J O R G E G O M E Z

ENGLISH COMPOSITION WEEK 3

•Attendance Reflection 2

THE FOUNDATION

• Introduction• Writing process• Two attendance topics • Semester topic • Key terms exercise • Writing Center visit • Office visit • Discourse community map • Discourse community response • Agency discourse memo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 Projects in 2 Weeks!

RHETORIC 101

• Ethos: credibility • Expertise, experience, no conflicts of interests (not corrupt) • Can you trust what this person says? Why or why not?

• Pathos: emotional appeals • Ability to move the crowd, induce sense of grief, sympathy,

empathy, injustice, or any other kind of powerful feeling

• Logos: evidence/reasoning • facts, statistics, laws, proof, logical arguments

The HOW of words, NOT necessarily the what • Analysis, NOT summary • Do NOT insert your personal opinion (save that for later)

RHETORIC 101

• Not all rhetoric features ALL three forms of appeal • Not all three forms of appeal need to be effective

for the argument to work, for example: • Strong ethos, weak logos (or any other combo) could be

effective in ONE kind of issue but ineffective in ANOTHER. So…

• CONTEXT MATTERS• Audience consideration comes into play • If you are addressing the National Academy of Sciences you

would want strong logos • If you are a politician addressing the National Rifle Association,

you would want some pathos about the “right to bear” • If you are addressing Congress about the dangers of nuclear

proliferation, you would want some ethos

ANALYSIS OF BIG BOSS SPEECH

• Context: founding military force • What is he saying? • Effective?• Audience: • His own army.

• Tone: resolved, decisive • Is it mostly… • Pathos? • Ethos? • Logos?

ANALYSIS OF BIG BOSS SPEECH

• “We are soldiers without borders, our purpose defined by the era we live in” • This is the main idea/thesis/crux of his speech. • Logos, pathos, or ethos?

Purpose: “We will be the deterrent for those with no other recourse” -LOGOS, Some PATHOS

“We will sometimes have to sell ourselves and services” • Logos. Is this admirable?

• “We need no reason to fight. We fight because we are needed” • This is a fallacy (an error in logic). [Wikipedia lists fallacies]

ANALYSIS OF BIG BOSS SPEECH

• “We will forsake our countries…we have no philosophy” • But is this speech a philosophy in and of itself?

• “If the times demand…we’ll be revolutionaries, criminals, terrorists…headed straight to hell” • Ethos: he is blunt. • Ethical limit? • All for a greater good?

• Logos: logic. “If…then” statement. His closing response to this? Pathos: “What better place for us than this? It is our only

home. Our heaven and our hell”

CAMPAIGN AD

• Context: Campaigning for Congress• Ethos: • NRA Rating of 100% • Female = Need more ethos than men in politics?

• What are the values the campaign appeals to? • God (Christian, conservative) = PATHOS• Guns = PATHOS• Lower taxes = LOGOS• Change in Congress = LOGOS, PATHOS

Do these values make a good politician?

CAMPAIGN AD

• Use of visuals: • Fires at “TAXES” = PATHOS • Fires a Thompson, assault rifle, revolver =

PATHOS, ETHOS • Gun rights

• Smiling = PATHOS • Use of language: • Puns = PATHOS • “Caliber,” “right on target,” “a pretty fair

shot” • Voice? Calm male.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SPEECH

• Audience = Senate floor (immediate audience), and, everyone online (recorded) • Key Background/CONTEXT = “Hours before

New York lawmakers rejected a key marriage equality bill (38-24), State Senator Diane J. Savino made the passionate case for a government that recognizes and administers same-sex marriages.”  • ETHOS = State Senator, NY • Interesting introduction: • Nervous, but because not sure of position, but because

not sure what is going to happen (to the bill)

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SPEECH

• Key claim: NOT about politics • What does this “politics” mean in this CONTEXT? • “An issue of fairness” = equality

• Ethos: personal experience, modest about the quality of her relationship, acknowledges has been LOBBIED, uses personal anecdote (storytelling) • More ethos: Thomas Jefferson, founding father,

secular values • Sen. Diaz: shows she considers and acknowledges

OTHER SIDE • Tone: Respectful but passionate

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SPEECH

• Role of government = LOGOS • Changing “definition” of marriage? Role of

government not to determine “quality” of marriage. • LOGOS

• Sanctity of marriage? Divorce rate = LOGOS, cultural critique (television = superficial, sanctity not there in the first place, people who CAN marry abuse it)

• CALL to ACTION: Bill passes (through vote)• Use of language: • “Nothing to fear” repeated = anaphora, a rhetorical device

MAD MEN PITCH

• CONTEXT: Consumer advertising, 1960s • Tone: Assertive, cool, eloquent • ETHOS: Creative director (experience) • Logos/pathos: not about “new,” but “nostalgia”• PURPOSE: The Kodak “Carousel” = slide projector • Pitch: So Kodak will buy their advertising services

• Language: “Nostalgia” theme• not a wheel, but a carousel • not a spaceship, but a time-machine

• Audience: Coworkers, and himself? • PATHOS: Family photos, voice • Visual rhetoric: eye contact, photos, professional

POLITICAL RHETORIC

• Issue/Context: Existence of “terror babies” • Anderson Cooper = journalist • Defense: Lack of evidence, FBI denies existence

• Is Cooper “attacking the messenger”? • Even if he is, is that a bad thing?

• “Evidence” = logos • “Absolutely no evidence” of terror baby conspiracy –

Anderson Cooper • Conspiracy • Cooper’s ethos/logos: FBI, which finds no evidence • Key terms/jargon: demagogue, conspiracy (look up

terms)

POLITICAL RHETORIC

• Cooper claims the politician’s agenda is just “politics” • Spreading “scare stories” = pathos, induce fear

• Cooper addresses the politician’s voice, “yelling”• Pathos from politician = Protecting America • Cooper’s rebuttal: Both Democrats and Republicans agree they

want to protect America

• Do the politicians offer any “evidence”? • Closing statement from Anderson: Summarizes interview• Does Cooper concede any of the points? • Yes, for example, that there is “birth tourism”, but that is different,

Cooper claims. • Conceding points from other side = ethos = honest • Logos as well = logical, rational to acknowledge other side

FOR NEXT CLASS

•Find a “rhetorical artifact” (a speech, an ad, documentary clip, etc.) that FALLS under your TOPIC.