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.

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)

Heathcare

Now is the Time to Deliver on Healthcare
President Obama uses logos to connect his ideas together and show how healthcare needs to be reformed now. Logos was a much better chioce for Obama to use instead of pathos because he is talking to Congress. By logically expressing his ideas for change in healthcare, Obama appeals more to Congress because they are persuaded by the law and how the country is run. Pathos wouldn't change Congress' ideas about healthcare because emotions will not dictate their decisions.

President Obama talks about the health care problem which started during President Roosevelt's term. And now, Obama is "determined to be the last" president to take up the cause of healthcare (par. 1). He explains that now support comes from hospitals, even the hospitals who were against the healthcare reform before. At this point is his speech, Obama has introduced his major topic and showed that he has support from Americans. The next step he takes is introducing his specific plan of action.

Obama explains his three main points that cover why the American people need help with their healthcare, and how the government can help them at low costs. He not only includes the American people, but also Congress and their own healthcare plans. Obama explains that if you have health insurance already, you will not need to change your coverage. However if you need health insurance, you can find affordable coverage. Then he links it all together and why it matters. "[It] makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." (par. 11)

Finally, President Obama says that he will not waste any time with anyone who doesn't want to improve healthcare and he explains why. "Everyone... knows what will happen if we do nothing... More families will go bankrupt... More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result." (par. 16) Obama connects the issue of his healthcare proposal to what the result will be if action is not taken. President Obama used logos very effectively when he addressed Congress and demonstrated why a change in healthcare needs to take place.