To make sure you've got a handle (as a writer) on how to analyze a writer's appeal to logos, I'd like you to spent he next 15 minutes or so applying what we've just discussed to your current project and draft an initial analysis of your primary text(s) appeal to logos, paying specific attention to its use of enthymeme and example.
First, if you haven't yet, identify the main claim of the text you're analyzing. Then, work together to understand what kind of reasoning the writer employs (deductive? inductive? from contraries? precedent?) and apply Aristotle's discussion of enthymeme and example to this persuasive argument. What premises underlie this argument? What common values or assumptions does the writer/rhetor presume his or her audience shares with the writer that make the argument possible? If you can re-write the chain of thinking as a more formal enthymeme, do so. If not, characterize how the writer moves from premises to the main claim. As well, explain any use of examples (rhetorical, historical, fictional, or analogy) and how they relate to the overall claim.
When you finish drafting this analyis, post it here as a comment to our course blog.
In his first inaugural speech, FDR’s argument is founded on one fundamental cornerstone: “that the only thing to fear is fear itself.” In this, FDR implies that no problem is too great to overcome, that fear paralyzes people preventing them from thinking logically and carrying out solutions. Fear is an emotion, and if we can hold at bay for just long enough we can change the conditions making us feel the fear. He argues that sure the economy has been brought to a grinding halt, and that perhaps the nation’s moral grounding as slipped, but that these conditions are temporary and that through a well-reasoned and bold approach the economy can be kick-started and the moral condition of the nation can be improved.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this speech logically powerful is that the overall premise leads directly into the meat of the speech. FDR establishes that a well thought out plan can alter conditions and that fear of the conditions will only hinder that process, but he then lays out his personal plan. He establishes the conditions that are causing fear and he establishes that he has a plan to change the conditions; the only conclusion to be drawn then is that the conditions that are instilling the fear in people will change.
FDR clearly assumes his audience, the American public, shares some of his values. This is his first inaugural address so FDR has just been elected President of the United States. Obviously, the majority of the people feel he represents their views and opinions somewhat accurately, but within this speech FDR directly establishes the values that will govern his presidency and he assumes the rest of the people share them. On a basic level, FDR establishes that economic stability is good, that a moral compass guided upon religious principles is accurate, that the moral state of the nation is subpar, and that although we do have a responsibility to protect the quality of life of people around the world we should focus our energy on domestic problems first. These assumptions appear throughout the speech whereas the main claim appeared incredibly early.
I didn’t quite get a chance to finish what I wanted to say here, but I think this exercise was helpful.
The underlying assumptions in Jake Brigance’s closing arguments are twofold, primarily that is morally justified (but not necessarily right) to kill the men who raped your daughter, and second, that he alone is responsible for how guilty his client looks at that particular moment. His primary assumption is that although it is against the law, the dual murders committed by his client can be justified because of how heinous the action committed by the ‘victims’ really was (not to mention the fact that they were going to get away with it). His argument, based practically only in pathos, demonstrates how every one of us is capable of feeling the same hate felt by his client, and more importantly that that hate crosses racial boarders. Everyone who watches that closing, without knowing the specific details of the rape (as the viewers of the film do), like the jury, assumes without thinking about it that the girl that they are describing looks like them. So upon the realization that Brigance is talking about somebody who looks different, the jury realizes that the skin color of the man sitting in the defendant’s chair makes no difference to how he emotionally acted, because they too felt the same emotion.
ReplyDeleteIf the jury does not buy that the murder was justified because of the emotional weight of the rape, then they will not be convinced by his argument to pathos.
The main claim Bachmann makes in her response to Obama’s State of the Union in January was that President Obama ultimately failed on his promises to help the economy and decrease unemployment rates in the country over the last two years.
ReplyDelete-She applies logos and deductive reasoning through contrary unemployment rates when she utilizes charts showing the raising unemployment rates from 2001 until today. She uses pathos through fear tactics of what could happen if Obama continues to govern in this way. She is well known for her heated rhetoric to stir passion in her party. Through this, she is making the assumption that the audience will place blame on Obama for the increase of unemployment. However there is a flaw to her logic because she fails to mention the fiscal calamities that are largely to blame for the upsurge of the national deficit.
I think the enthymeme Bachmann uses relies on the assumption that voters ‘voted out big-spending’ politicians because voters share her hate of ObamaCare and blame the ever-growing deficit purely on Obama. Thus, Bachmann is calling upon the Congress to turn around Obama’s mistakes.
-As premises underlying this argument, she uses a number of examples of how Obama has failed as a president and also offers examples of her own of how Obama could fix the economy. When ending her speech, Bachmann uses historical examples such as the creation of the nation and the battle at Iwo Jima to somehow tied into our current debt crisis. I think that she was attempting to show how the country needs to work together as they did for Iwo Jima and the nation’s birth. However, the examples she gave were not pertinent to the point and overall ended up hurting her overall claim.
For my essay, I am analyzing two Bob Dylan songs, “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and “Masters of War.” For the sake of time and length, I am going to just discuss the “The Times They Are A-Changin’” here. However, both songs tend to follow a similar pattern exclusive of their specific examples and main assumption. They both employ a lot of imagery.
ReplyDeleteThe main claim of “The Times They Are A-Changin’” is that the world is changing quickly and that people need to try and keep up or else they will be left behind. In this song, Dylan uses inductive reasoning. He alludes to some major changes in the world, like war and the shifting ideals of youth, and he uses these to show that the world is, in fact, developing. He also uses contraries to show the differences from the past. For example, Dylan states, “Your old road is rapidly agin'/please get out of the new one/if you can't lend your hand,” when speaking to the adults. This explains that life has changed since the adults were children so they should not judge their own children.
Dylan’s enthymeme is built on the premise that society is constantly evolving. Despite his audience’s feelings towards change as negative or positive, it is difficult to argue that the civilization never changes. If Dylan spoke to a group of people that saw society as static, this argument would not be persuasive at all. Dylan does not explicitly comment on whether this change is positive or negative, but he simply builds on this accepted truth throughout the song. One example he uses when building on this assumption is, “There's a battle outside/and it is ragin/It'll soon shake your windows/And rattle your walls,” to describe the civil rights movement in the country.
In "The Siege of Planned Parenthood," Gail Collins attempts to persuade her audience that recent legislative bills to get rid of programs such as Planned Parenthood, are not only short sighted, but also arguably jeopardizing lives of adults. Around the abortion debate, many pro-life believers feel that through abortion, "lives" are killed unnecessarily. However, Collins points out that many people overlook the fact that by cutting spending to organizations to Planned Parenthood can leave more lives endangered by taking away medical services to low-income women. She urges people to realize that current lives are as important as, if not more important, then unborn babies and these legislative bills are not concerned with the 1.85 million low-income women who rely upon Planned Parenthood for medical aid.
ReplyDeleteIn order to strengthen her credibility, Collins makes a very important point. Congress is trying to pass a bill that will forbid Planned Parenthood from using government funds for abortion. The ironic thing is that this law is already in place; Planned Parenthood funds all of the abortions they provide. This debunks Congress to show how silly the current bill endorsed by Pence really is. Additionally, Collins points out that instead, many state legislature is economically supporting to crisis pregnancy centers which provide no medical services.
Throughout this article, her most successful rhetorical tool that she uses is confuting Congress and pointing out the fact that through political bills, many currently living women are being risked for the sake of their unborn children.
In this paper, I am analyzing Barack Obama’s speech, “A More Perfect Union,” for rhetorical devices. Obama gave the speech in order to address controversial comments made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. However, Obama quickly moves away from Jeremiah Wright and focuses on racism in general. I am going to determine whether the speech was successful in promoting Obama’s candidacy for president and condemning racism. Along with discussing ethos and pathos in my paper, I am also going to talk about Obama’s appeal to logos.
ReplyDeleteThe following are appeals to logos which I found within the speech:
Enthymeme: If you believe in America’s ideals of equality and justice, then you must believe that racism is bad and should be overcome in our nation.
-In the first lines of his speech, Obama brings up American ideals by using an example of our forefathers and the Constitution. This example inherently implies that all people were created equal, and it is the basis for Obama’s argument.
Enthymeme: If you believe that a united nation is stronger than a country of disjointed individuals, then you must believe that we can only overcome racism if we band together.
-Obama advocates for a united nation (he uses the word “unite” multiple times throughout his speech)
-This assertion also helps promote his presidential candidacy because the idea of coming together as one nation was an integral part of his campaign
Enthymeme: If you believe that the power to make change rests in the hands of the people, then you must believe that it is up to the people to overcome racism.
-Obama closes his speech with a story which promotes the idea that it is the public’s responsibility to induce change
-Quote from scripture: we do unto others as we would have them do unto us
In his speech to the Reichstag, Hitler covers a broad account of what his plan is for Germany in the coming decade, touching on economic, military, and political strategies. However, his overall claim is one that defines and defends the success of the post-WWI German nation, and then discusses its advantages over other developed nations’ policies. He uses a deductive reasoning strategy because he begins his speech with statements of pride and confidence in Germany and its people, even stating that the German people should be “presented as models” (124) to the other democratic nations. For the rest of the speech he uses examples of what Germany has already accomplished (despite hindrances by the Treaty of Versailles) and what he believes is within Germany’s power to accomplish in the future.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Hitler structures his speech haphazardly in terms of specific arguments and the evidence he uses to support them. For example, he mentions the German work force and fair wages, the massive strength of the German military, and the establishment of a new national leadership in years to come in just three short paragraphs. Despite this seemingly illogical stream of facts, Hitler incorporates a few simple themes into everything that he says including a prejudice towards the Jewish, a resentment directed at most other European nations, and above all, an overwhelming sense of nationalism for Germany. These themes are those that, at this point in history, are common beliefs that are shared between Hitler and his audience, and as such they can be used as the premises for his overall argument that Germany is successful and powerful, potentially even more than the other nations of Europe.
1. Enthymematic Elements:
ReplyDeletea. Major (Unstated) Premise: Federal Gov’t & institutions should intervene in social matters
i. Supporting Examples: Policies, Institutions necessary to “Pull a reluctant population” to a different place during the Civil Rights movement.
1. Conversely, concludes that currently private values ahead of public values
b. Major (Unstated) Premise: Equity is desirable
c. Stated: America is not post-racial; structural racism is intact
2. Elements of Inductive Reasoning:
a. Progress made during civil rights movement required gov’t policy in the past
Glover Blackwell makes significant use of her understanding of her audience as a way of creating common assumptions that might be highly controversial in other contexts.
The Major claim of the text, based on the major premises a & b, is that society ought to act in order to remedy inequity both by (1) advocating for policy change and (2) personal advocacy.
In James Madison’s Federalist no. 10, the primary rhetorical appeal is centered on logos. James Madison’s intent upon writing this work, as well as the intent of the other Federalist Papers is to convince a majority of the states to ratify the new (Federalist) constitution. In order to do this, he claims that a large, federally based republic will be able to “cure the mischiefs of faction,” whereas a direct democracy (as advocated by the Anti-federalists) will not be able to do so. In order to persuade the audience of his claim, Madison mostly employs enthymeme to establish premises that he can then use as the basis of the next enthymeme. In this series of small enthymemes, however, an overarching enthymeme develops that, when abridged, looks like this:
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 options, A or B, not A, therefore B.
The two options are removing the causes of faction, or controlling their effects. Madison first proceeds to show that option A is not viable by breaking it down into two subcategories, A1 and A2. A1 is accomplished through the destruction of liberty, which is essential to faction and A2 through imposing the same beliefs on all of the citizenry. For A1, Madison continues the use of enthymeme, but also invokes an example—albeit hypothetical, by comparing liberty to air and faction to fire. Just as air is necessary to fire, liberty is crucial for faction, however removing air would be a “cure worse than disease.” As the colonies had recently broken away from Great Britain and liberty was a revered concept, any mention of destruction of liberty would yield immense antagonism. Madison devotes significantly more time to A2 and, perhaps because of this deeper analysis, many of his underlying assumptions appear. A2 is comprised of 2 main sections, the first in which Madison uses classical Topic of definition and the second which he expounds upon definition and employs the Topic of consequence. In the definition paragraph, Madison makes two assertions, one which he justifies, and the other which gets, noticeably brushed over. The first assertion is that men are inherently selfish creatures, and that they will, therefore, put their own “self-love” above any concern of society. This is a very Lockean view of mankind, and although popular at the time of Madison’s writing, was far from universal. If a reader did not agree with this assumption, then the reader would not support Madison’s claim, even if he agreed with Madison’s logic. The second assumption is hardly noticeable at first glance, however, it serves as a crucial premise of the enthymeme in the second part of A2. In a side-comment of a sentence in the first paragraph of A2, Madison asserts that the primary job of the government is the protection of property. This is a HUGE assumption, because it is one of, if not the primary, point of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists believed the government should be primarily economically focused, whereas the Anti-federalists felt that protection of individual freedoms was of utmost importance. However, Madison does not acknowledge this point of contention—as it would surely undermine his argument—and instead using the two premises from part one of A2 to establish two enthymemes in the second part of A2. The enthymems are: factious activity is an irremovable characteristic of mankind; mankind comprises society; thus factious behavior is an intrinsic characteristic of society. He couples this enthymeme with one that it is much less direct, yet crucial to create his ultimate assertion. The second enthymeme states: The primary job of the government is property rights protection; the inherent factious behavior in mankind (as established in the first enthymeme) is the most egregious when concerning distribution of property; thus “regulation of interfering interests [factions] forms the principal task of modern legislation.”
Now having proven the first part of the main enthymeme (A or B, not A) he is able to move onto the “therefore B” aspect. B is, as he initially stated, “controlling the effects of faction.” To do this, Madison again breaks B into two parts, but unlike A he does not discredit them. Instead he uses both of them to show how a republic is superior to a direct democracy. There are two ways in which a republic is superior—1) the higher ratio of people to representatives and 2) the overall size of the region. Madison says that these two aspects of a republic mean that it can accomplish B1 and B2 better than a direct democracy can.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Madison clearly uses a significant amount of enthymeme, he also invokes the occasional example—which is almost always in direct reference to the old-style of direct-democracy of Greece. He likens the Grecian direct democracy to that of which the Anti-federalists are arguing and indicates that the reason Greece fell was because of its flawed governmental system, and if the United States were to implement a similar system, we would sure perish in the same manner.