Jonathon Anderson's Weblog

Part One:
1) In your own words, define each of the three persuasive appeals.
Authority-from the Greek word ethos meanig character, so to me it is defined as the character of your writing and the tone in which you are writing.
Emotion-form the Greek word pathos, and it is what the writer is using in a writing that connects to the readers.
Logic-from the Greek word logos, allows you to use evidence and explainations to support your writing.

2) When writing a research paper, what are good strategies you can use for appealing to the reader’s trust in authority? How is it advantageous for you to get your reader to trust you as an authority?
One thing that gains a lot of authority in any paper is to use noteable resources that are well known and very public. It is an advantage for the writer to gain the trust of the reader so that the reader will believe whatever they write next.

3) What are some good strategies for appealing to emotion when you’re formulating a reasonable argument? Support your claim with a hypothetical situation in which appealing to a particular emotion would be advantageous.
When a writer uses emotion in their argument that allows the reader to get a better understanding of where the writer stands on their subject. As for a hypothetical situation, for example, if i were aruging for a particular claim then i would be using more of a positive or upbeat emotion while writing.

4) Are there any potential disadvantages with using a heavy appeal to emotion? Support your claim by describing a hypothetical example.
Sure, if you over use emotion in a writing it could be a disadvantage. If you are for one side but argue for both or dont argue enough for either side, that would be a disadvantage.

5) What are ways you can use logos to build a strong argument? How important is using logos when formulating a reasonable argument? Support your claim.
Some ways in which you could use logic to build a strong argument is to use examples that the readers can relate to. Also to have data and facts can also help build a stronger argument with logic.

6) Are ethos, logos, and pathos totally separate from each other? Give an example or two that support your claim.
No, I think that they all relate to each other in a sense and you have to have one before you can get the other. For example, if you want to gain an emotional connection with the reader, you have to have authority first so that they with trust you.

Part Two:
Bang, You’re Dead
Sara Rimensynder

In the article she uses authority first by introducing comic book writer, screenwriter, historian, and parent Gerard Jones as her creditable resource. She introduces some of his writings and things that he is currently working on, which begins to give her writing some credibility. In her writing where she is interviewing Mr. Jones she begins to show some emotion in the way she is asking him the questions. To me it seems as if she agrees with her opening statement and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. She is asking all of the questions in a negative connotation which says to me that she thinks that fantasy violence is not good for kids. I believe that her article is very logical in the sense that she used a format that is easy for anyone to follow. She used her interview in her writing just as it happened; she states the question and follows it up by his answer. Overall I think that this is an effective argument since she starts by authoritatively introducing an credible source into the writing which is saying that she wants to be trusted and she is going to get it from you by using someone how knows that particular subject. I think that Jones was a good choice for her and I believe what she has written.

Part One:
A claim is a statment that is of an opinion and must be proven by evidence to become accepted. Support answers the question of “why should I accept your claim?” and it includes evidence and explanation. Evidence is the imformation needed to prove ones claim, it can include many different things such as expert witnesses, facts and data, examples, and experiences. An explanation is often the evidence put into words, basically it explains every detail and fact about the evidence.

Part Two:
1) What is your immediate response to Crichton’s argument? How does it make you think and feel? Why? As you read the article, did anything stick out to you? His argument was well constructed, it contained everything needed in an accpetable argement. Personally I think that his argument has change the way I will think aboutthis enviromentalism, simply based on the facts that he presented in his article. His facts on the DDT campain really hit home for me because farmers that live around Lake Apopka, near my home, used DDT for a really long time and now the lake is full of chemicals and is currently being cleaned as part of a many year project.

2) What is Crichton’s tone? How does he feel about the topic, and how is he trying to make the reader feel? What is his purpose in trying to make the reader feel that way? Circhton’s tone in this article is very assertive and strong. He is putting all of the facts out on the table for everyone to read and he is trying to make everyone see that he is correct and agree with him.

3) What is Crichton’s main claim? Be precise. Does he make any supporting claims? I think that Crichton’s main claim is the enviromentalism is based too much on religion currently, and should be based only on science.

4) How does Crichton support his claim? What evidence (facts, statistics, reasoning) does he use, and what explanations does he provide? Evaluate the evidence: how well does his evidence support his claim? He supports his claim by comparing many of the past cultures to many of the present day societies. He hits on topics like cannabilism, mass murder and also scientic aspecs of it like plague death rates, and children under the age of five contracting illnesses.

5) What reason does Crichton give for not citing his sources? Do you accept this? Does not citing sources help or hurt his argument? He states that he didn’t cite his sources because “convictions of a religion are not dependent on the facts, but rather are matters of unshakable faith” (Crichton). I do not accept it “as it”, but if he were to acknowledge or cite his so called prestigious science journals, then maybe I would consider this to be acceptable.

6) Is Crichton’s argument strong? Why or why not? Depends on how you look at it I guess, I would have to say it could have been stronger. He could have added more facts to support his claims, but I also think that if he would have cited his sources then it would have been a stronger argument.