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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Title of Liberty

What classifies a true hero? Perhaps one may say that a hero is somebody who uses super powers to prevail against evil, but a true hero is one who portrays courage as they stand for truth and righteousness. In our history, many men and women act in courage, but one particular man changed the lives of many as he stood up for what he believed in during a time of evil. This man was Captain Moroni. While wickedness prevailed, Moroni took a stand and delivered his "Title of Liberty" speech at the right time, with the right people, at the right place.

In 73 B.C. a wicked man named Amalickiah desired to be king of the Nephites. The people were “led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, [and] if they would support him and establish him to be their king…he would make them rulers over the people” (Alma 46:5). Therefore, the people began to be desirous of his cunning and wicked ways, and the land of Zarahemla became a wicked land. When Captain Moroni heard of the wickedness of the people and of Amalickiah, he knew he must act. He tore a piece of his coat and wrote, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12), on it. With this message fastened to a pole, he went unto the people and waved the banner as he proclaimed, “Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant and they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them” (Alma 46:20).

Through his proclaim, Moroni affectively touched the lives of the right people, by being at the right place, at the right time. Thus, a moment of kairos was established. Amalickiah wished for the people of Zarahemla to follow his reign and to become a selfish and wicked people. He lured them into his attractive ideas of becoming rulers of the people and many began following him. His selfish ideals only benefited him, yet the Nephites believed his lies. If Moroni had not acted at the time he had, the Nephites would have succumb to Amalickiah. They would be a wicked people, and the righteous would dissipate. Therefore, Moroni gave his “Title of Liberty” speech at the opportune moment.

Moroni was “chief commander of the armies of the Nephites” (Alma 46:11) during the days Helaman preached to the people. Helaman was in the process of establishing churches across the land when the people began to lose sight of the Lord and become wicked. This occurrence was prevalent in the land of Zarahemla, where Moroni was. He saw the wickedness prevailing and gave his speech to a land where “brethren were gathered together against their brethren” (Alma 46:1). He knew he must touch the lives of the people of Zarahemla and influence their hearts to turn to the Lord once again; otherwise any righteousness would be destroyed. Thus, Moroni spoke at the right place at the right time.

Although wickedness was beginning to prosper, few righteous people remained. If Moroni had not addressed this particular group of people at the time he did and the place he did, these righteous people may have fallen and joined the wicked. After Moroni had proclaimed to the people, “the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God” (Alma 46:21). They were ready to act and support Moroni in his righteous endeavors. They did not agree with Amalickiah and were waiting for something to happen for their neighbors, friends, and family to be reminded of the Lord. It was the opportune moment and because he spoke at the right place, at the right time to the right people, “they began to have peace again in the land” (Alma 46:37).

The definition of kairo is to act at the right place, to the right people, at the right time. Moroni acted fearlessly in a time when wickedness prevailed. He stood and acted on the Lord’s side, proclaiming to the people of Zarahemla to stand with him in righteousness and serve the Lord. The timing of his proclamation to the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla was perfect. So perfect, that it changed the wicked effects of Amalickiah and peace prospered once again in the land. Through his “Title of Liberty” proclamation, Moroni acted as a true hero and a perfect example of kairo was established.