Pathos AP Lit Blog

When constructing an argument, many disputants attempt to appeal to their audience’s sense of pathos, that is, the audience’s emotions. This can often be very effective, and can lead to an emotional connection that is hard to break. This only works, however, if the audience is sympathetic to that side of the argument, otherwise, they may have a negative reaction. The only responsibility lies with the fact that appeals to pathos should not confuse an issue; it should help to make the issue clearer. The media and the government, both of which generally utilize the appeals correctly, often utilize appeals to pathos. If talking about abortion, pro-choice people will tell stories of mother’s health being at risk, or if they talk about taxes, people will talk about how strenuous they can be on the poorer people in our society. The problem lies with the fact that so many media agencies appeal to our sense of pathos that it can confuse people, with all the different stories and distortions of truth they are told. Though appeals to pathos can often be effective, it should always help to clarify and issue, and if too many sides attempt these appeals then the audience can eventually grow confused.

Analyzing Skateboard Argument Evidence

In “Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Langley uses a great deal of evidence to try and convince the reader that skateboarders are not menaces to society and should be treated better by officials. The most compelling piece of evidence is the fact that he himself is a skateboarder who has, along with his friends, frequently suffered many injustices just because he skates. These include having a friend receive a $50 ticket for skateboarding in an area that even said it was ok to skateboard in during Holidays. He also uses very effective analogies when he says skateboarding is as natural as surfing, in that people are adapting to their environment. He appeals to people’s senses of emotion by continually giving examples of skaters being harassed and even says that cities have tried to accommodate skaters, but are not succeeding. To further emphasize his point, he offers what he considers reasonable and safe solutions to the problem, which shows the reader that he really wants to find a solution. His argument accurately fills out every portion of the STAR method of looking at evidence. The evidence is accurate (mainly because it is based off his opinion or memory), it is relevant to his argument, he provides more than enough evidence (though some statistics may have been helpful) and, according to him, the evidence he presents is representative of what happens to a majority of skaters.

Toulmin's System

Real world arguments actually seldom prove anything to be 100% true, because what you are arguing about could be subjective based on the disputant or things could fall into different groupings, as the example provided on page 87 of the book does. Though, real world arguments seldom actually prove anything, they do serve as a good advocate for one cause or another. Normally, you can only hope to strengthen your side of the argument or weaken your opponent’s side and garner supporters for you cause, but not actually prove either side to be right or wrong. This in and of itself is enough of a reason to learn Toulmin’s “courtroom model” of arguing (“Writing Arguments”). Toulmin’s system assumes that a neutral third party will render all verdicts in regards to the argument and that all assumptions are contestable by an opposing side, which forces the disputants to tailor their arguments to their audience, thus garnering more support. Though it is very difficult to ever prove something in a debate, using a system like Toulmin’s allows you to make a better case for your belief and possibly garner more supporters.

Pseudo-argument

A pseudo-argument is an argument, which is based on the opinions of the people involved and often means that the people are fanatically devoted to their side of the argument and unwilling to change their views based on the strengths or weaknesses of their opponents argument. This is why it is a pseudo- argument, because there is no collective inquiry or potential for intellectual growth through the debate. This seems to be what many of my arguments are whether they are with friends or with parents. The most common kind of pseudo-argument I have is with my parents and involves my curfew (both during weekdays and weekends). My parents always thought there should be a set time to be home and that I should always call to tell them where I am, whereas I believed that, as long as I had my phone with me I should be allowed to do what I want. They thought that getting home at a specific time would help develop a habit which would lead to getting homework done faster and better, and they would always know exactly where I was. I believed that it didn’t matter where I was, as long as they were able to contact me (via the cell phone) and that the time I got home didn’t matter, as long as I finished my homework. This kind of homework almost always ended with my parents winning because they could easily threaten to take away my car privileges altogether, but this kind of argument still exemplifies what a pseudo-argument is.

Biotech Food

From it’s emergence, biotech foods have been debated constantly with proponents saying that the biotech product is no different than the natural, and the opponents saying that we don’t know the dangers of these biotech products.
So far, the companies and the FDA have both determined the biotech foods on the market to be harmless to people and to have several advantages. This clearly shows the advantages that the biotech food would bring to the table (no pun intended), yet the opponents continue to say that there should be labeling for what are biotech foods and what aren’t. Not only would these labels scare the public, for the public often thinks of such labels as warnings, but it would be very costly to the company and this cost would then be passed onto the consumer with increased prices. Though labeling all biotech foods would be a bad and costly idea, it would still be advantageous to have certain foods labeled, but only if they had different nutritional facts than the natural product. This does not mean that it has to be labeled for being the smallest amount off, but rather, if it is a significant amount off, or an amount that could affect someone’s health, then the product should be labeled. If it would have no real effect then the biotech food should not have to be labeled.

Genre of an Argument

The genre of certain arguments can greatly influence the message that the argument portrays. From the image on page 24 the reader gets the general idea that genetically modified foods are very possibly bad for you and can have harmful effects, which serves as a good warning to most readers. The cartoon, however, has a much more penetrating message because it shows what genetically modified food could do for us (help solve world hunger) and contrasts this even more with the idea of the starving little child who would give anything for food but is having the food withheld by a self righteous “reason resistant” person. This kind of contrasting makes the comic much more effective than the image on page 24 because people are constantly bombarded with advertisements like the one on 24 that tell them why something could be wrong or bad for them but that is all it does, is tell them in a boring way that many people become immune to. The comic, on the other hand, attracts the attention of the general viewer because many people enjoy comics and the image of the starving child draws their attention and makes them feel more sympathy, while the mockery of the “reason resistant” person helps to fuel the dislike the reader feels for that same group. These two images clearly show how the genre of an argument can determine how effective the argument is.

Implicit vs. Explicit Argument

As defined by the book, “Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings,” an explicit argument “states directly a controversial claim and supports it with reasons and evidence,” while an implicit argument “doesn’t look like an argument. It may be a poem or short story, a photograph or cartoon, a personal essay or an autobiographical narrative. But like an explicit argument, it persuades its audience towards a certain point of view.” These definitions help the reader to understand the context of the Veterans day picture and the poem Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen, neither of which are explicit arguments. Though they both seem to be relatively innocuous entries into the textbook, they really say a great deal. With regards to implicit arguments, both have a great deal to say. The poem, for example, is a stinging and bitter rant against war and the horrors men face while fighting a war. The point is further driven home when it is revealed that the author, Wilfred Owen, himself died in the midst of World War I. The picture, on the other hand, offers a far different picture. It shows a young strong looking marine embracing and older veteran of another war, showing the comradeship of the two different generations of soldiers. Though the artificial hand of the younger soldier does come as a shock, it serves to remind the viewer that war itself is a very shocking thing and never to be taken lightly. Though neither item actually state an explicit argument, the amount they have to say is no less than if they were explicit.