<>Writing Resources <> MNSU <> D2L<>

 
 
 
 
Understanding Modes of Rhetorical Appeal: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
 
 
  

Whenever you read an argument you should ask yourself: Is this persuasive? And if so, to whom? How is it trying to persuade readers? There are three primary modes of appeal that people can use to persuade an audience. You can make a rhetorical appeal by trying to manipulate someone's emotions (pathos), convincing someone you are a credible, honest, and ethical source (ethos), or by offering original data or convincing evidence (logos). These appeals are intrinsic to all arguments or assertions, and often times you will discover that an effective source text uses a little bit of all of them.

Possible features of the three modes

To Appeal to Moral Philosophy or Credulity (ethos)

To Appeal to Emotion (pathos)

To Appeal to Logic or Reason (logos)

Language appropriate to audience and subject

Restrained, sincere, fair minded presentation

Appropriate level of vocabulary

Clear Articulation

Multiple presented perspectives

Vivid, concrete language

Emotionally loaded language

Connotative meanings

Emotional examples

Vivid descriptions

Narratives of emotional events

Emotional tone

Figurative language

Theoretical, abstract language

Denotative meanings/reasons

Literal and historical analogies

Definitions

Factual data and statistics

Quotations

Citations from experts and authorities

Informed opinions

How can you use these appeals?

Ethos

Pathos

Logos

Demonstrate reliability, credibility, and a correct moral philosophy. Consider your wardrobe, your tone of voice, and general presentation while considering the type of audience you are facing. You can also try to persuade readers and observers by challenging the reader or observer's reliability, credibility, or moral philosophy.

Draw audience in by offering emotionally charged reasoning with vivid visuals that affect the audience's emotions. This rhetorical appeal is often used to elicit a specific emotional response, such as: outrage, anger, sadness, happiness, desire, etc. The hope is that if the reader or observer feels the emotional response they will be persuaded.

Attempt to provide sufficient evidence from empirical sources and sound reasoning. Avoid using logical fallacies. Logos is matter–of–fact. Provide statistics and a reliable interpretation of precise research. This type of appeal is very useful and if used appropriately can be extremely effective for persuading people to believe something.



Definitions

Ethos: Ethos is related to the English word ethics and refers to the trustworthiness of the speaker/writer. Ethos is an effective persuasive strategy because when we believe that the speaker does not intend to do us harm or is highly reliable, we are more willing to listen to what s/he has to say. For example, when a trusted doctor gives you advice, you may not understand all of the medical reasoning behind the advice, but you nonetheless follow the directions because you believe that the doctor knows what s/he is talking about. Likewise, when a judge comments on legal precedent, audiences tend to listen because it is the job of a judge to know past legal cases. Considering your ethos is critical to getting your audience to take you seriously. You might make all the sense in the world, but if you look unreliable your ethos failed to persuade your audience.

Pathos: Pathos is related to the words pathetic, sympathy and empathy. Whenever you accept an claim based on how it makes you feel without fully analyzing the rationale behind the claim, you are acting on pathos. In the same way, when you make an argument that attempts to persuade people only by invoking an emotional reaction in them, you are using pathos. This can be done with any emotion: love, fear, patriotism, guilt, hate or joy. Many texts from the modern press or politicians are heavily dependent on pathos appeals. Appeals to pathos touch an emotional nerve and compel people to not only listen, but to also take the next step and act in the world.

Logos: The Greek word logos is the basis for the English word logic. Logos is a broader idea than formal logic--the highly symbolic and mathematical logic that you might study in a philosophy course. Logos refers to any attempt to appeal to the intellect, the general meaning of "logical argument." Everyday arguments rely heavily on ethos and pathos, but academic arguments rely more on logos. These arguments engage readers or observers by appealing to reason, logic, and data.

Link to list of fallacies..


Sample souce texts to analyze for Ethos, Pathos, and Logos








Who is the audience this ad is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?







Who is the audience this ad is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience is this poster is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience is this poster is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience is this poster is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience this ad is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience this ad is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What role does historical context play in this image?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience is this poster is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?





Who is the audience is this poster is attempting to reach?

What reaction does this ad elicit from you?

What is the text emphasizing or not?

What Rhetorical appeals are more prominent in this image?


Internet Advertisements

10 Best Mac Ads

Sun Chips Ad

Stop Waste Food Recycling Ad

Superbowl Ads




Directories of Texts

American Rhetoric: Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century by Rank

Project Gutenberg

The Free Library

The Best American Science and Nature Writing Series




Organizations by Issue

I would like you to examine these similar yet very different organizations for their use of Rhetorical Appeal and Situation. How effective are these websites? Who is the intended audience? What are their primary purposes? Which Rhetorical Appeals do these websites use to engage their audience?

I would like you to pay close attention to which sites use all strategies (ethos, pathos, logos) and those that employ one or two but not all three.

For Ethos, ask yourselves: Is the author establishing their moral position? If so, what is that position? Is this position effective for all audiences or just a few? Is the text challenging your credibility? In other words, is your credibility called into question if you were to disagree with their argument?

For Pathos, ask yourselves: Is the text attempting to elicit an emotional response? Which one? Is the emotional argument effective?

For logos, ask yourselves: Is there any factual data included in their information? If so, what? Do they employ rational arguments instead of trying to elicit emotional or moral reactions?

I have done my best to represent the best and worst of differing political viewpoints (e.g. I have included websites that I feel are more effective and less effective for both liberals and conservatives), and my intention is not to persuade your political opinion. We are not here to discuss our own political opinions. Instead, we should focus on the opinions and assertions represented in the texts and how effective or successful the author is.


Women

Independent Women's Forum
Concerned Women for America
National Federation of Republican Women
Women's National Democractic Club
(NOW) National Organization for Women

Liberal Politics

Liberal Rant
Politico Blog Tea Party Photo Misrepresentation
Archive for Syndicated Columnist: The Angry LIberal
A Liberal's Pledge
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Issues Page
Associate Professor Peter Beinart
Professor David Michael Green

Conservative Politics

Open Letter to Barak Obama
Support Christmas!
Tea Party Green Room
Family Research Council
The Loud Talker
Information Liberation
Parents Television Council

Environmental

Climate Change Fraud Watchsite
Global Climate Scam Watchsite
Huge iceberg breaks off Greenland
Huffingtonpost coverage of Greenland Iceberg
Recycling is Bullshit
Oil Tycoons Caught Sneaking Millions to Groups Spreading Climate Change Doubt
Saving Seed is Latest Tech Piracy
Glass Half Empty
The Daily Green blog about U.S. Geological Survey of American Fisheries





Frederick Douglass's 4th of July Speech in Rochester, New York (1852)

Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart." But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"

To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.

My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery." I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.

What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.

Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852