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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.