Oh Yes AP Language Blog: From the Picket Lines!

Thursday, October 8, 2015

From the Picket Lines!

Here are two articles. You should read them both, and choose one about which to write.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/reflections-on-pro-life-protest-rhetoric

https://reason.com/archives/2001/12/01/what-are-we-marchin-for

Both of these articles address RHETORIC. The authors argue that in order for an argument to be valid, all three appeals need to be considered. Do you agree with what these authors have to say about rhetoric? Consider how you approached the topic of the promotion of ECCSS. Did you use all of the angles? Did you contemplate the audience? How might reading and analyzing these pieces of writing help you with yours. Do these authors fulfill their "Writers Duty"?

72 comments:

Really HerzingOctober 10, 2015 at 2:22 PM
The author who strongly preached in his essay "What are we Marching for?" that if we initiate an argument then we need a reason, proof, and logos, pathos, and ethos. We need to include all the information or else our argument is invalid and has no reason to be thought of. In this article the author asked this question quite often that led to no answer, "If we're against war, what are we for?" This statement shows a lot about the logos, pathos, and ethos of these people arguing. They simply did not have all the elements together that will form a good argument. I agree with both of the authors, they both enforce that a good rhetoric has enough information, and isn't bias, to have others choose to agree or disagree. In my rhetoric essay about ECCSS I do not feel as if I hit all the angles in all the right ways. I need to open myself to the right directions and the right ways to guide my paper. My paper did not allow my audience to think and decide on what distinction they were going to make about the school because I was biased and wrote what I thought I should say. That wouldn't allow to give my audience what they need or want to decide their feelings toward ECCSS. Reading and analyzing these papers made it easier for me to understand how to write my paper. It helps me to prove my point rather than saying if I do or do not support something. Making a decision and choosing argument have more than just your opinions; it's about making good reasons about why you chose what you chose. The authors full on futilely their writers duty. Why? They used examples and proved their point in distinct ways. They made their articles easy to read and decided what they were going to say and said it to the best of their ability and with all of their heart.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Allie GierOctober 10, 2015 at 7:15 PM
These articles both really shed a message on rhetoric. We always need to have good information for rhetorics according to these authors. I believe in what these authors have to say about rhetoric, especially John F. Brick on his article, "Reflections on Pro-Life Protest". He uses evidence and ideas that talk about rhetoric and his views on the three appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. I personally really enjoy his examples he uses throughout the article on rhetorical ideas and the three appeals too. One example that I like from Brick is when he talks about how "superior rhetoric is more urgent than ever". I truly believe it is too. You always need a valid and valuable rhetorical analysis on every base you have. Another example that I really enjoy is that he states the "standard scene". I think this evidence makes the certain topic really clear on what it's meaning is overall. My approach on the subjects and topics of ECC were somewhat different. I approached on how the unique and outstanding aspects of ECC make us different than other schools. I personally don't think I touched all the angles though. Myself as a writer needs to improve on hitting all different angles and pointing on all topics we talk about and present. I contemplated my audience on the topics of ECC by stressing all of the advances. I talked about the advances within the academics, sports, and technology. I also tried to use interesting topics that would bring the audience into the argument by talking about different activities we have over others, like Campus Ministry. I personally think that these articles will help with my writing. I think they will help in the future with my rhetorical strategies and ways to approach all other arguments I face. It will also allow me to prove my point better. These writers profess a "Writer's Duty". They tell what is right, just, and humble. They are also inspiring writers, which is the type of person William Faulkner was.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 8:22 AM
The authors of both stress an important fact: all rhetorical aspects must be present in a good argument. Mr. MacDonald's article about anti-war protests backs this point. In his article, Mr. MacDonald presents information about rallies and marches against the war on terrorism, details as to who the protesters were, and where they protested. There was not any information on how to create a different solution. The article presents that without reason, credibility, and logic, an argument is ineffective. The protesters were not able to form a valid argument because their argument was only based on emotion, they had no response to questions about their logic or reasons. Specific questions, such as, "what are you for?" or "what is your solution?" show the lack of rhetoric in the protesters argument, as well as the need for it in a good argument. I agree with the articles' beliefs that all aspects of the rhetorical triangle need to be present in a good argument. In my rhetoric essay on enrollment at ECC, I do not think I touched all the angles as well as I should have. I used reasoning, but it most of the reasons were not totally backed up with facts or logic, I also believe I could have wrote with more emotion. I contemplated the audience on how the success rate, specialization, attitudes, and various other reasons helped to keep new students enrolling at the school. I, however, did not really give the audience a chance to contemplate the refutation. I think that the articles helped me to realize the importance of factual bases and the importance of all aspects of the rhetorical triangle. I also believe that the articles will help me in writing stronger arguments and less biased papers. I believe that both authors fulfilled the Writer's Duty because they both focused on a topic that was worth writing about, and they also were writing their opinion, not what others wanted to hear or be said.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousOctober 11, 2015 at 8:57 AM
I agree with the authors' statement about rhetoric. Both Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Brick spoke of protesters whose arguments lacked some appeals and therefore, were ineffective. I believe that the appeals are the most effective when they are used together. All readers have different preferences for appeals, and using all three ensures that the point will effectively reach the audience. Also, they build up to make a stronger appeal to the audience. Purely using pathos, the weakest of appeals, will contribute to a weak argument, but with support from ethos and logos, a strong argument can be made. I tried to make appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos in my ECCSS essay, but I probably could have used a bit more pathos. I used ethos by stating that I went to ECC since preschool. Also, I used logos throughout my essay by including logical examples and statistics. The pathos in my essay was mainly tied into my ethos and some of my main points. I contemplated my audience a great deal before writing my essay. If I had chosen to direct my essay towards prospective students rather than parents of ECCSS, many of my points would have been different. The audience of an essay can change the entire structure of the essay. Reading and analyzing these articles helped remind me about how appeals change based on the audience and timeframe. They also served as a great reminder to ensure that I address every appeal in my essays.
I think these writers fulfilled their "Writers' Duty." They got their opinion across while also writing about something they are passionate about. They wrote on their opinion without only stating the facts. By including a message and opinion in their writing, these writers gave their work true meaning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM
I do agree with the thoughts of these writers about rhetoric strategies. They sound like they know what they are talking about when it comes to rhetoric. All three appeals should be used, because if they are not, then your missing a point and that could leave your paper boring and dull. I think I could have done a better job with hitting all of the angles in my Elk County Catholic School System essay. I still have time, since we are still rewriting. I think this blog helped me, because I will use its thoughts and ideas to improve my paper so that I hit all of the angles. I feel that I did contemplate who my audience is pretty well, though. For the eccss paper, the audience would be all people that could possibly send their children to one of the three eccss schools. The authors of these rhetoric articles, in my opinion, did fulfill their "Writer's Duty". They captivated their audience and also taught their audience about rhetoric. And that was the purpose of their articles, so they fulfilled their "Writer's Duty". And after I use these at idles to make a few changes to my essay, I feel that I will have done my "Writer's Duty".
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Mr. MacDonald's article, "What Are We Marchin' For?" shows the flaws of the anti-war movement's rhetoric. Throughout the article the point that is brought up many times is not how the anti-war movement is wrong, but how they have no plan of action. They have no counterargument. When they are asked what the United States should do instead of war, they do not know. All they know is, there should not be war. Mr. MacDonald does an excellent job of displaying this and getting the reader persuaded to agree with him. He kept stressing how the protesters had no solution to the problem or any alternative, but he made sure to state that he did not disagree with their views. In my paper on the promotion of ECCSS I feel as if I did not use all of the angles effectively. They are all there, but I could have used them better. The audience of my paper was something I did not consider when I first wrote it. The second time around I need to realize that the audience is not just my teacher, but the whole student body. Through reading these articles you could have a better understanding of rhetoric or even on how to approach your target audience. In class we discussed, "What exactly is the duty of a writer?" the general consensus was that the duty of a writer is to get people to think, to inspire, and hopefully to act. Did the author, Sam MacDonald, fulfill his "duty?" I think so, this article made me think a lot about the protesters' point of view and how they never had a solution to their problem. I made me think a lot about the world today, all of the issues, and how people criticize everything but they never really do anything about it or even come up with a way to change it. They just sort of complain. All of this critical thinking caused by his piece shows that he fulfilled his "duty."
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM
In his composition, John F. Brick addresses the overall ineffective rhetoric of the pro-life protesting campaigns and offers his own contemporary proposals. First of all, he explains how the movements failed to harmoniously balance logos and ethos with pathos, and I concur with his thoughts. "Without the other two appeals, emotional rhetoric will do an argument more harm than good," Brick exclaims. This statement in itself has really helped me with rewrites in my argumentative paper that attempts to "sell" ECCSS. My essay is thoroughly charged with emotion; however, after reading this article and taking a second glance at my own writing, I can see that it lacks compatibility with logical reasoning and credibility. Once I am able to properly balance intimate passion with credible facts, I believe my piece will then reach its full potential. With regards to the audience, I think I contemplated it well, as I reached out to those who seek to understand what an education at Elk County Catholic is really like. On the other hand though, I have to stabilize my paragraphs by removing overwhelming emotion and implementing more factual detail for the readers. In addition, just as Brick emphasized the campaign's need for revised signs and slogans, the same idea can be likened to my paper. It would help if I was able to create a new "feel" for ECCSS: something that no one is accustomed to; something that would capture the hearts of those who are on the fence. In conclusion, this is what Brick was able to do by fulfilling his duty as a writer. He was not afraid to express his true feelings and he did in fact bash the pro-life movements, yet in a manner that was purely open and honest. Ultimately, he wrote from the heart and withheld nothing, and therefore executed his "Writer's Duty."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Catherine CerroniOctober 11, 2015 at 10:40 AM
I agree with the idea produced by Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Brick that all movements, regardless of the authenticity, needs stronger appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos. When convincing someone of your point, an appeal to one of these aspects of an argument rather than all three can do more harm than good. Without an establishment of ethos, a writer, and therefor his argument, can be dismissed as uninformed or uneducated, as well as not pertaining to a particular situation. Without an appeal to logos, even if a person understands and agrees, there is no way for anything to be carried out. It is all fine to say "I think that police in America do not do their duty of serving the people." But it is a completely different thing to say "Police in America do not serve the people as they should, which could be fixed with better understood protocols and better training." One of these statements is wishful thinking, and one is a plan of action. As important as ethos and logos are, they cannot survive alone without pathos. Pathos combats the "Why should I care" counter-argument. As well as including these different appeals, audience should always be taken into consideration. Pathos that convinces one person may not have any affect on another. For instance, the sentence "Do not let your children grow up without the magical white wonderland you were so privileged to have", may make someone from the northern parts of the world be concerned about climate change. This point would have no affect on someone from the south though, because it does not pertain to them. For any argument to make a lasting and worthwhile affect, logos, pathos, ethos, and how they are being addressed must be done correctly.
Using the ideas of rhetoric from these writers, you could say that while my approach to ECC and branding may use all of the correct aspects, they are not used in sync to support one another. The biggest problem in the essay, however, could be the way the audience is addressed. While I addressed the right audience, I did not use words and phrases that they were already partial to, and did not manage to break from the ties of being a teenager. The tips that these writers explained to help different movements could be applied to my own writing and arguments.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Mitchell CashmerOctober 11, 2015 at 11:32 AM
The authors of the writers show with great examples how arguments need the three parts of rhetorical triangle. The author of the first article shows that pathos is very easy to appeal to, but it needs the other parts as well to establish a good and fundamentally solid argument. I agree with the authors, because they show the faults in arguments and why it does not work the correct way. In my argument paper for the rebranding of ECCSS, I do not feel that I successfully appeal to all three parts of the rhetoric triangle. I feel that I used logos the most effectively, while I used pathos the least effectively. I thought about the audience as a student from a public school in the area who was thinking about transferring to Elk County Catholic High School. I felt like this was the area of focus for the rebranding and the advertisement campaign. Reading these articles helped me to understand what was wrong with how my argument was constructed, and how I should think about using the rhetorical triage to from a good argument. The writers of these articles fully fulfilled their duty as a writer, by criticizing very controversial issues. They also have good evidence to back up their claims, and it is very effective.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousOctober 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM

Each author of these articles made strong points about how to clearly use ethos, logos, and pathos. In each article, the author discussed how important it is to use all three appeals in order to achieve the most effective writing style. I agree that the appeals create the best argument when used together, however, I also believe that if each one is used effectively on its own it can still make a convincing argument. When writing my essay on ECC, I attempted to use ethos, pathos, and logos throughout, but I most likely could have found better ways that incorporate them into my writing. The author from Crisis Magazine told his readers that pathos was the weakest of the three appeals. In my opinion, it is the strongest if it is used correctly. I believe that pathos allows the author to connect passion into their writing, which is part of the writer's duty, according to William Faulkner. Reading pieces written by author great authors has helped to improve my writing, but I am only interested when I can see the passion behind the words the writer chose. The use of pathos and passion inspires the readers to feel something which is one of the greatest parts of writing. The authors of the two articles fulfill the writer's duty because they each wrote about something that mattered to them. They refused to give up throughout their writing, and that allowed them to develop an "inexhaustible voice."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Kara DetschOctober 11, 2015 at 12:10 PM
John Brick, the author of "Reflections on Pro-Life Protest Rhetoric", and the article "What Are We Marchin' For?" stress the importance of appeals in producing a concrete argument. Brick emphasizes the need for valid logos, pathos, and ethos to prove the argument and the truly make a change for the better. Along with Mr. Brick, I agree that all rhetorical appeals are necessary to present a strong, valid argument. I believe that logos, pathos, and ethos are like legs on a chair. If one leg is not present, the structure will come crumbling down because there are no supports to resist the fall. Brick writes of an experience with abortion protestors in which he analyzes their tactics. His conclusion was that their arguments had no basis other than emotion, pathos, so are invalid. The protestors had nothing more than graphic images to wrench the heart, and neglected logos and ethos. I share the same view as Mr. Brick; rhetorical appeals make or break an argument. In my paper concerning why Elk Catholic is the best school in the county, I needed some more hard facts, numbers, and evidence of the question, "why?" I feel as though I did not fulfill my "writer's duty" because of the lack of evidence. I forced the reader into a decision, allowing no room for their own minds to ponder what their opinion was. I did not really think about the audience as I was writing, because I did not think about a different point of view than my own. As for the authors of the two articles, the duty was fulfilled wholly. All the appeals were effective and convincing, with eloquent writing that allowed the reader to think and reason. By reading these compositions, I feel as though I have a better grasp on how to use the rhetorical appeals in a persuasive way. I believe that these tips will allow me to prove my argument in a valid way.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousOctober 11, 2015 at 12:28 PM
In our society today there is so much competition between competitors in advertisements. I agree that the only way to truly get people to believe in whatever product or service a person is providing is to appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos. In Reflections on Pro-Life Protest Rhetoric I think one of the most important things that need to be considered is that an author must appeal to the age of the audience. In my essay about ECCSS I do not think that I appealed to the audience age that I should have. In my essay I must appeal to all ages because ECCSS is reaching to ages from four to eighteen year olds to go to the school. Not only are they trying to appeal to them but also to their parents because they are the ones that are paying to send their kids to the school. I do not think that I appealed to ethos, pathos, and logos in this essay. The way that I approached my essay would not be how I would do it now. In Reflections on Pro-Life Protest the author carefully considered logos, pathos, and ethos. It was well structured and it appeals to us as the consumer. I liked how it clearly appealed to logos, pathos, and ethos. I feel that it could appeal to all ages because the audience for pro life is widespread. It appeals to the dying babies as well as the women and men who are putting their child to death. By reading this essay I think that I learned a lot about how I want my writing to sound and a different way to approach my own writing in my essays. There are some changes I know I will make on my ECCSS paper. Some of these is to adjust who I am addressing. I never thought about what ages I was addressing. I think I need to be more clear in my words to appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos. Reflections on Pro-Life Protest had a clear and factual way to look at the best ways to write an argumentative essay.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Frank SingerOctober 11, 2015 at 1:03 PM
After reading both articles, I feel that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Brick correctly illustrated rhetoric. In the first paragraph of Brick's essay, he profoundly explains different rhetoric concepts, and explains pathos, ethos, and logos individually. I agree with what Brick is saying, and feel he does a great job explaining rhetoric along with pathos, ethos, and logos. Brick at the end of his essay offers a couple of principles to use in order to avoid incorrect rhetoric. He talks about how these principles are very simple, but also very important. Throughout his entire essay, I think Brick does a great job of explaining rhetoric, and does a great job of breaking it down to simple, easy to get principles. In writing my essay about ECC, I did not use all of the angles Brick explains in his essay. I also did not contemplate the audience because I really only looked at ECC from my personal view, and not the views of others living in Elk County. After reading Bricks essay, one thing that stood out to me was the use of pathos. Brick states that pathos is the weakest out of ethos, logos, and pathos, and if you don't have good ethos or logos, pathos hurts your argument more than it strengthens it. When writing my paper on ECC I feel that I focus most strongly on pathos, which Brick explains in wrong. I now know that I need to put more thought and concern into ethos and logos when writing my paper, before primarily focusing on pathos. Brick does fulfill his "writers duty" in this essay. He does a great job of teaching the reader what rhetoric is, and how to properly use it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 1:38 PM
The two articles clearly address rhetoric, and they stress the importance of including all three types of appeals to make a valid argument. After reading both articles, I see why the two authors believe this to be true. In the article by John Brick regarding abortion, he makes many valid points that back up his argument of why all three rhetorical devices need to be displayed when making an argument. The thing that stood out to me was when he talks of Sara McLachlan's ads, and how his students opinions are "tear-jerking pleas for help on behalf of abused animals, featuring pitifully sad eyes of dozens of puppies and kittens, the ads now draw sheepish chuckles in my classroom." He makes a valid point when arguing that there is no real reasoning behind her plea for help other than showing pictures of sad animals. I agree with Brick completely, and I believe there needs to be a greater emphasis on logos instead of just pathos trying to stir up people's emotions. The second article focuses on anti war protesters and their hatred against wars. Throughout the article Mr. MacDonald successfully demonstrates examples of protest and what the protesters did to try and get their point across. Although in the final paragraph I believe Mr. MacDonald successfully summed up the entire issue with one simple solution. The author states that "saying you are against the war is not enough." In my opinion the author is absolutely correct and stating the problem is just the beginning, but having a valid argument is crucial. With that argument it is important to use rhetoric and appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos. After reading these two articles I undoubtably agree with these authors, and to make a clear argument it is essential to include all three appeals. I have now reconsidered my thought process on my paper I wrote, and I need to go back and make sure I hit all three appeals thoroughly and clearly. Another part of the article that got me thinking is if I contemplated my audience and made that clear in my paper. This is also another important step to identify who you want as your audience. Overall reading these two articles has got me to realize I must be more clear in my writing to make sure all points are clear and valid. To do this, I realize I must appeal to all three rhetorical devices. The two authors have clearly done their writers duty by showing writers what they need to do when making an argument.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 2:18 PM
I would like to talk about John Brink's paper. I do agree with what he had to say about rhetoric. I am sure that planned parenthood was run by me previously, but I had to go look it up on Wikipedia. It turned out that I had no idea what planned parenthood was. I think that Brink's paper was good at getting me to think about the topic of his paper. I like the way he gave guidelines toward the end of his paper on how the protesters should have done their marching. I could relate the advice he gave in his writing to my paper. I did hit all points of the argumentative triangle, but some aspects of it drown out others. For example, many of my arguments were solely things I have heard rather than cold hard facts. I have a bad habit of not expanding and backing up the arguments I am trying to make. Also, I have realized that instead of keeping a broad audience in mind, I am just thinking of the one person that is going to read it. I need to stop doing that because that one person is grading me on how well I appealed to all audiences.
Both authors had very interesting topics. The first one was new to me so I was more interested in reading it. The second really brought in sources to back up what he had to say. That in itself was cool to realize. It is amazing what you see in papers when your are looking at them. They both did a great job fulfilling their duty as writers.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rachel HerbstrittOctober 11, 2015 at 2:47 PM
Mr. MacDonald's writing "What Are We Marchin' For?" went a long way with me. I agree with his thoughts completely, because the most important thing in an argument is to know what you are arguing for. You can write all day long about how you are against something, but why? What are you for? Mr. MacDonald tells that it is important to let your audience know all your sound reasons without getting lost and off topic. With my essay about ECCSS, I worked with whether the school was worth the tuition and what benefits students get from attending. Some of my paper was a bit off and I did not hit all the angles with my writing or my use rhetorical strategies. I need to combine forces with ethos, pathos, and logos; strengthen my argument. If I don't have sound reasoning and strengthen my support my work will just be lost in the heap. When writing my paper I did not focus on the audience very much, but if you think about it, the audience is the most important part. Who you are trying to appeal to changes how you argue. Reading works such as "What Are We Marchin' For?" and "Reflections on Pro-Life Rhetoric" helps me put my mind back on track and focus on the most important parts of my paper. I do believe Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Brick fulfilled their "duty" as writers. They wrote of things that were important to them and what they wanted to write about, not what the majority of people wanted from them.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM

I found Mr. MacDonald's article to be much more straight forward and a little more logical than the planned parenthood article. I agree with he when he points out in the beginning that people can constantly argue something, but it all seems pointless in the end if those arguing can not offer a valid and reasonable alternative to the problem. That is a good rhetorical strategy that I agree with, as it points out the flaws in someone's argument. He does not seem to get caught up in his argument and got rude in his article, as he says that people have moral obligations to protest war, but they should offer a solution as well. I tried to use this strategy in my paper based on the argument that tuition at ECC is too expensive through explanation of why the cost is well worth it. In my paper, I also mention in a paragraph that financial aid is available and give statistics about the matter. I tried to contemplate the audience by providing logical alternatives to their arguments, such as the tuition is too expensive or that ECC is nothing special. I also tried to offer solutions and comfort to people's concerns about ECC and pricing through my paper. Still, I know my paper is far from perfect and if can be better. I will try to ask more questions to the readers to make them think about their decision more. Also, I want readers to see the reasoning I have behind my argument more clearly. I believe they fulfill their writer's duty. Both articles show rhetorical strategies that can help other writers. In the planned parenthood article, the author argued not to use outdated strategies to persuade your audience, but rather to get creative and find new ways to get people to agree with your viewpoint. Mr. MacDonald's article showed the importance of counter arguments. The articles surely will have an impact on my future writing.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 4:39 PM
"What are we marching for?" addresses logos, pathos, and ethos quite eloquently. By telling of the protestors trials, and their confusion, the point of the piece is clearly stated. To have any type of a valid argument, you need one of these key components, and without them, the argument is moot. There would be no possible way to gather all your thoughts, and make one clear point, just like the protestors in this article. These three rhetorical devices would give the protestors the push to a me their argument valid and quite purposeful. The message that the protestors were trying to rely was unclear, and murky. They were unable to make it clear because they had not used the three devices, and there was no real reasoning behind a lot of their points that they actually did make.
As a highly opinionated person, I felt that I was qualified to write and essay about my school. Looking back at my essay, I do not believe I conquered all the of the angles available. I tried to write my essay from the view of a whole group of people, rather than from the standpoint of one person, as I probably should have. I feel as thought I failed to approach that side of the argument in the right manner. I tried to take in the audience, but I think I should have opened it to a wider variety of people. By analyzing these two pieces, I would have been able to take some of these writers ideas, and mold them into my own and utilize the way they use pathos, ethos, and logos. These writers did fulfill their "duty", and I believe they established a high standard for those also trying to fulfill the "writers duty."
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM
In "What Are We Marching For?" the author states that in order to create a good argument logos, pathos, ethos, and facts must be present. In order to argue about terrorism, war, and anti-war there must be facts. The facts support the minor details that help win the audience. This is a form of logos in the seminar. In the argument however he does not discus how the protestors acted or responded to the marches on terrorism. I do not believe he used valid rhetoric to argue the topic. In my essay on ECC I do not believe I hit all the points of how to make a good argument. I did not create counter arguments but I did allow many statement that made the reader actually think about the decision of ECC or not. Another issue in my essay was that I need to create a more complex vocabulary so make my essays more sophisticated. These articles helped me to make my essay better because they showed me different ways of arguing that I can not incorporate into mine own writing. I do think they did there writers duty because they showed me new and effective ways to create a good rhetoric argument. They show the smile ways by using facts but also how to properly use the logos, pathos, and ethos to get into the readers minds.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 4:55 PM
The author, John F. Brick, is stating his views of Planned Parenthood, abortion, and protests through rhetoric. He began with discussing how he taught his students of logos, ethos, and pathos, and they seemed to grasp the concept quite well. He made a connection between the students in his class and the Americans who stand on the streets protesting for what they believe. Brick described the signs the protestors held, some religious based and some hatred induced. We are allowed to protest our beliefs and make others understand, but Brick believed the protestors were going about it in a wrong way.
Brick pointed out certain points one should follow by using rhetoric correctly. He pointed out to stay on point, something I believe I struggle with. I do believe I used all angles, but I do not have enough information to back up what I have in my paper. My paper was not in support of rebranding or in what direction our school was leading. I did not want the audience to think I hated the high school I go to, rather, I would want the audience to read what should be changed. I would rather read a paper that wanted changed than a paper that just complained.
These authors fulfilled their “Writer’s Duty”. Brick wanted the reader to understand his views of rhetoric and had the example of Planned Parenthood protests. Brick pointed out the faults in the protestors’ signs, but gave examples of what he would think to change their approach. Similarly to my paper about Elk County Catholic.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownOctober 11, 2015 at 7:25 PM
I do agree with the authors of the two articles. They both explain why all three appeals need to be considered very well. They used good examples to explain why they are important. In my essay about ECC I think that I need to be more clear with my three appeals. I need to work on my ethos and logos the most in my essay.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Morgan RenwickOctober 12, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Both of these articles clearly state rhetoric. It is not enough for someone to just state their opinion in order to fight for what they believe in. Logos, pathos, and ethos are all needed to work together or else the writing will fall apart. Like Brick states, "Without the other two appeals, emotional rhetoric will do an argument more harm than good." In my writing I was not very realistic. I tried to show all of the amazing things about coming to this school. I did not give the chance to look at what the other schools have. I may have stated logos, pathos, and ethos in my paper, but I did not clearly tie them together. These authors fulfilled their duties as a writer because their audience included people of all ages, and me, as a high school student looking to become a better writer, was able to see what I have been doing wrong, and used their writings to fix my own.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment