Based on the reading, your understanding of the rhetorical appeals, and class discussions, create an argument for which rhetorical appeal (ethos, logos, or pathos) you believe is best represented in the article. In your argument explain why you believe one appeal is more represented than another and why. Use information from the article to evidence what you are saying.
Due: Friday, June 27, 2014 BY class time.
I think logos is the best represented in this writing because the author analyzes why this evil event would happen and the property of evil itself. In the last the author shows that it cannot be explained because evil is evil while terrorism is just no reason. Maybe most people will not have the strong conceptions about evil before 9/11, but they have the clear idea that evil must be stopped. The author says that, “The concept of evil tells you nothing about why.” He cannot explain why would this evil happen even he lists several reasons which still cannot indicate the reasons. In fact, the author indicates that, “Terrorism is evil, and there's nothing else to discuss.”
ReplyDeleteI think one appeal is more represented than another is because audience will focus more on one appeal which shows the most ideas in the writing. I think most audience read some writings, especially the column or newsletter, they may already know the backgrounds, and I also think most audience have their own logical analysis or personal impressions. If writing contains all three together, it might be hard to grasp the main idea immediately. So, I think one appeal is more reasonable.
After reading Michael Kinsley's article, I found logos is the most significantly represented rhetorical appeal in this article. Throughout this article, author keeps trying to make people think more critically and rationally. In the last paragraph, Michael tries to use scientific theories to persuade people not to simply use the word "evil" and think more rationally. "In this case, though, it is conservatives who are hiding from science. Advances in our understanding of the brain do indeed pose a challenge to the moral concept of blame or fault or guilt or, yes, even evil. But the challenge is not necessarily insurmountable. " Author states his idea in a very logical way he explains that people always have difficulty or refuse to accept some moral concepts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, author is good at using logos by raising questions and answer them. For instance, "If the great essential truth about terrorism is that some people just hate the United States, the obvious next question is, Why?...If the subjective basis for terrorists hating America is off limits for consideration, that would seem to leave the objective basis: Is it something we did, or didn't do, to them or theirs? " He always use questions to lead his theories which is really a great way to develop a logical structure of an article.
I believe that logos is the rhetorical appeal being used in this article. During most of the text, Michael Kinsley seemed to be very logical. One example is the when he says :
ReplyDelete"The concept of evil tells you nothing about why—among the many evils wished upon the United States—this one actually happened. Nor does "evil" help us to figure out how to stop evil from visiting itself upon us again. "
With this sentence, he appealed to logic and in a certain way I believe that it asked the reader to think "outside of the box" and think further than just attributing every fault to "evil".
ReplyDeletePathos is the best represented rhetorical appeal in the article, the author uses the deep emotion of a still fresh wound of the United States. It was already 5 years since the 9/11 attacks, the perpetrator of the attacks was still nowhere to be found. The reasons for the war that followed the attacks still a mystery to the public. This author presents a non United States centric message, the government told us we were at war against the terrorist. But who were the terrorist? Who is this evil entity? The author does a great job utilizing that feeling, of uncertainty, to get us to look at the attacks and the war that followed in a different perspective than the propagandistic way the government was producing. This article was the best way the author could respond to the rhetorical situation that he encountered back in 2006. His solution to the situation was for the US to finally stop hiding behind their fear and start questioning what is it about our foreign policy that makes the United States be hated by other countries.
The rhetorical appeal that is best represented in the article "Deliver Us from Evil" is pathos. The author Michael Kinsley is clearly trying to create an emotional response from his readers about the tragic events of 9/11. I think that this article is very one-sided and opinionated, but I believe Kinsley is desperately trying to get us to view the 9/11 attacks and the war that followed from a different perspective since Americans have been so bombarded with government propaganda telling us that "Evil is real, and it must be opposed."
ReplyDeleteI think that ethos is a rhetorical appeal that is less represented, especially when compared to pathos. For me, the author does describe certain beliefs that our nation upholds, but he does not convince me of his credibility. He cites plenty of quotes from his opposing side (conservatives), but he does not support his perspective with anything substantial. I definitely feel that he as the author believes what he is writing to be true, but I as the reader need to believe it as well. One example of this is when Kinsley states "Ordinarily conservatives are quite thrilled by the idea of a genetic basis for nearly anything and eager to accuse liberals of refusing to face the truth. The whole subject appeals to their treasured sense of futility." To me as a reader this comes across as simply his personal opinion and nothing more. I think this article is a good example of why you need all three (ethos, logos, pathos) rhetorical appeals to be represented well in order to create a solid argument.
The rhetorical appeal that I believe is best represented in Michael Kinsley’s article is pathos. Kinsley appeals to his audience by tapping into a very emotional event in American history. Although when this article was written it was five years later than the horrifying event, it was still a very fresh wound in many American’s hearts because not only were we still at war because of the perpetrator of these attacks, but the majority of the American public was still in shock that something this devastating could be done. Kinsley tries in his article to persuade the American people to view the attacks on 9/11 in a different view point and realize that “Evil is real, and it must be opposed.” Even though he might be presenting his argument in a very one-sided fashion against the government, in my opinion Kinsley has effectively appealed to the projected audience and in particular created an emotional response to the tragic rhetorical situation.
ReplyDeleteI believe the rhetorical appeal in Kinsley's piece is both ethos and pathos. Americans are very stuck in their ideals, and consequently we sometimes cannot take the time to realize the situation we've cornered ourselves into. Avoiding the definition of a person, like we have with terrorists, can lead to horrible circular logic like Senator McCarthy's red scare. Additionally it appeals to our pathos as Americans, because we don't want to be thought of as "burying our heads in the sand," but our rhetoric essentially reinforces that's what we're doing. It allows the reader to be awoken to the notion that the American government doesn't really accomplish all that much, from an ethical standpoint as well.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose one, I'd say that pathos played the biggest role in this article. The author wrote this prior to Osama Bin Ladins capture so America was still desperate for some answers. This is where having to choose was hard for me because the authors seems to have a purpose, that is to explain "evil", and he does so in a logical manner, very organized. So perhaps it would be fair to say that logos was his biggest appeal, with pathos to appeal to the less informed audience(me).
Delete