Lehi--Ethos to Pursuade Men to look to the Great Mediator

2 Nephi Chapter 2 was first analyzed by Isaac.

As Lehi's life is nearing it's final years, he decides to deliver unique messages to each of his sons and their families to hopefully persuade them to turn to the Lord in all their doings. In 2 Nephi chapter 2, Lehi's message is directed to his son Jacob. Unique from other chapters in the Book of Mormon, this one is heavily loaded with logos. Lehi presents his message strongly through acceptability, good reasoning, sufficiency, accountability, and relevance, all which are important aspects to strong logos.

Beginning in verse 11, Lehi begins this long chain of reasoning. He states that "there is opposition in all things." He uses the example that there is righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, corruption and incorruption, sense and insensibility. With these examples of opposition, some may say that there is no such thing as righteousness and wickedness. This could partly be the result of one's faith. However, in order to make his argument more complete, he also uses the opposition of good and bad, life and death, and happiness and misery. Most people have experienced or witnessed these things, whether it is breaking something, losing a loved one to death, or enjoying a favorite pastime. By giving these everyday examples Lehi is able to create acceptability since they are true for most people and considered "common sense."

Sufficiency is also a great tactic when expressing logos. Lehi gives a variety of examples, about twenty or so, of opposition. Now twenty-something examples may seem a bit overwhelming, but he examples are very simple, and therefore, effective. He expands his thoughts to create an "full circle" idea. By connecting all his examples of opposition, Lehi builds accountability that "offer[s] an effective response to other...argument...counterarguments, and counterexamples". (W & R, p. 75, par. 7) He states, "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (verse 13) It's clear to see from Lehi's argument that since there are things here on Earth and that things are acted upon, or have opposition, there must needs a purpose.

In verse 13, acceptability is also present. During ancient times, scientific advancements and knowledge was quite limited. They knew nothing about the idea of cells and organisms or the Big Bang Theory and evolution. Without this knowledge, it was acceptable to believe in a higher intelligence such as God to explain why Earth and the things on it were created. "Community-based reasons" is a part of acceptability that is defined as "reasons that are grounded in the common beliefs of the community...what [they] accept as credible...or true--the common sense or common knowledge." (W & R, p. 73, par. 1)

Continuing in his use of acceptability, accountability and reasoning, Lehi draws upon his own observations. He says, "there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. And to bring about his eternal purposes...all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God." (verses 14-17)

Lastly, Lehi uses his presented idea of opposition because of its relevance to choose the "good part." His thoughts allows him to deliver the conclusion that men are free to "to act for themselves and not to be acted upon...[and] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil." (verses 26 & 27) By approaching his argument with logos, Lehi convinces his son Jacob and many other to choose to come unto Christ.

Obama's Pep Talks

A couple months ago President Obama set about speaking to children at schools across the country. In Jessica's analysis she used Bill Schorr's political cartoon to help pointed out the logical fallacies in the right wing school of thought concerning the matter. The cartoon shows that conservatives think Obama's school speeches will lead to the demise of the Republican Party. Right wing conservatives didn't want their children persuaded to be democrats by being subjected to a democratic lecture in school. Some parents even kept kept their children home from school. They didn't want their children to be "brainwashed" into following and supporting Obama.

In Jessica's analysis she pointed out two logical fallacies in the conservative reasoning. First, she observed how the right wing argument was a hasty generalization. Just because voters are educated doesn't mean they will vote democratic. Members of both political parties are just as educated as the other. In adding to this analysis, it should also be noted that the argument is a post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy is an assumption that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second. In this specific case the first event is the school lectures, and the second event is voting day when their children vote for a democrat. The argument becomes even more fallacious because the conservatives are jumping the gun, and assuming that the school lectures have already led to their children voting against their ideology. It is a huge assumption, and it brings us back to Jessica's point of the hasty generalization.

The second fallacy pointed out by Jessica is oversimplification. They ignore all other reasons why the Democratic Party is in power, and instead they blame it solely on Obama's little motivational speeches. It could also be deemed a slippery slope fallacy. Schorr's cartoon illustrates how one thing leads to the next, which leads to the next. This train of thought is not easy to stop; you just keep assuming that one event will lead to an even more catastrophic event. Maybe someday all the little school children who sat trough Obama's lectures will grow up to be socialists. Adding Jessica's insight, the fallacy here becomes an oversimplified slippery slope, with only a few stops on the way down. Blaming Obama's recent school speeched is also fallacious he didn't even start the speeches until he was already in office. You can't blame an event from 2009 for an event that occured in 2008. Time moves forward, not backwards.

On a side note, Bill Schorr's political cartoon, although great at fulfilling its purpose, may also have a couple fallicious tricks at work. For one, take a look at that obnoxiously ugly republican. Who really looks like that? Certainly nobody in the Democratic Party, right? Furthermore, the speech bubbles illustrate first grade reasoning with a first grade speech level. Bill Schorr even took advantage of facial expressions. The character's face doesn't light up with anxiety until the third and final frame, as if it took him that long to figure out where his sentence was going to lead him. Granted, cartoons are meant to be funny and exaggerated; they just use some fabulous fallacies in the process.

Despite the cartoon's tricks, it makes a great point: the bottom line is that right wing conservatives are still failing to look at the big picture. There is far more to politics than giving speeches to children at schools. Besides, how many opportunities does one get to hear the president speak? If conservatives would look past the immediate future they might see the benefits of attending such a lecture. Listening to a democratic president speak is not even close to a sure-fire way to turn republican children into democrats. The children may not even know what a political party is. So please, let the kids listen to the president.

Schorr, Bill. "Cagle Cartoons." Cartoon. Daryl Cagle's Poltical Cartoon Index. msnbc.com, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Chicago- President and Mrs.Obama's Logical Fallacies

This address was first analyzed by Brandon.

On October 2, 2009, President and Mrs.Obama gave an address to the International Olympic Committee. In both of their speeches, they attempt to use ethos, pathos, and logos to make their arguments more persuasive. However, some logical fallacies are present.

The first logical fallacy I came across is in Mrs. Obama's speech. She discusses how her dad had a great influence on her views about sports, rules, honor, dignity, and fair play. She uses pathos by describing her father's illness and how he still taught her and others a great deal of life lessons. Finally, she discusses how it is important to carry on the "lasting legacy" to inspire this generation "to bring us together; to usher in a new era of international engagement" (par. 14).

This argument also uses logos because she discusses this common belief/change that many people desire to see in the world. However, she uses a "red herring." Mrs. Obama gives this example about her father and how he affected her life, but ultimately, she does not give effective evidence as to how Chicago can accommodate the Olympics. She tells a story that really isn't relevant to the subject at hand.

Mrs. Obama's argument ends and President Barack Obama brings better arguments to table. In all honesty, without President Obama's better arguments, I would find Mrs.Obama's speech quite pointless.

President Obama's speech also contains a few logical fallacies. The first is the presence of "ad populum," and more specifically, "the appeal to traditional wisdom" and "the appeal to provincialism." Chicago claims to be "a city that works -- from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup [they] hosted in the nineties, [they] know how to put on big events." President Obama explains that big events have occurred in Chicago before and therefore, the Olympics should come (appeal to traditional wisdom). Also, his explanation also implies that since they know how to run large events, Chicago is "automatically superior to the unfamiliar" (W & R, p. 70, par. 1). If they have already experienced putting on World events and were successful, who is to say another city that has not previously hosted such an event is incapable of doing so. Why not let other great cities experience this type of recognition that Chicago has already experienced.

Lastly, President Barack Obama said, "people from every corner of the world gathered...in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about [him] as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals...[that] diversity could be a source of strength, a cause for celebration." The logical fallacy here is that the President is making a hasty generalization. There may have been many who were watching the Presidential election for that very reason. However, there must have been many who were watching it for other reasons (for example, to watch President Obama as an individual). It is faulty to believe that all who were watching were there to see how the "universal aspirations and ideals" are coming to a reality.

There were many good points in President and Mrs. Obama's speeches, such as history, culture, character, and diversity. However, with these logical fallacies in place, their speeches lose the power that they really could establish.

Elder Holland's "Power of the Word"

Last Conference, Elder Jeffery R. Holland delivered the profound talk "None Were With Him." As I have posted before, his talk truly appealed to the emotions, therefore exercising a great use of pathos. However, I find that Elder Holland's talk was only as powerful as it proved to be by his powerful words and use of language tools.

As I have stated in my previous post:

Elder Jeffery R. Holland exercises the "strategies for creating an emotional appeal" through his vivid details and language. (W & R, pg. 66) He is able to "re-create an emotional experience in such a way that readers actually feel the associated emotion." (W & R, pg. 67) Now one thing to point out: to truly understand what the Savior did is incomprehensible. However, Holland is able to describe the life-ending journey of the Savior as completely as possible by the mere mortal human through imagery.

This vivid imagery of the final stages of Jesus Christ's life makes this message so concrete.

He continues to use emotional appeal strategies, all of which increases pathos in an argument, by using words such as solitude, withdrawal, loneliness, hopelessness, despair, anguish, brutality, denial, abandonment and betrayal. This diction creates a feeling of empathy toward Christ and all that he suffered. His argument is strong in the fact that the "perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing" (par. 13) NEVER deserved to be be treated in the ruthless way that he was. This argument easily allows the audiences' emotions to be aroused considering most people believe the innocent should not be punished.

The words of Elder Holland have now also become the narration to a video post depicting the final days of the Savior. Now with the addition of visual aids, the message becomes more vivid and therefore, more concrete. The clips shown is the video post causes one to feel great emotion towards the Savior, considering the images shown are painful and filled with sadness. One is able to better understand only a fraction of the inexpressible pain Christ suffered.

This imagery is expressed, for example, when Elder Holland states:

"With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

From this passage, I can create the this emotional scene because of the imagery. Since I create this, it brings a much more personal feeling to the topic.

Now to add to this, by setting such a sad, sympathetic tone, one automatically becomes drawn to the pathos that are created in such an speech. His diction and the sensitivity of the topic contributes to the set tone. This sensitivity is aided by the allusion of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of the Savior Jesus Christ, which has a very tender place in the hearts of Christians.

Elder Holland's diction, imagery, tone, and allusion contribute to the great emotional appeal all those who hear his message experience. It is easy to see that pathos and other rhetorical proofs are best used when language tools are exercised effectively.

Can we play this game like men?

I have noticed lately how lengthy articles tend to lose the reader and make an argument hard to follow. Luckily, I stumbled upon a beautiful little piece of rhetoric. It is Coach Boone's inspirational speech to his players in Remember the Titans. The speech is short and the pathos is sweet.

Coach Boone is trying to get his players to overcome racism and play as a team. He has taken them to a battle field in Gettysburg. He compares their struggle over racism to the north and south fighting in the Civil War. In essence the Civil War was fought over slavery, which according to coach is "the same fight that we're still fightin' amongst ourselves today." Madeleine points out that this was particularly powerful to the players because it was there own heritage. It was the segregation they were dealing with everyday. This effectively brings it home for the players.

With strong language and careful word choice he stirs the emotions of his players. They don't want to suffer the consequences of their forefathers, with "smoke and hot lead pourin' through their bodies." Madeleine explains how using colors like "green field" and "red blood" adds to the mental picture. In addition to this, I think that by using words such as "hallowed" Coach Boone makes the players feel like they are fighting this fight for some higher cause. It appeals directly to their consciences.

The coach puts it to the sticking place in his closing remarks. If they don't come together they will be destroyed --physically and spiritually. If they do come together, he says that "maybe [they'll] learn to play this game like men." This subtle insult to the players is insinuating that they don't play it like men already. Just like a little child reacts in defiance to an a insult, the players want to prove they are men. How do they do it? On the football field. How did Coach Boone do it? By appealing to their emotions.

(This speech was also analyzed by Madeleine)

Great Expectations--For Young Adults

As I began my post about audience analysis, I could not help but notice that a certain aspect of kairos was similar to the idea of audience analysis. Kairos, when effectively used, includes making an argument to the "right people under the right circumstances." In President Monson CES Fireside Broadcast "Great Expectations," he definitely follows this guideline.

First of all, his audience is given to the students of Brigham Young University and is additionally broadcasted to young adults at other Church Universities and Religion institutions around the world. Young adults are in a very important time in their lives. It is a time when they will decide what majors and careers to pursue, decide who to marry, and what they want to do with their life. It's a time of great decisions. The audience is "close to completing [their] formal education. Others...have additional periods of academic preparation ahead. Each is what could be called the race of life." President Thomas S. Monson message is written "at the right time" to help direct the paths of these young adults and therefore addresses "the race of life," education and academics, spirituality, pitfalls, and goals.

President Monson discusses a book that most of the high school graduates and college students should be familiar with: Charles Dicken's Great. By understanding his audience, President Monson's message becomes persuasive since he also quotes scholars, scientists, influential writers, and other important figures that these young adults may know about or trust.

Additionally, President Monson addresses the issues that young adults face now. This includes the job hiring process, "[struggling] for that grade point average" (p. 4, par. 3), pornography, inappropriate movies, books, and music, and that "permissiveness, immorality, and the power of peer pressure cause many to be tossed about on the sea of sin and crushed on the jagged reefs of lost opportunities, forfeited blessings, and shattered dreams." (p. 5, par. 9)

Secondly, President Thomas S. Monson addresses the "right people." A simple example is that President Monson explains "[he's] always been an ardent sports fan" (p. 6, par. 2). Since many college aged adults enjoy sports, he connects with them by explaining that he too shares that same interest. A more complex example is that President Monson speaks to a mostly LDS population, where he is able to discuss matters about eternal life, Heavenly Father, children of God, and important Church figures. Additionally, he includes scripture from all stand works. By knowing his audience, he is then able to deliver is speech without much explanation about the people, doctrine, or history unlike delivering a speech to those not of the LDS faith or background information. He uses phrases such as "spirit children," "mortality," and "Quorum of the Twelve." He stated, "you have great expectations-not a s the result of an unknown benefactor, bust as the result of a known benefactor-even our Heavenly Father-and great things are expected of you." This statement becomes very powerful to the audience since most are LDS and as members know that we are children of God. There are many people who do not understand this concept, and therefore it would not be as beneficial to them. I also find that his quote is one that encourages both the strong and the struggling young adults. It goes to show that President Monson knows that the faith of the audience varies between individuals.

These various examples demonstrate President Thomas S. Monson's awareness of the audience allowing him to create a convincing message to remind the young adults that they "are a choice generation with great expectations...[and that they may] strive always to achieve those great expectations" (p.8, par. 4).

President Monson's Toolbox - of Language

Every good Latter Day Saint knows of President Monson's incredible ability to tell stories. He brings us into his world where we can fully understand the principles he is teaching. In his talks he uses a plethora of language tools. Some are obvious and some are discreet. The use of a story in and of itself could be considered a language tool. I would like to look at some of the tools he uses in his May 2009 Priesthood address.

When Lars analyzed this talk one of the points he made up was that President Monson establishes ethos by refering to and quoting past prophets. In terms of language tools, this is called an allusion (Writing and Rhetoric 94). An allusion refers back to a notable historical figure or event. This is so common in our church rhetoric that we aren't often phased by it. President Monson refering to quotes by Harold B. Lee and John Taylor establishes his ethos by setting him on an equal pedi stool with other great figures. Whether consciously or unconsciously the audience associates President Monson with fairytaled prophets of the past. The ultimate allusion he uses is the cornerstone of our religion: Christ. I believe that building a talk around Christ provides the ultimate source of legitimacy. It is a simple language tool effectively used.

President Monson is also a master of imagery. His vivid language lets the reader picture exactly what he is talking about. In this talk his three main points are to study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously. He doesn't just say to study, pray, and live. Each adjective evokes a feeling and mental picture from the reader. What is the difference between praying normally and praying diligently? The word diligently gives the word study a completely reinvented meaning. The same goes for fervently and righteously; maybe a fervent prayer lasts ten minutes instead of 3. Later in the talk he compares life to a pathway on which we are journeying. How much easier is to view life when you simplify it with a simile? Perhaps the audience can imagine their specific pathway with all the specific pit stops along the way. The prophet's dazzling use of imagery infinitely enhances the ability of the audience to relate to the message.

The final language tool of President Monson's that I'd like to look at is his use of analogies. This also is used an incredible amount in the church. Parables are analogies. An example is the tree of life. We are familiar with trees and fruit, so the Lord uses them to help us understand harder topics like Christ and eternal life. President Monson uses the same parable with emphasis on holding to the rod of iron. Holding to the rod is analogous to studying diligently (one of his three main points). How so? It is easy for some people to imagine literally grabbing onto an iron rod. It is real; it is tangible. If one can grasp a rod with such vigor, why can't one study with such vigor? Parables like this are beneficial because they liken a more abstract idea to a tangible, familiar idea that the audience can relate to.

It could be said that President Monson uses words to make his argument --that is exactly true. The tools he uses and the tone he embodies come together to create a moving message for all Latter Day Saints. I think it is important to note one last tool he uses: the Spirit.

(This article was also analyzed by Lars)

Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution

Lovelock's article is about how the earth is in immediate danger from all the pollution. Lovelock wants everyone to understand why we are in peril and what we need to do to change if we want to survive. He uses language tools to make his audience understand.

First of all, I think his entire article is an overstatement. Lovelock completely dramatizes the whole issue on global warming. He compares the warming of the Earth to a fire that is "accelerating and almost no time is left to act" (par. 6). The earth is slowly becoming warmer, not burning like a fire. Lovelock also doesn't cite anything. He has no sources to backup his claim. His article isn't reliable at all. Lovelock does use some good personifications and analogies to try and convince his audience and I will analyze those.

One of the main language tools Lovelock uses is personification. The first example is in the third paragraph. "The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming". This example gives the ice in the Arctic human characteristics because it will be more 'vulnerable' when it is warmed up. Using descriptive words makes the reader feel like they understand how the ice feels, when the ice doesn't actually have feelings.

The second example, "[civilization] has to use nuclear... now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." (par. 16), gives our planet feelings which is also personification. The planet itself cannot be outraged, but Lovelock gives it this description because he wants the reader to feel related to the earth. The earth has always been given lots of personification in writing and speaking. We refer to the earth as a 'her' or as 'mother earth'. When the audience feels like they share the same feelings as the earth, they have more empathy and would more likely help the earth in a similar way as a person.

The main language tool that Lovelock uses is analogies. An analogy is "a kind of comparison in which something unfamiliar is explained by a comparison to something more familiar." (R&W pg. 94, Brett c. McInelly). Analogies are a good tool to use because they are easy to remember and understand. They are especially useful in scientific papers when the majority of the population wouldn't understand unless more simple comparisons are used.

Lovelock says, "...climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests...[and] the world... would lose one of its great natural air conditioners". Everyone knows the beauty of an air conditioner. Especially in the summer. The difference between summer heat and an air conditioned room is incredible. Lovelock puts this analogy into his paper to demonstrate what the difference in temperature would be if the pollution problem isn't taken care of and we lose the Amazon. Even those who don't know much about global warming can appreciate what this would be like.

Another analogy is in paragraph 6 which says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice... that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited". This, like the previous analogy, is a comparison so the reader can visualize the temperature difference. I think this comparison is also used to show the damage that global warming would create. Lovelock doesn't just say that the fire is out of control, but also that the 'furniture had ignited'. Lovelock demonstrates that if nuclear power is not implemented, the results will leave irreparable damage.

I Have a Dream

Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech made such an impact through history. It changed our country. Why was his speech so powerful? Without King's credibility and background, the speech would not have been nearly as profound. His ethos is so important and King does an excellent job at weaving his credibility into his speech.

King obviously relates to one of the audiences because he is African American, which gives him credibility. Even if we didn't know what King has done for African American rights, he establishes himself by creating an intimate relationship with the audience. By using the word "we", King shows that he has had a lot of the same experiences as the rest of the African Americans.

The African American audiences feel like they know him more personally because King implies that they have been through the same trials. He calls them "my friends" (par. 15), and treats his audience as if they know each other personally. By combining himself with the audience, King also proves that he is not just arguing for self-interests. He wants change for the entire African American population.

King is trying to convince the entire United States population that African Americans should be given their rights. He wants to convince the Government because the location is at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. He wants to convince the religious black and white men and women, that everyone can come together as "God's Children" (par. 6). He wants to convince those who don't believe African Americans should be free. "And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights" (par. 7).

King also wants to convince the African American people to continue to fight without violence. "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence" (par. 8). By making it clear he wants to negotiate peacefully, King appeals to the police force, and gains credibility by not advocating any violent acts. Finally, King encourages the African Americans in the South and the North, to have hope that the situation will change.

One of the main African American audiences King is trying to convince are those who think that waiting will solve their problems. "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy... Now is the time to make justice a reality for all God's children" (par. 6). King's credibility is so powerful at this point in his speech because of his experience and letter he wrote while in Birmingham Jail. In the letter, King says that he is disappointed with the "white moderate" and white religious people for being "more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace..." and for "[believing] he can set the timetable for another man's freedom..." (par. 19). Birmingham Jail is where King really developed his solid view about not sitting by and waiting for freedom.

Martin Luther King says, "I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come from fresh narrow jail cells". King, and many other African Americas, were unjustly put in prison. King describes the jail cells as "narrow" which gives the audiences an image of the cells, but also eludes to the narrow-mindedness white men in the South. In this context, going to jail gave the African Americans credibility because of the unjust laws that put them there. It stood as proof of the prejudice that was in the South.

King recognizes the value of his argument when he shares his personal desires. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (par. 20) He connects to the audience by sharing what his dream is for his family and every African American family. Using this personal information, King establishes that he is a father with little children and relates to others who are in the same position.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck commits logical fallacies in his news report, "Does Congress Matter?" One of his fallacies is guilt by association. Beck assumes that all of congress and politics are corrupt. He doesn't give the reader or listener a chance to even think that maybe Congress isn't all completely corrupt. Because Beck assumes that Congress is selfish and greedy, he make the audience assume the same. Beck gives good examples of how some members of Congress are spending money, and generalizes that to all of Congress. He says, "That's all I'm looking for: 56 brave men and women out of the 535 in Congress today... to stand up to the corruption..." Beck is "stereotyping all members of the group" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch).

Another fallacy that Glenn Beck commits is poisoning the well. He makes the issue so biased and one-sided, that anyone who wants to disagree with him would look "immoral" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch). I mean, who doesn't want Congress to spend money on what "the people want"? As if anyone even knows what it is that the people really do want. If someone did want to disagree with Beck, the other part of the readers and listeners would have a hard time agreeing because Glenn Beck is so credible. His audience is so willing to consent to whatever Beck says that contradictory view points would feel imposing.

The last fallacy that I found in Glenn Beck's article is his assumption that everyone wants to change all of Congress. When in reality, everyone likes their own congress members, it is the "other ones" that are disliked. If a democrat could choose who was in Congress, they would get rid of the republicans and keep their own party. Beck misinterprets and assumes that America wants to kick out all of Congress when everyone actually just has certain members that they have problems with.

Pearl Harbor

President Roosevelt used pathos when he gave his speech to the American people after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was a very emotional time for America because it involved war and the want for peace. Lives were lost in the attack and that evoked an emotional response. The people killed at Pearl Harbor were not relatives of everyone, but our nation as a whole has an emotional bond that connects everyone together. President Roosevelt used this emotion to his advantage and explained why America needed to enter the war, "...a formal reply to a recent American message... contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack".

President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war previously to the Pearl Harbor attack. "He wanted to prevent war in Europe, and in October 1937, Roosevelt proposed that the United States lead the "peace loving nations" in placing aggressive nations... under quarantine". But Roosevelt's idea "raised a storm of criticism". (Smitha par. 1) Roosevelt was passionate and knew the direction he wanted to take. He just needed to convince the American people.

President Roosevelt used specific words and phrases to bring his point across. "the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned..." (par. 5), "Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States." (par. 5), "severe damage" (par. 6), and "the facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves." (par. 13), were convincing in Roosevelt's speech and made Americans emotionally respond to the Japanese.

Roosevelt also had a very good logos appeal and used many facts to connect the idea of Japanese attacking other countries, to why America should enter the war. He listed the places Japan had attacked and concluded that the Japanese undertook "...a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area." (par. 13). President Roosevelt went on to say that he would defend our nation by going to war.

In 'Writing and Rhetoric' it says that "...a message that is primarily emotional is more persuasive than a message that is primarily logical." (Gary Hatch, page 65) The next paragraph in the Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation was President Roosevelt's best pathos appeal. He said, "The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory." (par. 15). Roosevelt used pathos because winning comes with a lot of emotion. Roosevelt said the United States will to go war in "righteous might", so the purpose is just and the opponent is in the wrong.

His speech came all together to the main issue of going to war, and destroyed any possible thought of losing because America will have an "absolute victory". I believe that because of Roosevelt's convincing use of pathos, Americans had such a strong response to the Pearl Harbor attack that it not only led to the United States entering the war, but also to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

What's Wrong With Divorce?

Gary Hatch said that "arguments from logos require claims and reasons as their basic structure" (Writing and Rhetoric 71). Karl Zinsmeister uses both good and bad logos in his article Divorce's Toll On Children. His two largest fallacies of logos are seen in the first several paragraphs.

In the beginning of the article there seems to be unlimited facts about how detrimental divorce is to children. Megan's analysis discussed how facts like these appeal to the readers emotions. She says they are "blunt and overwhelming." The facts include a claim that since 1972, one million children have suffered from their parents divorcing each year. He also says that about half of the children today go through a "marital rupture." Only one in ten children that have gone through divorce see there other parent at least once a week, and only one in five keep a close relationship with both parents. These statistics do indeed stir the emotions like Megan said, but they stir the emotions of those who believe everything they read on the internet. There is not one citation or any references to which studies came up with all these brilliant numbers. Even though they are most likely true, Zinsmeister is only appealing to the ignorant and those who don't know any better than to believe everything they read on the internet.

Megan also points out that a key tactic used by Zinmeister is fear. Fear does stir the emotions of the readers as Megan says, but in some cases it makes for poor logos. Zinmeister uses facts and words that scare the reader and make them think negatively. Language like this ruins logos by forcing the reader to associate negativity with the author and the article.

Another fallacy of logos is referred to by Gary Hatch as "stacking the deck" (Writing and Rhetoric 79). It is when an argument gives no acknowledgment to the other side of the issue. No where in the article are there any reasons why divorce might be good or necessary in some situations. Every argument, every fact, and every evidence is describing the detrimental effects of divorce.

Now with all this said I certainly do not condone divorce. Zinsmeister makes many great arguments later on that he backs up fully. He uses studies from reliable sources such as the University of Michigan, Gallup Inc., and The National Survey of Children. Using these studies he effectively argues that divorce in a child's life leads to a significant change in a child's views on love and commitment for the rest of there lives. These arguments are relevant and acceptable, and avoid logical fallacies.

(This article was also analyzed by Megan Corkran)