{"id":159,"date":"2013-02-20T13:09:56","date_gmt":"2013-02-20T21:09:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pages.palomar.edu\/eminamide\/?page_id=159"},"modified":"2020-02-24T10:16:02","modified_gmt":"2020-02-24T18:16:02","slug":"video","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.palomar.edu\/eminamide\/video\/","title":{"rendered":"Video"},"content":{"rendered":"

Classical Rhetorical Appeals
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The following links illustrate the rhetorical appeals of pathos, ethos, and logos in ads or public service announcements. Keep in mind that these appeals can often be misleading, and can be used to manipulate or misrepresent an argument (propaganda). Note, too, that more than one rhetorical appeal may be used in an ad. It’s important as critical readers\/thinkers to be aware of the strategies being used, in visual or written media, and examine them objectively.<\/p>\n

As you view these ads, consider the following: What effect do these appeals have on me? What am I being asked to think, believe, or buy? Are the appeals used in the ads used responsibly, or do they veer into the realm of propaganda?<\/p>\n

Note<\/strong>: Links to websites will open in a new window. Media links are best viewed in Google Chrome. If you have trouble viewing media, try switching to different browser.<\/p>\n

Pathos: The Persuasive Power of the Author’s Appeal to the Interests, Emotions and Imagination of the Audience<\/span> <\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lamborghini<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Troops Returning Home<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Global Warming<\/em><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ethos: The Persuasive Power of the Author’s Credibility or Reliability as a Spokesperson or Expert<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cover Gir<\/a>l (Taylor Swift)<\/em><\/p>\n

Simply Ageless\/Olay<\/a> (Ellen DeGeneres)<\/em><\/p>\n

I-Phone<\/a> (Zooey Deschanel)<\/em><\/p>\n

Chrysler<\/a> (Bob Dylan)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Logos: The Persuasive Power of the Author’s Reasons, Evidence, and Logic<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

US Airways<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Good Housekeeping Analysis of Infomercials<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Combining the Appeals: Pathos and Logos<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Drinking and Driving<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Comment:\u00a0 This video appears to have been created by students, perhaps for a class project. You’ll notice several typos or errors in some of the screen displays. I’m posting the video anyway because I like the mix of emotional and logical appeals.)<\/p>\n

ARGUMENT: <\/strong>How NOT to Argue<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

When introducing students to the argument genre, I like to get the students thinking about what the word “argument” means. As part of the introduction to this genre, it’s fun to illustrate how “not” to argue before discussing how to argue effectively.<\/p>\n

First,\u00a0an example of how children<\/a> argue. If you listen closely, you might be able to discern some rather sophisticated (albeit logically fallacious) techniques.<\/p>\n

My analysis:<\/strong> They start by citing their sources (“my mom said…”). This gets nowhere. Then the boy shifts to logical fallacies. First he tries flattery (argumentum ad superbiam)\u00a0<\/span>when he says, “you’re pretty”. When this strategy got nowhere, he resorts to ad hominem<\/em> (“you’re not real”). Meanwhile, the\u00a0middle girl’s pragmatic suggestion to resolve the issue\u00a0(“let’s go outside and look”) is ignored. The\u00a0boy, finally realizing he’s lost the\u00a0<\/span>argument,<\/span> resorts to victimization (the method employed by many today) when he starts crying. Not surprisingly, he wins the <\/span>argument<\/span>\u00a0by default since now both girls feel bad and the argument\u00a0is never resolved. A perfect metaphor for today’s polarized society?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, what better place to illustrate how not to argue than the Bunker household?<\/p>\n

In this clip, Archie Bunker meets his future son-in-law for the first time. This encounter sets the tone for their volatile relationship, typified by the way they argue. What goes wrong in this “discussion”? Who’s primarily at fault? How does each person contribute to the argument? What could each have done differently?<\/p>\n

All in the Family Flashback: Archie Meets Michael<\/a><\/p>\n

In this next series of clips, observe Archie’s “logic” on a series of issues (some more significant than others).<\/p>\n

Archie Bunker: On Guns and V.D.<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Archie Bunker: On Guns vs. Pushed out of Window<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0Archie Bunker: On Vegetarianism<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0Archie Bunker: A Sock and a Sock and a Shoe and a Shoe<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0Archie Bunker: On Equal Pay for Men and Women<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ARGUMENT: How TO Argue<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In this 10-minute vintage video, we learn basic principles of argument. Though the video addresses verbal arguments, these principles may also be applied to written argument.<\/p>\n

Learn to Argue Effectively\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Summary of principle discussed in the video:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. What subjects are worth arguing about?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n