competition swimming suit, FASTSKIN FS-PRO, lacks credibility and appeal to convince consumers to purchase their product. Upon referencing Michael Phelps swimming achievements, however, Speedo gains authority and influence in the eyes of customers. Marketing the FASTSKIN suit with Michael Phelps’ endorsement, Speedo is indeed successful, selling their swimwear to viewers of the Olympics throughout the world.

*Note: This advertisement is dated. Phelps’ achievements-to-date include 14 Olympic Gold Medals, 6 World Records, and a 13th FINA World Championships 2009.


Michael Phelps Speedo Commercial. YouTube. YouTube, 2007. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Divorce's Toll on Children

Karl Zinsmeister - Divorce's Toll on Children

In Karl Zinsmeiseter's article "Divorce's Toll on Children", he explains why divorce is such a horrible event for the children involved. He claims that young children involved in divorces become "passive watchers", "dependent, demanding, unaffectionate, and disobedient". Zinmeister uses specific language tools to discuss the negative effects of divorce on the children including tone, specific statistics, and overstatement.

Throughout the entire article, the author uses overstatement as a tool to pursuade the audience of the long-term negative effects for children created by divorce. He uses phrases like "very rare" and "most often" to accentuate the gravity of a situation. The interesting thing is that he uses this terms so often that it loses its effect. Zinmeister uses overstatements in order to persuade the readers that divorce is such a horrible experience for the children.

For example, he says that "fully 15 percent of all teenagers living with divorced mothers have been booted from school at least temporarily". He uses the words "fully", "all", and "booted" which makes the reader feel like this is a big deal (157). However, we could rewrite it to say that 15 percent of teenagers living with divorced mothers have had in-school suspensions. It'd be interesting to look up the percentage of all teenagers who have been booted from school and compare. The argument Zinmeister presents is very one-sided.

However, even though they only come from his side of the argument, Zinmeister uses specific statistics to build ethos. He tries to build credibility with different studies sponsored by reliable institutions and people such as the University of Pittsburgh, National Survey of Children, and University of Hawaii psychiatrist John McDermott. The direct quotes from these sources and people actually experienced with divorce. It's hard to disagree when he quotes psychologist John Guibubaldi, past president of the National Association of School Psychologists and says "the weight of the evidence has become overwhelming on the side that [the adjustments kids make] aren't [healthy] (154). Another example of pure fact being presented is when he says "indeed, Gallup youth surveys in the early 1990s show that three out of four teenagers age 13 to 17 think 'it is too easy for people in this country to get divorced'" (153). All of these examples show how he builds credibility by using specific examples and numbers to prove his point.

Tone is the most important language tool used in the article. Word choice is crucial and Zinmeister makes sure to choose words and phrases to lead his readers a certain direction. His words have certain connotations and feelings attatched. For example, he calls divorce a "marital rupture" and that the children "feel torn in two" (152, 153). The imagery in these phrases describes divorce as a breakage or as something destructive. He also uses words like "youngster", "only", "all", "surprisingly large", and "overwhelming" in order to exagerate or draw attention to something. The word "youngster" makes the children seem really young and innocent. This, in turn, causes the reader to be sympathetic to the plight of children with divorced families.

Because Zinmeister is able to use language tools so effectively, he's able to convince his readers that divorce does create long-term negative effects for children. He builds pathos, logos, and ethos by using overstatement, word choice, tone, statistics, and imagery. All of this works together to create a solid argument that divorce is definitely not a good thing for the children involved.