Presentation on theme: "Ticket in the door (Quick Check) Define the following: Ethos Logos Pathos."— Presentation transcript:
Ticket in the door (Quick Check) Define the following: Ethos Logos Pathos
ETHOS, PATHOS, & LOGOS Work Packet/Schedule
1. What is Ethos? A means of convincing an audience by virtue of a writer’s character. We tend to believe people whom we respect. By appealing to Ethos, authors demonstrate credibility, authority, and/or their identification with an audience's values through an effective use of accuracy, support, and fairness.
To develop Ethos, a writer may Use an appropriate level of vocabulary for the audience and topic. Consult authoritative sources in your research Demonstrate an obvious knowledge of the information being presented Present a fair, evenhanded, and well- structured argument
The author demonstrates her credibility on the issue of smoking: "I was once a pack-a-day smoker, but I have since quit and established a non-profit organization that aims to educate smokers of the bodily effects of cigarette usage" (citation). By informing the reader of her past experience with smoking, the author is establishing her firsthand knowledge of the issue. Also, her educational expertise on the effects of smoking instills confidence in her audience by providing a solid foundation for her claims. The reader is more likely to believe the author's argument knowing that she, the author, has lived through and studied the issue at hand.
The author of the advertisement uses language that appeals to the targeted age group: "The new, fiery Hot-Carz toys are super-fast and super-cool, with awesome paint jobs" (citation). Since the advertisement focuses on young children, the author uses "super," "cool," and "awesome" to help children feel that he, the author, understands what they want in a toy. By using language that is common among children, the author can get them excited about his product.
2. What is Pathos? The emotional or motivational appeals used to support a claim. Persuading an audience by appealing to their emotions. Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and prompting this emotional response can enhance one’s argument. By appealing to Pathos, an author uses connotative words, stories, and/or descriptions or images to evoke an emotional response from the audience, encouraging the audience to relate to his or her claim on an emotional level.
To appeal to Pathos (emotion), a writer may use Emotional examples Connotative meanings Vivid descriptions Narratives of emotional events Intense emotional engagement with the subject matter Emotive words that immediately draw a reaction from the reader
The author uses pathos to connect with her audience on an emotional level. She claims "Parents’ secondhand smoke endangers children, who may never smoke a cigarette in their lives, with the serious risk of developing lung cancer" (citation). By asserting that smokers “endanger” their children, the author is trying to pull at the reader’s heartstrings by conjuring an image of innocent children being afflicted by a lethal disease. This prompts the reader's emotional response of pity and sorrow in an attempt to portray smoking as something evil.
The author uses powerful connotations and vivid imagery to elicit an emotional response from the reader. "Imagine the regret the man must feel for having accidentally killed a child, the sorrow of his family as he goes to prison, the anguish of the victim's family as they will never see their loved one again, all because this man drove while intoxicated" (citation). Sorrow," regret and "anguish" all have very strong emotional connotations that help the reader feel that this situation is one they would never want to put themselves in; these emotional connotations enhance the author’s argument against driving under the influence.
3. What is Logos? A means of persuading the audience by the use of reasoning. Giving the audience a logical reason to believe one’s points is a very important element of argumentation. Writers will employ rational appeals in an attempt to convince their audience that their claims are reasonable and logically sound. An author provides logical interpretations of facts, statistical evidence, and/or literal analogies to appeal to the audience's rationality and make his or her argument seem reasonable.
To appeal to Logos (logic), a writer may use Denotative meanings/reasons Literal analogies Definitions Factual data and statistics Quotations/citations from authorities
The author backs up her argument with statistical data. She asserts that cigarette usage is dangerous by citing a study that found the following: "Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women“ (citation). The author is using figures provided by a scientific survey to portray her claim about cigarette usage as rational. If most lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking, then it stands to reason that smoking is a very unhealthy activity, so the author's argument appears to have rational merit to the audience.
The author compares current conditions to historical events using a literal analogy: "We need to fund better methods of crop irrigation, or we will be faced with another catastrophe like the Dust Bowl" (citation). This claim creates a direct connection between the conditions of modern irrigation and those that sparked a major disaster for farmers across the Midwest. By drawing a common link to this deadly outcome, the author is giving the audience a logical reason for funding irrigation improvement.
4. How does a celebrity endorsement bring credibility to a product? People have a tendency to trust what celebrities do and what they say. Some believe that by using the same products as their favorite celebrity they will be more like them. Some believe that by using the same product it will make him/her popular among peers.
5. What emotion is evoked in the Cheerios commercial? It causes the audience to have that “ahww, how cute moment”.
6. Does Logos require the use of statistical data? The logic used to support a claim Logos is used as a means of persuading the audience by the use of reasoning. Giving the audience a logical reason to believe one’s points is a very important element of argumentation. Writers will employ rational appeals in an attempt to convince their audience that their claims are reasonable and logically sound.
7. Can different appeals be used in one advertisement? Yes, advertisements are more persuasive when more than one appeal is used.
Logical Fallacies Logical flaws cause the audience to question (1) the truth or reasonableness of a conclusion and often (2) the credibility of the speaker or writer. These logical flaws, or "fallacies," include Ad Hominem Bandwagon Begging the Question Either/Or Reasoning False Authority Faulty Causality Hasty Generalizations Non Sequitur Slippery Slope
Ad hominem Tree-hugger, Feminazi, Right-wing nut, Chicken hawk, Islamofascist. These labels attack people rather than their ideas. Ad hominem arguments focus on a person's character (real or perceived) rather than on issues. But isn't a person's character important? Of course, but it doesn't make logical sense to argue against a person's claim or idea by attacking his or her personal traits, background, family, or appearance. Example: Claim: The United States should increase military spending to fight terrorism globally. Ad hominem: My opponent is a cowboy whose foreign policy would consist of Hollywood-style shootouts rather than diplomacy.
Bandwagon TurboZoom... Everyone's got one. Why don't YOU? Users everywhere agree: TurboZoom is the best! Don't be the last one on your block to own a TurboZoom! These types of arguments urge you to do or believe something simply because "everyone else" is doing so. Bandwagon appeals may seem effective on a superficial level. But they ultimately weaken an argument because They take the place of better, more valid reasons. They make the speaker or writer using them appear lazy or smug. Example: Bandwagon appeal: The "Cash for Clunkers" program has been a success. Tens of thousands of Americans have registered for vouchers to subsidize their new car purchases. More logical appeal: The "Cash for Clunkers" program has been a success. By subsidizing the purchases of new, more fuel efficient vehicles for Americans willing to trade in their old gas guzzlers, this initiative makes a short-term investment in our long-term goals of environmental protection and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels.
Begging the Question Professor Higgins is unfair because he doesn't treat all students equally. Wait! Doesn't "unfair" = "not treating all students equally"? So what the speaker is actually saying is Professor Higgins is unfair because he is unfair. That's a pretty useless argument. Writers beg the question when they give a reason that is just a restatement of their claim. They are assuming as true the very claim they should be defending with solid reasons and evidence. This often occurs when there is an Overly emotional argument Lack of preparation Lack of a critical audience Granted, as long as begging the question is followed by strong evidence, it is acceptable: Begging the question: Offshore oil exploration is safe in the Canadian Artic because precautions are taken to prevent accidents. More logical argument: Offshore oil exploration is safe in the Canadian Artic because precautions are taken to prevent accidents. To avoid catastrophic spills, Canada requires oil companies to be ready to drill relief wells within months of starting exploration.
Either/Or Reasoning Either you're for gun ownership rights, or you're against them. Either spay your cat, or deal with dozens of unwanted kittens. When an issue is clear-cut, either/or reasoning is fine. (Either do your chores, or you'll receive no allowance.) But the assertions above (a) inappropriately simplify a complex issue or (b) hide other possible solutions to the problem. One can, for example, support gun ownership rights while opposing citizens' rights to carry bazookas. Cat owners can keep their pets indoors rather than having them spayed in order to prevent their cats from becoming pregnant. Example: Either/or reasoning: Either we establish a 24-hour patrol on our border with Mexico, or Texas will be overrun with undocumented workers. More particular, less polarized reasoning: One effective solution to curbing illegal immigration would be to place a 24-hour patrol on our border with Mexico. While opponents of this idea argue that establishing such a patrol would be too costly, we can all agree that the border fence alone hasn't done enough to keep undocumented workers from entering Texas.
False Authority An actor wearing a lab coat promotes a headache remedy. A golf hero suggests that one car brand is superior to all others. An appeal to authority becomes a fallacy when the "authority" being cited is not actually an expert in that given field. Is the actor really qualified to prescribe medicine? Can the golf hero really vouch for the quality of the engineering of the car she drives? Probably not. Appealing to a false authority reduces your credibility and makes the evidence for your claim weaker overall. Example: False authority: Mrs. Smith (personal communication, July 21, 2010), owner of The Daily Grind Coffee Shop, insisted that pregnant mothers need not be concerned about the effect of caffeine consumption on the behavior of their unborn children. Actual authority: Drs. Hagedorn and Smith (2003) noted that the link between maternal caffeine consumption and irritability of newborns in rats is "quite strong" (p. 23).
Faulty Causality Faulty claims like the one above are based on the mistaken assumption that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second. Our desire to understand the reason why certain things happen sometimes misleads us. Because these types of fallacies often sound reasonable, be careful to consider them critically and logically. Demand solid evidence—even, and especially, when you believe a claim is true. Example: False causality: Antiperspirants cause breast cancer. As we all know, rates of breast cancer have increased at the same time that the use of antiperspirants has increased. Antiperspirants block sweat from naturally being released from the body. This blocked sweat therefore builds up in these tissues, leading to cancer in the lymph glands and the breast. First event: Sweat builds up in body tissues. Second event: Cancer develops in these same body tissues. Claim: A buildup of sweat (and, hence, antiperspirants) causes cancer to develop. The problem: If this is so, why don't more men, who also use antiperspirants, develop breast cancer?
Hasty Generalizations That restaurant is awful. I had a bad meal there once. Tanisha is a genius; she made an A on the mid-term. TurboZoom products are terrible. My mom had two of them, and they broke. Broad generalizations that lack sufficient evidence to back them up are fallacies. How much evidence is enough? It depends. Usually, the more important or controverial the claim, the more solid evidence it requires. Fix hasty generalizations by Looking for broad statements about people, places, or things, the full range of which you have not interacted with Qualifying these statements by inserting words and phrases such as most, many, in my experience, some, usually, and often Leaving these sentences unedited only if you actually CAN speak to a particular quality of every member in the specific group. Example: Hasty generalization: Personal glory matters more to professional athletes than the success of their teams. Qualified generalization: News stories have presented us with several examples of professional athletes who put personal glory ahead of their teams' success.
Non Sequitur I deserve an A in chemistry because I studied really hard. This car is the best because it is made in Italy. This fallacy occurs when the evidence presented doesn't logically support its claim. Studying hard won't necessarily earn you good grades on assignments (or an A). Both poorly made cars and fabulous cars are manufactured in Italy, so we can't assume a car is "the best" because it was made there. Non sequiturs cause arguments to essentially collapse, so it's important to eliminate them by Outlining your claims and evidence, as well as how the two are connected Using the Search function (Ctrl + F) in your word processor to find all instances of the word because, and analyzing those arguments carefully Rejecting any claims for which you can't find more convincing evidence. Example: Non Sequitur: The current healthcare program will be ineffective because almost all Republican congressmen opposed the legislation for it. More logical argument: The current healthcare program will be ineffective because it does not safeguard against skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
Slippery Slope If we don't inspect every child's hair today, the school will be crawling with lice tomorrow! Sitcom heart-throb Zeke Zengleman was spotted having a beer last weekend. How long will it be before he's back in rehab? The slippery-slope argument claims that a small action taken today may have large (and usually horrible) consequences at some time in the future. Sometimes, this type of argument is valid and effective: Let's fix the tear in the tent flap now while it's small. Otherwise, it will just keep getting larger and let rain in. But in many cases, a slippery-slope argument exaggerates the possible consequences of an action, trying to scare or excite the audience. It therefore tends to cause readers to question your honesty and ethics. Avoid slippery- slope arguments by Not exaggerating or being overly dramatic Sticking to the facts, and avoiding too much speculation when you lack sufficient evidence. Example: Slippery slope: If I eat this one cupcake, I'll be beginning a pattern of behavoir that will ruin my health. More logical argument: If I eat a couple of cupcakes each night right before bed, I'll hurt my diet.