William Turner's Weblog

1) In your own words, define each of the three persuasive appeals.
Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of the reader.
Ethos is an appeal to the trust in authority of the reader.
Logos is an appeal to the trust in logic of the reader.

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?
It is very important to use authority to your advantage when writing a research paper. The reader will be more confident that you are not just making everything up seeing credible sources in your research paper.

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.
Appealing to the emotion of your reader is an important way to get someone on your side. If you can persuade the reader to think the way you want them to with emotion it would help the overall view of the essay to benefit you. If you were writing an essay on something that had to do with abuse and gave a good supporting story a reader could relate to is an example of a benefiting use of pathos.

4) Are there any potential disadvantages with using a heavy appeal to emotion? Support your claim by describing a hypothetical example.
There are potential disadvantages to using too much pathos. The reader may think that you are looking for “pitty-love” in your essay. For example is someone kept whining about something and took it a little too far to where it is awkward reading the essay.

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.
Using the logos appeal is a very strong attribute to any essay or argument. Using logic a great way to persuade someone and build your argument stronger. Using logic you can build the basis of your argument into a stronger claim.

6) Are ethos, logos, and pathos totally separate from each other? Give an example or two that support your claim.
Ethos, logos, and pathos are all similar to each other to me but still different. They are in the same category as you use them the same way, just in different situations. All of them are important and build a good argument.

“Now That Chimeras Exist, What If Some Turn Out Too Human?” Sharon Begley

In the argument “Now That Chimeras Exist, What If Some Turn Out Too Human” Sharon Begley wrote about stem cell research in animals. It was a fairly easy article to read because it did not go into huge detail about stem cell research but informed you enough to understand the article’s details well. The article first begins on talking about a creature called the Chimera which is from Greek mythology. This appeals to the emotion of the reader because it captures the readers mind. She goes on to explain about what it is and how now scientist were able to mix a sheep and a goat that resembles what the ancient Greeks dreamt up. She also appeals to pathos dealing with the treatment of stem cell research animals. In the article you get the vibe that they are living things such as us and they are being researched upon unfairly. All throughout the article Sharon Begley quotes scientists and stem cell companies. This is an appeal to logos and an appeal to ethos. The appeal to ethos is that the scientists are respected scientists in their field. The scientists mentioned in the article do college research that sounds very important. Another appeal with the scientist and companies was logos. They use the logical approaches to how stem cell research in animals could help treat and cure diseases such as AIDS. If it is able to help millions of people in the world it will be a good thing to work on.

Michael Crichton’s argument meant not a lot. It seemed to me like he supported environmentalism which was a good thing. It also seemed to me that he had some heavy stocks and investments in DDT back in the day that got ruined. He attacked that as one of his biggest bites against environmentalism. The Environmental Protection Agency is a joke like he said. But if the government would hire people who are actually specialist and not paid to do nothing about key issues that wouldn’t be a problem. The way I see it is that the world wants to fix the problems they are creating with the environment just aren’t willing to change what they are doing. Crichton is arguing about how environmentalism is spinning in the wrong direction. He focuses on how it is needed but how it is also abused. Crichton compares environmentalism to religion in his argument. I think he said this for people to think about their own faith and beliefs concerning the environment and their religion. Although I support the basis that religion and environmentalism both are beliefs but they should not be categorized the same. Hell, if people all love potato chips and it is a common belief they can’t make a “religion” out of it either. Crichton backs all of his information up on how we should focus environmentalism on science. Environmental issues along with most important issues should back everything up on proven science. If he had more science facts in his argument the argument would be a lot stronger.