8/9/2019 Com II

1/60

A Review of Rhetoric: From Persuasion to Identication

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01/ (Online Writing Lab- urdue

!ni"ersit#$

%hetoric can re&er to 'ust the persuasi"e ualities o& language. )he ancient *ree+

philosopher ,ristotle strongl# inuenced how people ha"e traditionall# "iewed

rhetoric. ,ristotle dened rhetoric as an abilit# in each particular case to see the

a"ailable eans o& persuasion (,ristotle %hetoric 3.1.2 4enned# $. 7ince then

,ristotle8s denition o& rhetoric has been reduced in an# situations to ean sipl#

persuasion. ,t its best this siplication o& rhetoric has led to a long tradition o&

people associating rhetoric with politicians law#ers or other occupations noted &or

persuasi"e spea+ing. ,t its worst the siplication o& rhetoric has led people to

assue that rhetoric is erel# soething that anipulati"e people use to get what

the# want (usuall# regardless o& oral or ethical concerns$.

9owe"er o"er the last centur# or so the acadeic denition and use o& rhetorichas e"ol"ed to include an# situation in which people consciousl# counicate with

each other. 3n brie& indi"idual people tend to percei"e and understand 'ust about

e"er#thing dierentl# &ro one another (this dierence "aries to a lesser or greater

degree depending on the situation o& course$. )his e;panded perception has led a

nuber o& ore conteporar# rhetorical philosophers to suggest that rhetoric deals

with ore than 'ust persuasion. 3nstead o& 'ust persuasion rhetoric is the set o&

ethods people use to identi with each otheror an# people rhetoric a# ipl# speech that is

sipl# persuasi"e. >or others rhetoric a# ipl# soething ore negati"e li+e

tric+er# or e"en l#ing. 7o to appreciate the benets o& understanding what

1 A a g e

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01/https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01/

8/9/2019 Com II

2/60

rhetorical situations are we ust rst ha"e a ore coplete understanding o& what

rhetoric itsel& is.

3n brie& rhetoric is an communication used to modif the perspectives of

others. =ut this is a "er# broad denition that calls &or ore e;planation.

)he OWL8s 3ntroduction to %hetoric "idcast e;plains ore what rhetoric is and

how rhetoric relates to writing. )his "idcast denes rhetoric as primaril an

awareness of the language choices we ma!e. 3t gi"es a brie& histor# o& the

origins o& rhetoric in ancient *reece. ,nd it brie# discusses the benets o& how

understanding rhetoric can help people write ore con"incingl#. )he "idcast

pro"ides an e;cellent prier to soe basic ideas o& rhetoric.

, ore in-depth prier to rhetoric can be &ound in the online "ideo 3n Be&ense o&

%hetoric: Co Longer Dust &or Liars. )his "ideo dispels soe widel# held

isconceptions about rhetoric and ephasi?es that An education of rhetoric

ena"les communicators in an facet of an eld to create and assess

messages e#ectivel. )his "ideo should be particularl# help&ul to an#one who is

unaware o& how crucial rhetoric is to eecti"e counication.

3n Be&ense o& %hetoric: Co Longer Dust &or Liars is a 1E-inunte "ideo created b#

graduate students in the @, in ro&essional Founication progra at Fleson

!ni"ersit# and #ou are &ree to cop# distribute and transit the "ideo with the

understanding: 1$ that #ou will attribute the wor+ to its authorsG 2$ that #ou will not

use the wor+ &or coercial purposesG and $ that #ou a# not alter trans&or or

build upon this wor+.

Listening to the abo"e podcast and watching the abo"e "ideo should help an#one

using this resource to better understand the basics o& rhetoric and rhetorical

situations.

A Review of Rhetoric: From Persuasion to Identication

Dust as the "idcast and "ideo abo"e ipl# rhetoric can re&er to 'ust the persuasi"e

ualities o& language. )he ancient *ree+ philosopher ,ristotle strongl# inuenced

how people ha"e traditionall# "iewed rhetoric. Aristotle dened rhetoricas an

a"ilit$ in each particular case$ to see the availa"le means of persuasion

(,ristotle %hetoric 3.1.2 4enned# $. 7ince then ,ristotle8s denition o& rhetorichas been reduced in an# situations to ean sipl# persuasion. ,t its best this

siplication o& rhetoric has led to a long tradition o& people associating rhetoric

with politicians law#ers or other occupations noted &or persuasi"e spea+ing. ,t its

worst the siplication o& rhetoric has led people to assue that rhetoric is erel#

soething that anipulati"e people use to get what the# want (usuall# regardless

o& oral or ethical concerns$.

2 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

3/60

9owe"er o"er the last centur# or so the acadeic denition and use o& rhetoric

has e"ol"ed to include an situation in which people consciousl

communicate with each other. 3n brie& indi"idual people tend to percei"e and

understand 'ust about e"er#thing di#erentl from one another(this dierence

"aries to a lesser or greater degree depending on the situation o& course$. )his

e;panded perception has led a nuber o& ore conteporar# rhetoricalphilosophers to suggest that rhetoric deals with ore than 'ust persuasion. 3nstead

o& 'ust persuasion rhetoric is the set of methods people use to identif with

each otheror this reason the rest o& this resource will

&ocus on understanding rhetorical situations more in terms of analsis. Once

#ou +now how to identif and anal)e the elements of rhetorical situations

#ou will be better able to produce writing that eets #our audience8s needs ts the

specic setting #ou write in and con"e#s #our intended essage and purpose.

Hach indi"idual rhetorical situation shares ve "asic elementswith all otherrhetorical situations:

A te,t(i.e. an actual instance or piece o& counication$

An author(i.e. soeone who uses counication$

An audience(i.e. a recipient o& counication$

A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

4/60

8/9/2019 Com II

5/60

8/9/2019 Com II

6/60

beginning o& a coposition course or the assignent o& a writing pro'ect in an#

class.

,uthors and audiences both ha"e a wide range o& purposes &or counicating. )he

iportance o& purpose in rhetorical situations cannot be o"erstated. 3t is the "aried

purposes o& a rhetorical situation that deterine how an author counicates ate;t and how audiences recei"e a te;t. %hetorical situations rarel# ha"e onl# one

purpose. ,uthors and audiences tend to bring their own purposes (and o&ten

ultiple purposes each$ to a rhetorical situation and these purposes a# conict or

copleent each other depending on the eorts o& both authors and audiences.

Authors% purposes

3n the te;tboo+ Writing )oda# Dohnson-7heehan and aine discuss purpose ore

specicall# in ters o& the author o& a te;t. )he# suggest that ost te;ts written in

college or in the wor+place o&ten ll one o& two broader purposes: to be in&orati"e

or to be persuasi"e. !nder each o& these two broad purposes the# identi a host o&ore specic purposes. )he &ollowing table is not e;hausti"eG authors could easil#

ha"e purposes that are not listed on this table.

*a"le: Author Purposes

3n&orati"e

ersuasi"e

to in&or

to persuade

to describe

to con"ince

to dene

to inuence

to re"iew

6 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

7/60

to argue

to noti

to recoend

to instruct

to change

to ad"ise

to ad"ocate

to announce

to urge

to e;plain

to de&end

to deonstrate

to 'usti

to illustrate

to support

(Dohnson-7heehan K aine 1$

Audiences% purposes

,uthors8 purposes tend to be alost e;clusi"e acti"e i& onl# because authors

conscientiousl# create te;ts &or specic audiences. =ut audiences8 purposes a#

range &ro ore passi"e purpose to ore acti"e purposes.

*a"le: Audience Purposes

@ore assi"e urposes

@ore ,cti"e urposes

to recei"e notice

to e;aine

to &eel reassured

A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

8/60

to uanti

to &eel a sense o& unit#

to assess

to be entertained

to a+e in&ored decisions

to recei"e instruction

to interpret

to en'o#

to e"aluate

to hear ad"ice

to 'udge

to be inspired

to resist change

to re"iew

to critici?e

to understand

to ridicule

to learn

to dispro"e

*he Role of Purposes

,uthors8 and audiences8 purposes in counicating deterine the basic rationale

behind other decisions both authors and audiences a+e (such as what to write or

spea+ about or who to listen to or what ediu to use or what setting to read

in aong others$. ,n author8s purpose in counicating could be to instruct

persuade in&or entertain educate startle e;cite sadden enlighten punish

console or an# an# others. Li+e authors audiences ha"e "aried purposes &or

reading listening to or otherwise appreciating pieces o& counication. ,udiences

J A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

9/60

a# see+ to be instructed persuaded in&ored entertained educated startled

e;cited saddened enlightened punished consoled or an# an# others.

,uthors8 and audiences8 purposes are onl# liited to what authors and audiences

want to accoplish in their oents o& counication. )here are as an#

purposes &or counicating as there are words to describe those purposes.

Attitude

,ttitude is related to purpose and is a uch-o"erloo+ed eleent o& rhetorical

situations. =ut attitude aects a great deal o& how a rhetorical situation un&olds.

Fonsider i& an author counicates with a ippant attitude as opposed to a serious

attitude or with draa as opposed to coed# or call# as opposed to e;citedl#.

Bepending on authors8 purposes audiences8 specic ualities the nature o& the

conte;t and other &actors an# o& these attitudes could either help or hinder authors

in their eorts to counicate depending on the other &actors in an# gi"en

rhetorical situation. Li+e authors audiences bring di"erse attitudes to how the#

appreciate dierent pieces o& counication. )he audience8s attitude whilereading listening obser"ing or whatnot aects how the# recei"e and process the

counication the# recei"e.

Setting

Summar:

)his presentation is designed to introduce #our students to a "ariet# o& &actors that

contribute to strong well-organi?ed writing. )his presentation is suitable &or the

beginning o& a coposition course or the assignent o& a writing pro'ect in an#

class.

Lastl# all rhetorical situations occur in specic settings or conte;ts or

en"ironents. )he specic constraints that aect a setting include the tie o&

author and audience the place o& author and audience and the counit# or

con"ersation in which authors and/or audiences engage.

*ime

)ie in this sense re&ers to specic oents in histor#. 3t is &airl# coon

+nowledge that dierent people counicate dierentl# depending on the tie in

which the# li"e. ,ericans in the 1I50s o"erall counicate dierentl# than

,ericans in the 2000s. Cot that the# necessaril# spea+ a dierent language but

these two groups o& people ha"e dierent assuptions about the world and how to

I A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

10/60

counicate based on the era in which the# li"e. Bierent oents in tie can be

closer together and still aect the wa#s that people counicate. Fertainl#

scientists discussed ph#sics soewhat dierentl# the #ear a&ter Hinstein published

his theor# o& relati"it# than the# did the #ear be&ore Hinstein published his treatise.

,lso an author and audience a# be located at dierent ties in relation to one

another. )oda# we appreciate 7ha+espeare8s 9alet a bit dierentl# than thepeople who watched it when it rst preiered &our hundred #ears ago. , lot o&

cultural nors ha"e changed since then.

Place

7iilarl# the specic places o& authors and their audiences aect the wa#s that

te;ts are ade and recei"ed. ,t a rall# the place a# be the steps o& a national

onuent. 3n an acadeic con&erence or lecture hall or court case the place is a

specic roo. 3n other rhetorical situations the place a# be the pages o& an

acadeic 'ournal in which dierent authors respond to one another in essa# &or.

,nd as entioned about authors8 and audiences8 bac+grounds the places &rowhich audiences and authors eerge aect the wa#s that dierent te;ts are ade

and recei"ed.

.ommunit 1 .onversation

3n "arious rhetorical situations counit# or con"ersation can be used to re&er

to the specic +inds o& social interactions aong authors and audiences. Outside o&

spea+ing about rhetorical situations counit# usuall# eans specic groups o&

people united b# location and pro;iit# li+e a neighborhoodG con"ersation usuall#

re&ers to &airl# intiate occasions o& discussion aong a sall nuber o& people.

=ut in regard to rhetorical situations both o& these ters can ha"e uch largereanings. 3n an# gi"en rhetorical situation counit# and con"ersation can

re&er to the people specicall# in"ol"ed in the act o& counication. >or instance

consider ablo icasso who used cubis to challenge international notions o& art at

the tie he painted. icasso was in"ol"ed in a worldwide counit# o& artists art

critics and other appreciators o& art an# o& who were acti"el# engaged in an

e;tended con"ersation with diering assuptions about what art is and ought to

be. 7oeties authors and audiences participate in the sae counit# and

con"ersation but in an# instances authors a# counicate in one counit#

and con"ersation (again thin+ o& 7ha+espeare &our hundred #ears ago in Hngland$

while audiences a# participate in a dierent counit# and con"ersation (thin+ o&

scholars toda# in an# other countr# in the world who discuss and debate the nature

o& 7ha+espeare8s pla#s$. )he specic nature o& authors8 counities and

con"ersations aect the wa#s that te;ts are ade while the specic nature o&

audiences8 counities and con"ersations aect the wa#s that te;ts are recei"ed

and appreciated.

10 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

11/60

http:11harvardhumanist&org123421351461the(freethin!ers(political(te,t"oo!(

logos(ethos(pathos1

/ogos 7 *he 8essage

Logos is #our rational arguent: #our +e# points #our supporting data #our

statistics #our analogies #our details. )here are a nuber o& wa#s #ou can ipro"e

#our Logos:

One sentence pitch. Freate a one-sentence pitch which encapsulates the

core o& #our arguent. 3& #ou can8t capture the ain thrust #our arguent in

one sentence it8s probabl# too coplicated. )hree point outline. Outline the +e# points o& #our arguents as sipl# and

clearl# as possible. )hree points is best ore and #our audience will

struggle to retain the. ,nalog# and @etaphor. , pith# analog# or etaphor can a+e an arguent

stand out. 3t8s best i& a single etaphor can be e;tended throughout thepitch. 7tatistic M 7tor#. >or each point identi one supporting statistic and one

illustrati"e stor#. Ce"er a stor# without a statistic ne"er a statistic without a

stor#. ro&. *ar# Orren

'thos 7 *he 8essenger

Hthos is #our deonstration that #ou are a li+able trustworth# authorit# on the

gi"en sub'ect and that #ou are worth listening to and hearing out. 3t is also #our

deonstration that #ou share "alues with #our audience.

Hstablish #our ,uthorit# and Fredibilit#. )his needn8t be a &oral position o&

authorit# (although use one i& #ou ha"e it$. Nou can gain authorit# through

s+ills e;periences association with authorit# gures or institutions and use

o& data arguents or stories that ha"e credibilit# thesel"es. Li+ing. Fonsider the le"el o& positi"it# and negati"it# in #our essage huor

(particularl# sel&-deprecating huor$ bod#-language (siling open

e;pressions$ #our tone (not condescending +now-it-all$ how well #ou listen

etc. Listening. >ind a wa# to deonstrate that #ou ha"e listened to #our audience.

)his aects #our ethos because it shows that #ou care about what the# ha"e

to sa#. uote a eber o& the audienceG ention #ou +now the# li+e aparticular thingG deonstrate #ou8"e read their ission stateentG

ac+nowledge one o& their ain points against #our proposal. Listen acti"el#:

as+ uestionsG nodG +eep e#e contactG paraphrase the audience8s words. 9uor. @a+e 'o+esP 9uor is surprisingl# "ersatile and can wor+ in alost

an# conte;t i& sensiti"el# applied. , 'o+e which ebodies or illustrates a point

is best. Do+es at #our own e;pense deonstrate co&ort and can there&ore

authorit# and credibilit# surprisingl#.

11 A a g e

http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/06/14/the-freethinkers-political-textbook-logos-ethos-pathos/http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/06/14/the-freethinkers-political-textbook-logos-ethos-pathos/http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/06/14/the-freethinkers-political-textbook-logos-ethos-pathos/http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/06/14/the-freethinkers-political-textbook-logos-ethos-pathos/

8/9/2019 Com II

12/60

Pathos 7 *he Audience

athos is the art o& engaging #our audience and their eotions oti"ating the to

care about the issue #ou bring be&ore the. Hecti"e use o& athos also includes

deonstrations that #ou understand and care about the audience.

ersonali?e. >ind wa#s to personali?e #our proposal. 7how how it aects

specic indi"iduals in concrete wa#s. )elling one personal stor# adds power to

a broad statistic: Let e tell #ou about =ob who lost his 'ob when he

re"ealed he was an atheistQ Hote. Beonstrate #our own eotional coitent to the idea #ou are

prooting. One wa# to do this is nd a reading or stor# which o"es #ou

and read it during #our tal+. eople will pic+ up on #our own deonstration o&

&eeling. Or e;press #our &eelings through #our "ocal tone and bod# language. 7iilarit#. >ind wa#s to deonstrate #our siilarit# to #our audience: 3 too

was raised in a Fhristian hoeG We are both &ro LondonG ,s %ed 7o;

&ans we understandG We8re all s+eptics hereG ,s a &ellow 9ar"ardgraduateG We atheists ha"e all &aced discriination. 7iilarities rele"ant to

the persuasi"e case are to be pre&erred. Foitent. eople wish to be seen as acting consistentl# with their public

coitents. !se this to #our ad"antage. Hither get the audience to a+e a

coitent during #our pitch Will #ou proise to consider # proposalR

or re&erence public coitents the# ha"e alread# ade: Nour own

ission stateent sa#sQG Nou stated publicl# thatQG Nou8re alwa#s

sa#ing we should considerQ

!sing these techniues #ou will cra&t a ore balanced ore persuasi"e

presentation which is ore li+el# to swa# others to #our sideP

Aristotelian Appeals: /ogos$ 'thos$ and Pathos

Whene"er #ou read an arguent #ou ust as+ #oursel& 3s this persuasi"eR 3& so

wh#R ,nd to whoR )here are an# wa#s to appeal to an audience. ,ong the

are appealing to logos ethos and pathos. )hese appeals are identiable in alost

all arguents.

To Appeal to LOGOS

(logic, reasoning)

To Develop or Appeal to

ETHOS(character, ethics)

To Appeal to PATHOS

(emotion)

: the argument itself; the reasoning the author

uses; logical evidence

: how an author builds

credibility & trustworthiness

: words or passages an author uses to

activate emotions

Types of LOGOS Appeals ays to Develop ETHOS Types of PATHOS Appeals

Theories / scientific facts Authors profession / Emotionally loaded language

12 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

13/60

Indicated meanings or reasons

because!"

#iteral or historical analogies

$efinitions

%actual data & statistics

uotations

'itations from e(perts & authorities

Informed opinions

E(amples real life e(amples"

)ersonal anecdotes

bac*ground

Authors publication

Appearing sincere+ fair

minded+ *nowledgeable

'onceding to

opposition where

appropriate

,orally / ethically

li*eable

Appropriate language

for audience and

sub-ect

Appropriate vocabulary

'orrect grammar

)rofessional format

.ivid descriptions

Emotional e(amples

Anecdotes+ testimonies+ or

narratives about emotional

e(periences or events

%igurative language

Emotional tone humor+ sarcasm+

disappointment+ e(citement+ etc"

Effect on A!"ience Effect on A!"ience Effect on A!"ience

Evo*es a cognitive+ rational response 0eaders

get a sense of+ 12h+ that ma*es sense3 or 14mm+

that really doesnt prove anything3

4elps reader to see the author as

reliable+ trustworthy+ competent+

and credible The reader might

respect the author or his/her

views

Evo*es an emotional response

)ersuasion by emotion

usually evo*ing fear+ sympathy+

empathy+ anger+"

Ho# to Tal$ A%o!t &t Ho# to Tal$ A%o!t &t Ho# to Tal$ A%o!t &t

The author appeals to logos by defining relevant

terms and then supports his claim with numerous

citations from authorities

The authors use of statistics and e(pert testimony

are very convincing logos appeals

Through his use of scientific

terminology+ the author builds

his ethos by demonstratinge(pertise

The authors ethos is effectively

developed as readers see that he

is sympathetic to the struggles

minorities face

5hen referencing 6/77+ the author is

appealing to pathos 4ere+ he is eliciting

both sadness and anger from his readers

The authors description of the child with

cancer was a very persuasive appeal to

pathos

Introducing the Aristotelian Appeals:

Advertisement Activit

,licia !pano

)ie: 50-5 inutes

8aterials: Logos Hthos athos 9andout ad"ertiseent o"erheads or online

coercial &ollow-up 9W assignent on a "isual or written te;t

1 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

14/60

9verview: >irst introduce students to the ,ristotelian appeals. )hen ha"e

students recogni?e and discuss the dierent appeals in three

appropriate ad"ertiseents. Ce;t assign group wor+ where students

create their own ad"ertiseents and share with the class. Last assign

additional wor+ where students ust do a rhetorical anal#sis or either

a "isual or written te;t.

arm(up: ;(4; minutes

4& *i"e students bac+ground in&oration on the appeals.

a& %eind students that our &ocus is on what a te;t does not on what it sa#s.

When per&oring rhetorical anal#ses o& arguents we loo+ at what

moves an author ma!esin hopes o& persuading his clais.

"& Write on the board S,ristotelian ,ppeals8. ,s+ What word/nae can we pull

&ro this terR

c. *i"e bac+ground: 3n ,ncient *reece ,ristotle (our &ather o& rhetoric$

studied the art o& persuasion and &ound that the wa#s all rhetors appeal to

their audiences can be categori?ed in three wa#s.

d& Write on the board SLogos Hthos athos.8 Hlicit student responses to guess

what these dierent appeals are (thin+ roots: logos/logicG ethos/ethicsG

pathos/s#path#$

e& 9a"e students brainstor and call out how ight rhetors appeal to an

audience using logos. HthosR athosR Dot down their answers on the board.

,lso consider showing this short "ideo (6 inutes or so$ e;plaining the

,ristotelian appeals. 3t8s a bit corn# (ade &or iddle school students$ but it

gets the 'ob done. )his can be used in addition to or in replaceent o& #our

introduction.

http:11www&teachertu"e&com1view?e5#ede@cf?"6?2;fe

Introduce the Aristotelian Appeals using the Bandout and 9verheads: 43(

4; minutes

4& ass out the Logos Hthos athos handout. *o o"er the handout with theclass. oint out the language that is used when tal+ing about the appeals.

2& When appropriate a+e coents connecting bac+ to the eail acti"it#.

7ee the e;aples below &or help.

a& In writing a persuasive email to the instructor$ how did the

student appeal to logos=

1E A a g e

http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8e6ffede7cf8b4825fe3http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8e6ffede7cf8b4825fe3http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8e6ffede7cf8b4825fe3http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8e6ffede7cf8b4825fe3

8/9/2019 Com II

15/60

i& %easoning: ; happened so it was ipossible to be in class

ii& Boctor8s note / death certicate

iii& Letter &ro coach

"& 'thos=

i& ,pologi?e / ta+e responsibilit#

ii& *reet pro&essor pro&essionall# / spea+ respect&ull#

iii& ,ssure #our proacti"e hardwor+ing willing to do what it ta+es

c& Pathos=

i& )ell a sad stor# o& what happened

ii& )ell a sad stor# o& what will happen i& #ou &ail

iii& lead &or &orgi"eness

& 7how dierent ad"ertiseents (o"erheads or coercials$ and discuss how

each appeals to the audience. Nou can ta+e tie here discussing the "isual

te;t8s arguent and audience. @a+e sure students use acadeic language

to anal#?e and discuss the ad (see the e;aples on the handout$.

a& *al! a"out the ads rhetoricall

i& What is the ad BO3C* (what rhetorical appealR )o what

audienceR$

ii& 9ow is the ad BO3C* itR (describe what8s going on$

iii& 3s it eecti"eR (use anal#tical ter$

In(class Activities for .reating Ads using 'thos1Pathos1/ogos

4C *hree /arge Droups .reating an Ad

Bi"ide the class into three large groups (J-I students each$. Bo one o& the&ollowing.

aC ,ssign each group the tas+ o& creating an ad &or AC ethos +C pathos

or .C logos. )his acti"it# is ost eecti"e i& #ou use the sae

copan# sa# Ci+e &or the whole class. )his wa# the# can see how

ver di#erent the same product can "e promoted depending

15 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

16/60

on which rhetorical appeal is emphasi)ed. *roups share in class

and/or write soething up as hoewor+.

"C ,ssign each group the tas+ o& creating an ad where the# ust

persuade their audience using ,LL three o& the appeals. )his can help

to ephasi?e the idea that ost arguents utili?e a balance o& ethospathos and logos when attepting to con"ince their audience. ,ssign

"arious or the sae copan# or let students choose. *roups share in

class and/or write soething up as hoewor+.

2C Several Small Droups .reating an Ad

,s+ #our class to get into groups o& three and assign each group to one bo; in

the chart below. *roups share in class and/or write soething up as

hoewor+.

!7 Foca Fola Ci+e

Hthos *roup , = F

athos B H >

Logos * 9 3

%egardless o& which group si?e #ou choose #ou will then need to assign the

t#pe o& ad the# will be creating:

aC 8aga)ine Ad

Nou a# want to bring in blan+ o"erhead sheets and ar+ers to allow

each group to create a la#out o& what their aga?ine page would loo+

li+e.

"C *elevision .ommercial

Nour students can describe their proposed coercial &rae b# &rae

or get up together as a group and narrate/act it out that class or thene;t.

C Dive a Pitch to a .ompan

, third option can be either an in-class or ta+e hoe assignent and it

can also be done in groups or indi"iduall#. *he students$ pretending

the are advertising e,ecutives will write a sales pitch to a

16 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

17/60

copan# with a proposed ad"ertiseent. )he# need to use persuasi"e

language and all three rhetorical appeals when describing not 'ust

what their ad"ertiseent will be but also how it will wor+. For

e,ample: (to Ci+e e;ecuti"es$ *he ad will never actuall use the

word Ei!e "ut instead$ will have our signature swoosh at

the "ottom of the image. We belie"e that because #our copan# isso well-+nown and has rl# built up its ethos that using both Ci+e

and the swoosh sees redundant. )he e"er presence o& the swoosh

will represent #our copan#8s strong &oundation.

9ut (of(class riting Assignments for Anal)ing Ads using

'thos1Pathos1/ogos

4C Anal)e a 8aga)ine Ad

7tudents nd an ad online print it out and write a one page rhetorical

anal#sis &ocusing on how the ad appeals to logos ethos and/or pathos.

2C Anal)e our own Advertisement

7tudents draw or write-up an ad"ertiseent (either created in class

with their groups or on their own at hoe$. )hen students write a one

page anal#sis o& their ad"ertiseent &ocusing on how it appeals to

logos ethos and/or pathos.

C Anal)e a ritten *e,t

7tudents are assigned to read a pre-selected short te;t at hoe and

write a one page anal#sis describing how the author appeals to logos

pathos and/or ethos.

A Guic! Duide to Rhetorical Analses

http:11condor&depaul&edu1writing1writers1*pes

8/9/2019 Com II

18/60

3& #ou ha"e been as+ed to do a rhetorical anal#sis o& a te;t #ou ha"e been as+ed to

criticall# e;aine the te;t and unco"er the inner-wor+ings o& the rhetorics at wor+

in the te;t. Nour goal is to understand the purpose the author(s$ had in writing the

te;t and what +ind o& eect the author(s$ wanted to produce in the readers. =ut

be#ond sipl# identiing the intended goals and eects o& a te;t #ou need to

understand how those goals and eects are achie"ed. )he three ost basicconcepts o& a rhetorical anal#sis are ethos pathos and logos. )hese ,ncient *ree+

concepts were introduced b# ,ristotle as the three eans o& persuasion. While

these are considered the ain &ors o& rhetoric the# are not the onl# &ors o&

rhetoric but are a good place to start &ro.

Hthos: )he author8s credibilit#G the author8s authorit#. Hthos relates to the character

o& the author and what a+es the author a reputable source about a gi"en sub'ect.

*o to an e;aple o& an ethos-based site and an e;planation o& what it is (&ro

%ensselaer ol#technic 3nstitute$.

athos: )he eotions o& the reader. athos relates to the wa# authors appeal totheir readers8 eotions.

Logos: )he logical appeal that an author a+es. Logos re&ers to the use o& logical

reasoning in creating an arguent whether through the use o& statistical

in&oration or logical clais that bear on the "alidit# o& the arguent itsel&.

riting the Rhetorical Analsis

3n general the introduction o& a rhetorical anal#sis will include a suar# or

description o& the te;t as well as an# necessar# conte;t that #our reader will need

to understand #our rhetorical anal#sis. 7uch conte;t a# include biographical

in&oration about the author(s$ &or e;aple.

When writing a rhetorical anal#sis there are a &ew wa#s to approach the te;t. 9ere

are two e;aples o& how #ou can approach a rhetorical anal#sis

8/9/2019 Com II

19/60

3n either approach abo"e #ou will be anal#?ing the wa# that the author constructed

the ain arguent and an# supporting details. Nou can then identi each use o&

ethos pathos and logos and an# other rhetorical de"ices (otherwise +nown as

tropes$.

Nour writing st#le in a rhetorical anal#sis should be highl# acadeic and precise.)he strength o& a rhetorical anal#sis relies on the wa# #ou write the anal#sis. Nou

should use a &oral tone

8/9/2019 Com II

20/60

20 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

21/60

21 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

22/60

22 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

23/60

on desires nosalgia sense o& ad"enture

horror disgust aection huor

http:11www&slideshare&net1diana!noll1logos(ethos(and(pathos(in(

advertising

2 A a g e

http://www.slideshare.net/dianaknoll/logos-ethos-and-pathos-in-advertisinghttp://www.slideshare.net/dianaknoll/logos-ethos-and-pathos-in-advertisinghttp://www.slideshare.net/dianaknoll/logos-ethos-and-pathos-in-advertisinghttp://www.slideshare.net/dianaknoll/logos-ethos-and-pathos-in-advertising

8/9/2019 Com II

24/60

http:11www&outu"e&com1watch=v>rFc.F'e9'eg

',ample: I have a dream speech Kspeech attached

Summar:

)his presentation is designed to introduce #our students to a "ariet# o& &actors that

contribute to strong well-organi?ed writing. )his presentation is suitable &or the

beginning o& a coposition course or the assignent o& a writing pro'ect in an#

class&

',ample 4: I Bave a Lream Speech

, lot o& what was co"ered abo"e a# still see abstract and coplicated. )o

illustrate how di"erse +inds o& te;ts ha"e their own rhetorical situations consider

the &ollowing e;aples.

>irst consider Br. @artin Luther 4ing8s &aous 3 9a"e a Brea speech. =ecause

this speech is &aous it should be "er# eas# to identi the basic eleents o& its

particular rhetorical situation.

*e,t

)he te;t in uestion is a 1-inute speech written and deli"ered b# Br. 4ing. )he

basic ediu o& the te;t was an oral speech that was broadcast b# both

loudspea+ers at the e"ent and o"er radio and tele"ision. Br. 4ing drew on #ears o&training as a inister and public spea+er to deli"er the speech. 9e also drew on his

e;tensi"e education and the tuultuous histor# o& racial pre'udices and ci"il rights

in the !7. ,udiences at the tie either heard his speech in person or o"er radio or

tele"ision broadcasts. art o& the speech near the end was ipro"ised around the

repeated phrase 3 ha"e a drea.

Author

Br. @artin Luther 4ing Dr. was the ost iconic leader o& the ,erican Fi"il %ights

@o"eent in the 1I50s and 1I60s. 9e was an ,&rican-,erican =aptist inister

and proinent ci"il rights acti"ist who capaigned to end segregation and racialdiscriination. 9e gained inspiration &ro 9oward )huran and @ahata *andhi

and he drew e;tensi"el# &ro a deep rich cultural tradition o& ,&rican-,erican

Fhristian spiritualis.

Audience

2E A a g e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFcCFEeOEeghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFcCFEeOEeg

8/9/2019 Com II

25/60

8/9/2019 Com II

26/60

Fallacies

http:11writingcenter&unc&edu1handouts1fallacies1

)his handout discusses coon logical &allacies that #ou a# encounter in #our

own writing or the writing o& others. )he handout pro"ides denitions e;aples

and tips on a"oiding these &allacies.

Arguments

@ost acadeic writing tas+s reuire #ou to a+e an arguent

8/9/2019 Com II

27/60

)his handout describes soe wa#s in which arguents o&ten &ail to do the things

listed abo"eG these &ailings are called &allacies. 3& #ou8re ha"ing trouble de"eloping

#our arguent chec+ to see i& a &allac# is part o& the proble.

3t is particularl# eas# to slip up and coit a &allac# when #ou ha"e strong &eelings

about #our topicor each &allac# listed there is a denition or e;planation an e;aple and a tip on

how to a"oid coitting the &allac# in #our own arguents.

Bast generali)ation

Benition: @a+ing assuptions about a whole group or range o& cases based on a

saple that is inadeuate (usuall# because it is at#pical or too sall$. 7tereot#pes

about people (librarians are sh# and sart wealth# people are snobs etc.$ are

a coon e;aple o& the principle underl#ing hast# generali?ation.

2 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

28/60

H;aple: @# rooate said her philosoph# class was hard and the one 38 in is

hard too. ,ll philosoph# classes ust be hardP )wo people8s e;periences are in

this case not enough on which to base a conclusion.

)ip: ,s+ #oursel& what +ind o& saple #ou8re using: ,re #ou rel#ing on the opinions

or e;periences o& 'ust a &ew people or #our own e;perience in 'ust a &ew situationsR3& so consider whether #ou need ore e"idence or perhaps a less sweeping

conclusion. (Cotice that in the e;aple the ore odest conclusion 7oe

philosoph# classes are hard &or soe students would not be a hast#

generali?ation.$

8issing the point

Benition: )he preises o& an arguent do support a particular conclusion

8/9/2019 Com II

29/60

)ip: )o a"oid the post hoc &allac# the arguer would need to gi"e us soe

e;planation o& the process b# which the ta; increase is supposed to ha"e produced

higher crie rates. ,nd that8s what #ou should do to a"oid coitting this &allac#: 3&

#ou sa# that , causes = #ou should ha"e soething ore to sa# about how ,

caused = than 'ust that , cae rst and = cae later.

Slipper slope

Benition: )he arguer clais that a sort o& chain reaction usuall# ending in soe

dire conseuence will ta+e place but there8s reall# not enough e"idence &or that

assuption. )he arguer asserts that i& we ta+e e"en one step onto the slipper#

slope we will end up sliding all the wa# to the bottoG he or she assues we can8t

stop partwa# down the hill.

H;aple: ,nial e;perientation reduces our respect &or li&e. 3& we don8t respect

li&e we are li+el# to be ore and ore tolerant o& "iolent acts li+e war and urder.

7oon our societ# will becoe a battleeld in which e"er#one constantl# &ears &ortheir li"es. 3t will be the end o& ci"ili?ation. )o pre"ent this terrible conseuence we

should a+e anial e;perientation illegal right now. 7ince anial

e;perientation has been legal &or soe tie and ci"ili?ation has not #et ended it

sees particularl# clear that this chain o& e"ents won8t necessaril# ta+e place. H"en

i& we belie"e that e;perienting on anials reduces respect &or li&e and loss o&

respect &or li&e a+es us ore tolerant o& "iolence that a# be the spot on the

hillside at which things stop

8/9/2019 Com II

30/60

H;aple: *uns are li+e haers

8/9/2019 Com II

31/60

)ip: )here are two eas# wa#s to a"oid coitting appeal to authorit#: >irst a+e

sure that the authorities #ou cite are e;perts on the sub'ect #ou8re discussing.

7econd rather than 'ust sa#ing Br. ,uthorit# belie"es V so we should belie"e it

too tr# to e;plain the reasoning or e"idence that the authorit# used to arri"e at his

or her opinion. )hat wa# #our readers ha"e ore to go on than a person8s

reputation. 3t also helps to choose authorities who are percei"ed as &airl# neutral orreasonable rather than people who will be percei"ed as biased.

Ad populum

Benition: )he Latin nae o& this &allac# eans to the people. )here are se"eral

"ersions o& the ad populu &allac# but what the# all ha"e in coon is that in

the the arguer ta+es ad"antage o& the desire ost people ha"e to be li+ed and to

t in with others and uses that desire to tr# to get the audience to accept his or her

arguent. One o& the ost coon "ersions is the bandwagon &allac# in which the

arguer tries to con"ince the audience to do or belie"e soething because e"er#one

else (supposedl#$ does.

H;aple: *a# arriages are 'ust ioral. 0 o& ,ericans thin+ soP While the

opinion o& ost ,ericans ight be rele"ant in deterining what laws we should

ha"e it certainl# doesn8t deterine what is oral or ioral: there was a tie

where a substantial nuber o& ,ericans were in &a"or o& segregation but their

opinion was not e"idence that segregation was oral. )he arguer is tr#ing to get us

to agree with the conclusion b# appealing to our desire to t in with other

,ericans.

)ip: @a+e sure that #ou aren8t recoending that #our readers belie"e #our

conclusion because e"er#one else belie"es it all the cool people belie"e it peoplewill li+e #ou better i& #ou belie"e it and so &orth. 4eep in ind that the popular

opinion is not alwa#s the right one.

Ad hominem and tu uoue

Benitions: Li+e the appeal to authorit# and ad populu &allacies the ad hoine

(against the person$ and tu uoue (#ou tooP$ &allacies &ocus our attention on

people rather than on arguents or e"idence. 3n both o& these arguents the

conclusion is usuall# Nou shouldn8t belie"e 7o-and-7o8s arguent. )he reason &or

not belie"ing 7o-and-7o is that 7o-and-7o is either a bad person (ad hoine$ or a

h#pocrite (tu uoue$. 3n an ad hoine arguent the arguer attac+s his or heropponent instead o& the opponent8s arguent.

H;aples: ,ndrea Bwor+in has written se"eral boo+s arguing that pornograph#

hars woen. =ut Bwor+in is 'ust ugl# and bitter so wh# should we listen to herR

Bwor+in8s appearance and character which the arguer has characteri?ed so

1 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

32/60

ungenerousl# ha"e nothing to do with the strength o& her arguent so using the

as e"idence is &allacious.

3n a tu uoue arguent the arguer points out that the opponent has actuall# done

the thing he or she is arguing against and so the opponent8s arguent shouldn8t be

listened to. 9ere8s an e;aple: iagine that #our parents ha"e e;plained to #ouwh# #ou shouldn8t so+e and the#8"e gi"en a lot o& good reasons

8/9/2019 Com II

33/60

#ears to pro"e that *od does not e;ist. =ut no one has #et been able to pro"e it.

)here&ore *od e;ists. 3n each case the arguer tries to use the lac+ o& e"idence as

support &or a positi"e clai about the truth o& a conclusion. )here is one situation in

which doing this is not &allacious: i& ualied researchers ha"e used well-thought-out

ethods to search &or soething &or a long tie the# ha"en8t &ound it and it8s the

+ind o& thing people ought to be able to nd then the &act that the# ha"en8t &ound itconstitutes soe e"idence that it doesn8t e;ist.

)ip: Loo+ closel# at arguents where #ou point out a lac+ o& e"idence and then

draw a conclusion &ro that lac+ o& e"idence.

Straw man

Benition: One wa# o& a+ing our own arguents stronger is to anticipate and

respond in ad"ance to the arguents that an opponent ight a+e. 3n the straw

an &allac# the arguer sets up a wea+ "ersion o& the opponent8s position and tries

to score points b# +noc+ing it down. =ut 'ust as being able to +noc+ down a strawan (li+e a scarecrow$ isn8t "er# ipressi"e de&eating a watered-down "ersion o&

#our opponent8s arguent isn8t "er# ipressi"e either.

H;aple: >einists want to ban all pornograph# and punish e"er#one who loo+s at

itP =ut such harsh easures are surel# inappropriate so the &einists are wrong:

porn and its &ans should be le&t in peace. )he &einist arguent is ade wea+ b#

being o"erstated. 3n &act ost &einists do not propose an outright ban on porn

or an# punishent &or those who erel# "iew it or appro"e o& itG o&ten the# propose

soe restrictions on particular things li+e child porn or propose to allow people who

are hurt b# porn to sue publishers and producers

8/9/2019 Com II

34/60

Fonclusion: *rading this e;a on a cur"e would be the ost &air thing to do.

When we la# it out this wa# it8s prett# ob"ious that the arguer went o on a

tangent

8/9/2019 Com II

35/60

good reasons &or a conclusion but that8s not the eaning we8re going to discuss

here.

H;aples: ,cti"e euthanasia is orall# acceptable. 3t is a decent ethical thing to

help another huan being escape suering through death. Let8s la# this out in

preise-conclusion &or:

reise: 3t is a decent ethical thing to help another huan being escape suering

through death.

Fonclusion: ,cti"e euthanasia is orall# acceptable.

3& we translate the preise we8ll see that the arguer has reall# 'ust said the sae

thing twice: decent ethical eans prett# uch the sae thing as orall#

acceptable and help another huan being escape suering through death

eans soething prett# siilar to acti"e euthanasia. 7o the preise basicall#

sa#s acti"e euthanasia is orall# acceptable 'ust li+e the conclusion does. )he

arguer hasn8t #et gi"en us an# real reasons wh# euthanasia is acceptableG instead

she has le&t us as+ing well reall# wh# do #ou thin+ acti"e euthanasia is

acceptableR 9er arguent begs (that is e"ades$ the real uestion.

9ere8s a second e;aple o& begging the uestion in which a dubious preise which

is needed to a+e the arguent "alid is copletel# ignored: @urder is orall#

wrong. 7o acti"e euthanasia is orall# wrong. )he preise that gets le&t out is

acti"e euthanasia is urder. ,nd that is a debatable preise

8/9/2019 Com II

36/60

soething that is correct or good (as in 3 got the right answers on the test$ and

soething to which soeone has a clai (as in e"er#one has a right to li&e$.

7oeties an arguer will deliberatel# snea+il# eui"ocate o&ten on words li+e

&reedo 'ustice rights and so &orthG other ties the eui"ocation is a

ista+e or isunderstanding. Hither wa# it8s iportant that #ou use the ain

ters o& #our arguent consistentl#.

)ip: 3denti the ost iportant words and phrases in #our arguent and as+

#oursel& whether the# could ha"e ore than one eaning. 3& the# could be sure

#ou aren8t slipping and sliding between those eanings.

*r to spot the fallacies in the following passage

http:11writingcenter&unc&edu1handouts1fallacies1sample(arguments(with(

fallacies1fallac(adHunct1

SA8P/' ARDU8'E*

)he &einist arguent that pornograph# is har&ul has no erit and should not be

discussed in college courses. 3 read la#bo# aga?ine and 3 don8t see how it

could be har&ul. >einists ight critici?e e &or loo+ing at porn but the#

shouldn8t tal+G the# ob"iousl# loo+ at it too or the# couldn8t critici?e it. @an#

iportant people including the residents writers and entertainers who ha"e been

inter"iewed b# the aga?ine and the woen who pose in it apparentl# agree.

7cientic studies so &ar ha"e not pro"ed that pornograph# is har&ul so it ust not

be har&ul. =esides to be har&ul pornograph# would either ha"e to har the en

who read it or the woen who pose in it and since the# both choose these

acti"ities the# ust not be har&ul. >einists should ta+e a lesson &ro # parents

8/9/2019 Com II

37/60

and will ha"e to wor+ as prostitutes to support thesel"es. 3n light o& these

conseuences &einists shouldn8t be surprised i& their protests are et with

"iolence. )rul# the &einist arguent is baseless.

)he &allacious arguentsG the e;planation below each one in bold and italics

)he &einist arguent that pornograph# is har&ul has no erit and should not be

discussed in college courses.

)his is the o"erall conclusion. 7hould not be discussed in college courses X

unrelated to the arguents that &ollow so this is issing the point.

3 read la#bo# aga?ine and 3 don8t see how it could be har&ul.

3 read itXad populu 3 don8t see howXappeal to ignoranceG also hast#

generali?ation to la#bo# (as opposed to other porn$ and on arguer8s owne;perience.

>einists ight critici?e e &or loo+ing at porn but the# shouldn8t tal+G the#

ob"iousl# loo+ at it too or the# couldn8t critici?e it.

)u uoueG eui"ocation on loo+ at (reading soething to critiue it is dierent

&ro reading it regularl# &or pleasure$.

@an# iportant people including the residents writers and entertainers who ha"e

been inter"iewed b# the aga?ine and the woen who pose in it apparentl# agree.

,d populu and appeal to authorit#.

7cientic studies so &ar ha"e not pro"ed that pornograph# is har&ul so it ust not

be har&ul.

,ppeal to ignorance.

=esides to be har&ul pornograph# would either ha"e to har the en who read it

or the woen who pose in it and since the# both choose these acti"ities the# ust

not be har&ul.

>alse dichoto# (woen who don8t pose could still be hared$G unsupported

assuption that people cannot be hared b# acti"ities the# ha"e chosen.

A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

38/60

>einists should ta+e a lesson &ro # parents,LL,FN L3)H

)he &einist arguent that pornograph# is har&ul lac+s adeuate support.

)his conclusion is a little less sweeping than the arguent has no erit which

a+es it easier to support. 3t also a"oids getting into other issues li+e what should

be taught in college.

J A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

39/60

>irst the &einist arguent t#picall# alleges that pornograph# increases en8s

willingness to rape woen or at least to thin+ o& the onl# as se; ob'ects.

)his sentence points out e;actl# which part o& the arguent is being discussed

which helps +eep the reader oriented.

=ut this arguent ignores the &act that the print pornograph# industr# alone earns

ore one# each #ear than the entire legitiate boo+selling industr#. >or that to

be true there ust be an# an# en and woen who read pornograph#

regularl#. ,nd #et crie statistics suggest that not an# en rape woen.

)his section o& the arguent does appeal to what ost people do but not in the

sae wa# as the bandwagon or hast# generali?ation did. )he author doesn8t

assue that his or her personal e;perience is necessaril# rele"ant or generali?e&ro a &ew people he or she +nowsG instead he or she re&ers to crie statistics.

>urtherore ost en toda# belie"e in woen8s eualit# as a stud# b# Br.

4nowitall and her research group at the 3nstitute on the 7tatus o& Woen

deonstrates.

3& Br. 4nowitall is a reliable source this is a legitiate use o& authorit# not an

appeal to authorit# or bandwagon.

>einists ac+nowledge that scientic studies ha"e &ailed to show that porn hars

woen. 3& there had been onl# a &ew such studies or i& we had reason to belie"e

the# were unreliable we should conclude that nothing has #et been shown about

whether porn hars woen. =ut 3 thin+ that when reliable studies ha"e repeatedl#

&ailed to show a relationship that &act constitutes soe e"idence that the

relationship doesn8t e;ist. 7o it sees unli+el# that porn is haring woen in the

wa# the &einist arguent alleges.

)his section o& the arguent a"oids the appeal to ignorance and instead tal+s

directl# about what we should do when studies don8t show an#thing conclusi"el#.

3n the absence o& positi"e e"idence &ro studies we ha"e to rel# on coon sense.

Fan people distinguish between the soeties-degrading scenarios the# see in

porn and real li&eR 3 belie"e the# can. 3 thin+ pornograph# is a lot li+e tele"ision and

o"ies

8/9/2019 Com II

40/60

we all reali?e are nothing ore than ction. Noung children a# ha"e diUcult#

distinguishing between &antas# and realit# but the# are not o&ten e;posed to

pornograph#. @en and woen who loo+ at porn should +now better than to thin+

that it gi"es a realistic picture o& se;ual relationships between en and woen.

)his section o& the arguent uses a &airl# strong analog# between porn and othert#pes o& edia li+e )Y and o"ies. )he ore rele"ant traits two things share the

stronger an analog# between the is li+el# to be.

3& porn cannot be shown to har woen as a class b# a+ing the ore

"ulnerable to se;ual "iolence or causing en to thin+ o& the as in&erior how else

ight it be har&ulR

)his sentence assues there are se"eral possible wa#s instead o& setting up a &alse

dichoto#.

>einists ha"e o&ten argued that the porn industr# is har&ul to the woen who

wor+ within it

8/9/2019 Com II

41/60

aterial based on the ideas it contains the ci"il rights statute will ha"e the sae

eect as censorship. ornographers a# be so a&raid o& &acing lawsuits that an# o&

the will stop producing porn

8/9/2019 Com II

42/60

Pollution is "ad for the environment&

)his thesis stateent is not debatable. >irst the word pollution eans that

soething is bad or negati"e in soe wa#. >urther all studies agree that pollution is

a probleG the# sipl# disagree on the ipact it will ha"e or the scope o& the

proble. Co one could reasonabl# argue that pollution is good.

',ample of a de"ata"le thesis statement:

At least 2; percent of the federal "udget should "e spent on limiting

pollution&

)his is an e;aple o& a debatable thesis because reasonable people could disagree

with it. 7oe people ight thin+ that this is how we should spend the nationTs

one#. Others ight &eel that we should be spending ore one# on education.

7till others could argue that corporations not the go"ernent should be pa#ing to

liit pollution.

Another e,ample of a de"ata"le thesis statement:

America-s anti(pollution e#orts should focus on privatel owned cars&

3n this e;aple there is also roo &or disagreeent between rational indi"iduals.

7oe citi?ens ight thin+ &ocusing on rec#cling progras rather than pri"ate

autoobiles is the ost eecti"e strateg#.

*he thesis needs to "e narrow

,lthough the scope o& #our paper ight see o"erwheling at the start generall#

the narrower the thesis the ore eecti"e #our arguent will be. Nour thesis or

clai ust be supported b# e"idence. )he broader #our clai is the ore e"idence

#ou will need to con"ince readers that #our position is right.

',ample of a thesis that is too "road:

Lrug use is detrimental to societ&

)here are se"eral reasons this stateent is too broad to argue. >irst what is

included in the categor# ZdrugsZR 3s the author tal+ing about illegal drug use

recreational drug use (which ight include alcohol and cigarettes$ or all uses o&

edication in generalR 7econd in what wa#s are drugs detrientalR 3s drug usecausing deaths (and is the author euating deaths &ro o"erdoses and deaths &ro

drug related "iolence$R 3s drug use changing the oral cliate or causing the

econo# to declineR >inall# what does the author ean b# Zsociet#ZR 3s the author

re&erring onl# to ,erica or to the global populationR Boes the author a+e an#

distinction between the eects on children and adultsR )here are 'ust too an#

uestions that the clai lea"es open. )he author could not co"er all o& the topics

E2 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

43/60

listed abo"e #et the generalit# o& the clai lea"es all o& these possibilities open to

debate.

',ample of a narrow or focused thesis:

Illegal drug use is detrimental "ecause it encourages gang violence&

3n this e;aple the topic o& drugs has been narrowed down to illegal drugs and the

detrient has been narrowed down to gang "iolence. )his is a uch ore

anageable topic.

e could narrow each de"ata"le thesis from the previous e,amples in the

following wa:

Earrowed de"ata"le thesis 4:

At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be spent on helping

upgrade business to clean technologies, researching renewable energy

sources, and planting more trees in order to control or eliminate pollution.

)his thesis narrows the scope o& the arguent b# speciing not 'ust the aount o&

one# used but also how the one# could actuall# help to control pollution.

Earrowed de"ata"le thesis 2:

America's anti-pollution eorts should focus on privately owned cars

because it would allow most citiens to contribute to national eorts and

care about the outcome.

)his thesis narrows the scope o& the arguent b# speciing not 'ust what the &ocus

o& a national anti-pollution capaign should be but also wh# this is the appropriate

&ocus.

ualiers such as Ztpicall$M Mgenerall$M MusuallZ or Zon averageZ also help

to liit the scope o& #our clai b# allowing &or the alost ine"itable e;ception to

the rule.

*pes of claims

Flais t#picall# &all into one o& four categories. )hin+ing about how #ou want to

approach #our topic in other words what t#pe o& clai #ou want to a+e is one

wa# to &ocus #our thesis on one particular aspect o& #our broader topic.

.laims of fact or denition: )hese clais argue about what the denition o&

soething is or whether soething is a settled &act. H;aple:

E A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

44/60

What soe people re&er to as global waring is actuall# nothing ore than noral

long-ter c#cles o& cliate change.

.laims of cause and e#ect: )hese clais argue that one person thing or e"ent

caused another thing or e"ent to occur. H;aple:

)he popularit# o& 7!YTs in ,erica has caused pollution to increase.

.laims a"out value: )hese are clais ade o& what soething is worth whether

we "alue it or not how we would rate or categori?e soething. H;aple:

*lobal waring is the ost pressing challenge &acing the world toda#.

.laims a"out solutions or policies: )hese are clais that argue &or or against a

certain solution or polic# approach to a proble. H;aple:

3nstead o& drilling &or oil in ,las+a we should be &ocusing on wa#s to reduce oil

consuption such as researching renewable energ# sources.

Which t#pe o& clai is right &or #our arguentR Which t#pe o& thesis or clai #ou

use &or #our arguent will depend on #our position and +nowledge o& the topic

#our audience and the conte;t o& #our paper. Nou ight want to thin+ about where

#ou iagine #our audience to be on this topic and pinpoint where #ou thin+ the

biggest dierence in "iewpoints ight be. H"en i& #ou start with one t#pe o& clai

#ou probabl# will be using se"eral within the paper. %egardless o& the t#pe o& clai

#ou choose to utili?e it is +e# to identi the contro"ers# or debate #ou are

addressing and to dene #our position earl# on in the paper.

Using Research and 'vidence

What t#pe o& e"idence should 3 useR

)here are two tpeso& e"idence.

First handresearchis research #ou ha"e conducted #oursel& such as inter"iews

e;perients sur"e#s or personal e;perience and anecdotes.

Second hand researchis research #ou are getting &ro "arious te;ts that has

been supplied and copiled b# others such as boo+s periodicals and Web sites.

%egardless o& what t#pe o& sources #ou use the# ust be credible. 3n other words

#our sources ust be reliable accurate and trustworth#.

Bow do I !now if a source is credi"le=

Nou can as+ the &ollowing uestions to deterine i& a source is credible.

EE A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

45/60

ho is the author=Fredible sources are written b# authors respected in their

elds o& stud#. %esponsible credible authors will cite their sources so that #ou can

chec+ the accurac# o& and support &or what the#T"e written. ()his is also a good wa#

to nd ore sources &or #our own research.$

Bow recent is the source=)he choice to see+ recent sources depends on #ourtopic. While sources on the ,erican Fi"il War a# be decades old and still contain

accurate in&oration sources on in&oration technologies or other areas that are

e;periencing rapid changes need to be uch ore current.

hat is the author-s purpose=When deciding which sources to use #ou should

ta+e the purpose or point o& "iew o& the author into consideration. 3s the author

presenting a neutral ob'ecti"e "iew o& a topicR Or is the author ad"ocating one

specic "iew o& a topicR Who is &unding the research or writing o& this sourceR ,

source written &ro a particular point o& "iew a# be credibleG howe"er #ou needto be care&ul that #our sources donTt liit #our co"erage o& a topic to one side o& a

debate.

hat tpe of sources does our audience value=3& #ou are writing &or a

pro&essional or acadeic audience the# a# "alue peer-re"iewed 'ournals as the

ost credible sources o& in&oration. 3& #ou are writing &or a group o& residents in

#our hoetown the# ight be ore co&ortable with ainstrea sources such as

)ie or Cewswee+. , #ounger audience a# be ore accepting o& in&oration

&ound on the 3nternet than an older audience ight be.

=e especiall# care&ul when e"aluating 3nternet sourcesP Ce"er use Web sites where

an author cannot be deterined unless the site is associated with a reputable

institution such as a respected uni"ersit# a credible edia outlet go"ernent

progra or departent or well-+nown non-go"ernental organi?ations. =eware o&

using sites li+e Wi+ipedia which are collaborati"el# de"eloped b# users. =ecause

an#one can add or change content the "alidit# o& in&oration on such sites a# not

eet the standards &or acadeic research.

9rgani)ing our Argument

9ow can 3 eecti"el# present # arguentR

!se an organi?ational structure that arranges the arguent in a wa# that will a+esense to the reader. )he )oulin @ethod o& logic is a coon and eas# to use

&orula &or organi?ing an arguent.

)he basic &orat &or the )oulin @ethod is as &ollows.

.laim: )he o"erall thesis the writer will argue &or.

E5 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

46/60

Lata: H"idence gathered to support the clai.

arrant Jalso referred to as a "ridgeC:H;planation o& wh# or how the data

supports the clai the underl#ing assuption that connects #our data to #our

clai.

+ac!ing Jalso referred to as the foundation$: ,dditional logic or reasoning that

a# be necessar# to support the warrant.

.ounterclaim: , clai that negates or disagrees with the thesis/clai.

Re"uttal: H"idence that negates or disagrees with the counterclai.

3ncluding a well-thought-out warrant or bridge is essential to writing a good

arguentati"e essa# or paper. 3& #ou present data to #our audience without

e;plaining how it supports #our thesis #our readers a# not a+e a connectionbetween the two or the# a# draw dierent conclusions.

BonTt a"oid the opposing side o& an arguent. 3nstead include the opposing side as

a counterclai. >ind out what the other side is sa#ing and respond to it within #our

own arguent. )his is iportant so that the audience is not swa#ed b# wea+ but

unre&uted arguents. 3ncluding counterclais allows #ou to nd coon ground

with ore o& #our readers. 3t also a+es #ou loo+ ore credible because #ou appear

to be +nowledgeable about the entiret# o& the debate rather than 'ust being biased

or uni&ored. Nou a# want to include se"eral counterclais to show that #ou ha"e

thoroughl# researched the topic.

H;aple:

.laim:9#brid cars are an eecti"e strateg# to ght pollution.

Lata4: Bri"ing a pri"ate car is a t#pical citi?enTs ost air polluting acti"it#.

arrant 4: =ecause cars are the largest source o& pri"ate as opposed to industr#

produced air pollution switching to h#brid cars should ha"e an ipact on ghting

pollution.

Lata 2: Hach "ehicle produced is going to sta# on the road &or roughl# 12 to 15

#ears.

Warrant 2: Fars generall# ha"e a long li&espan eaning that a decision to switch to

a h#brid car will a+e a long-ter ipact on pollution le"els.

Lata : 9#brid cars cobine a gasoline engine with a batter#-powered electric

otor.

E6 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

47/60

arrant : )his cobination o& technologies eans that less pollution is produced.

,ccording to ineedto+now.org Zthe h#brid engine o& the rius ade b# )o#ota

produces I0 percent &ewer har&ul eissions than a coparable gasoline engine.Z

.ounterclaim: 3nstead o& &ocusing on cars which still encourages a culture o&

dri"ing e"en i& it cuts down on pollution the nation should &ocus on building andencouraging use o& ass transit s#stes.

Re"uttal: While ass transit is an en"ironentall# sound idea that should be

encouraged it is not &easible in an# rural and suburban areas or &or people who

ust coute to wor+G thus h#brid cars are a better solution &or uch o& the

nationTs population.

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

)here are three t#pes o& rhetorical appeals or persuasi"e strategies used in

arguents to support clais and respond to opposing arguents. , good arguent

will generall# use a cobination o& all three appeals to a+e its case.

/ogos

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos o&ten depends on the

use o& inducti"e or deducti"e reasoning.

Inductive reasoningta+es a specic representati"e case or &acts and then draws

generali?ations or conclusions &ro the. 3nducti"e reasoning ust be based on a

suUcient aount o& reliable e"idence. 3n other words the &acts #ou draw on ust&airl# represent the larger situation or population. H;aple:

!air trade agreements have raised the "uality of life for coee producers,

so fair trade agreements could be used to help other farmers as well.

3n this e;aple the specic case o& &air trade agreeents with coee producers is

being used as the starting point &or the clai. =ecause these agreeents ha"e

wor+ed the author concludes that it could wor+ &or other &arers as well.

Leductive reasoningbegins with a generali?ation and then applies it to a specic

case. )he generali?ation #ou start with ust ha"e been based on a suUcient

aount o& reliable e"idence. H;aple:

#enetically modi$ed seeds have caused poverty, hunger, and a decline in

bio-diversity everywhere they have been introduced, so there is no reason

the same thing will not occur when genetically modi$ed corn seeds are

introduced in %e&ico.

E A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

48/60

3n this e;aple the author starts with a large clai that geneticall# odied seeds

ha"e been probleatic e"er#where and &ro this draws the ore locali?ed or

specic conclusion that @e;ico will be aected in the sae wa#.

Avoid /ogical Fallacies

)hese are soe coon errors in reasoning that will underine the logic o& #our

arguent. ,lso watch out &or these slips in other peopleTs arguents.

Slipper slope: )his is a conclusion based on the preise that i& , happens then

e"entuall# through a series o& sall steps through = F... V N [ will happen too

basicall# euating , and [. 7o i& we donTt want [ to occur , ust not be allowed to

occur either. H;aple:

f we ban (ummers because they are bad for the environment eventually

the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban (ummers.

3n this e;aple the author is euating banning 9uers with banning all carswhich is not the sae thing.

Bast Denerali)ation: )his is a conclusion based on insuUcient or biased

e"idence. 3n other words #ou are rushing to a conclusion be&ore #ou ha"e all the

rele"ant &acts. H;aple:

)ven though it's only the $rst day, can tell this is going to be a boring

course.

3n this e;aple the author is basing their e"aluation o& the entire course on onl#

one class and on the rst da# which is notoriousl# boring and &ull o& house+eeping

tas+s &or ost courses. )o a+e a &air and reasonable e"aluation the author ust

attend se"eral classes and possibl# e"en e;aine the te;tboo+ tal+ to the

pro&essor or tal+ to others who ha"e pre"iousl# nished the course in order to ha"e

suUcient e"idence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: )his is a conclusion that assues that i& T,T occurred

a&ter T=T then T=T ust ha"e caused T,.T H;aple:

dran* bottled water and now am sic*, so the water must have made me

sic*.

3n this e;aple the author assues that i& one e"ent chronologicall# &ollows another

the rst e"ent ust ha"e caused the second. =ut the illness could ha"e been

caused b# the burrito the night be&ore a u bug that had been wor+ing on the bod#

&or da#s or a cheical spill across capus. )here is no reason without ore

e"idence to assue the water caused the person to be sic+.

EJ A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

49/60

8/9/2019 Com II

50/60

3n this e;aple the author doesnTt e"en nae particular strategies *reen eace has

suggested uch less e"aluate those strategies on their erits. 3nstead the author

attac+s the characters o& the indi"iduals in the group.

Ad populum:)his is an eotional appeal that spea+s to positi"e (such as

patriotis religion deocrac#$ or negati"e (such as terroris or &ascis$ conceptsrather than the real issue at hand. H;aple:

f you were a true American you would support the rights of people to

choose whatever vehicle they want.

3n this e;aple the author euates being a Ztrue ,ericanZ a concept that people

want to be associated with particularl# in a tie o& war with allowing people to bu#

an# "ehicle the# want e"en though there is no inherent connection between the

two.

Red Berring: )his is a di"ersionar# tactic that a"oids the +e# issues o&ten b#

a"oiding opposing arguents rather than addressing the. H;aple:

+he level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will $shers do to

support their families.

3n this e;aple the author switches the discussion awa# &ro the sa&et# o& the &ood

and tal+s instead about an econoic issue the li"elihood o& those catching sh.

While one issue a# eect the other it does not ean we should ignore possible

sa&et# issues because o& possible econoic conseuences to a &ew indi"iduals.

'thos

Hthos or the ethical appeal is based on the character credibilit# or reliabilit# o& the

writer. )here are an# wa#s to establish good character and credibilit# as an

author:

!se onl# credible reliable sources to build #our arguent and cite those sources

properl#.

%espect the reader b# stating the opposing position accuratel#.

Hstablish coon ground with #our audience. @ost o& the tie this can be done b#

ac+nowledging "alues and belie&s shared b# those on both sides o& the arguent.

3& appropriate &or the assignent disclose wh# #ou are interested in this topic or

what personal e;periences #ou ha"e had with the topic.

Organi?e #our arguent in a logical eas# to &ollow anner. Nou can use the )oulin

ethod o& logic or a siple pattern such as chronological order ost general to

ost detailed e;aple earliest to ost recent e;aple etc.

50 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

51/60

roo&read the arguent. )oo an# careless graar ista+es cast doubt on #our

character as a writer.

Pathos

athos or eotional appeal appeals to an audienceTs needs "alues and eotional

sensibilities.

,rguent ephasi?es reason but used properl# there is o&ten a place &or eotion

as well. Hotional appeals can use sources such as inter"iews and indi"idual stories

to paint a ore legitiate and o"ing picture o& realit# or illuinate the truth. >or

e;aple telling the stor# o& a single child who has been abused a# a+e &or a

ore persuasi"e arguent than sipl# the nuber o& children abused each #ear

because it would gi"e a huan &ace to the nubers.

Onl# use an eotional appeal i& it trul# supports the clai #ou are a+ing not as a

wa# to distract &ro the real issues o& debate. ,n arguent should ne"er use

eotion to isrepresent the topic or &righten people.

/ogic in Argumentative riting

)his handout is designed to help writers de"elop and use logical arguents in

writing. )his handout helps writers anal#?e the arguents o& others and generate

their own arguents. 9owe"er it is iportant to reeber that logic is onl# one

aspect o& a success&ul arguent. Con-logical arguents stateents that cannot be

logicall# pro"en or dispro"ed are iportant in arguentati"e writing

8/9/2019 Com II

52/60

3n this seuence preise 2 is tested against preise 1 to reach the logical

conclusion. Within this s#ste i& both preises are considered "alid there is no

other logical conclusion than deterining that 7ocrates is a ortal.

Argumentative 'ssas

What is an arguentati"e essa#R

)he arguentati"e essa# is a genre o& writing that reuires the student to

in"estigate a topicG collect generate and e"aluate e"idenceG and establish a

position on the topic in a concise anner.

lease note: 7oe con&usion a# occur between the arguentati"e essa# and the

e;positor# essa#. )hese two genres are siilar but the arguentati"e essa# diers

&ro the e;positor# essa# in the aount o& pre-writing (in"ention$ and research

in"ol"ed. )he arguentati"e essa# is coonl# assigned as a capstone or nal

pro'ect in rst #ear writing or ad"anced coposition courses and in"ol"es length#

detailed research. H;positor# essa#s in"ol"e less research and are shorter in length.

H;positor# essa#s are o&ten used &or in-class writing e;ercises or tests such as the

*HB or *%H.

,rguentati"e essa# assignents generall# call &or e;tensi"e research o& literature

or pre"iousl# published aterial. ,rguentati"e assignents a# also reuire

epirical research where the student collects data through inter"iews sur"e#s

obser"ations or e;perients. Betailed research allows the student to learn about

the topic and to understand dierent points o& "iew regarding the topic so that

she/he a# choose a position and support it with the e"idence collected during

research. %egardless o& the aount or t#pe o& research in"ol"ed arguentati"e

essa#s ust establish a clear thesis and &ollow sound reasoning.

)he structure o& the arguentati"e essa# is held together b# the &ollowing.

A clear$ concise$ and dened thesis statement that occurs in the rst

paragraph of the essa&

3n the rst paragraph o& an arguent essa# students should set the conte;t b#

re"iewing the topic in a general wa#. Ce;t the author should e;plain wh# the topic is

iportant (e;igence$ or wh# readers should care about the issue. Lastl# students

should present the thesis stateent. 3t is essential that this thesis stateent be

appropriatel# narrowed to &ollow the guidelines set &orth in the assignent. 3& thestudent does not aster this portion o& the essa# it will be uite diUcult to

copose an eecti"e or persuasi"e essa#.

.lear and logical transitions "etween the introduction$ "od$ and

conclusion.

52 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

53/60

)ransitions are the ortar that holds the &oundation o& the essa# together. Without

logical progression o& thought the reader is unable to &ollow the essa#8s arguent

and the structure will collapse. )ransitions should wrap up the idea &ro the

pre"ious section and introduce the idea that is to &ollow in the ne;t section.

+od paragraphs that include evidential support&

Hach paragraph should be liited to the discussion o& one general idea. )his will

allow &or clarit# and direction throughout the essa#. 3n addition such conciseness

creates an ease o& readabilit# &or one8s audience. 3t is iportant to note that each

paragraph in the bod# o& the essa# ust ha"e soe logical connection to the thesis

stateent in the opening paragraph. 7oe paragraphs will directl# support the

thesis stateent with e"idence collected during research. 3t is also iportant to

e;plain how and wh# the e"idence supports the thesis (warrant$.

9owe"er arguentati"e essa#s should also consider and e;plain diering points o&

"iew regarding the topic. Bepending on the length o& the assignent students

should dedicate one or two paragraphs o& an arguentati"e essa# to discussing

conicting opinions on the topic. %ather than e;plaining how these diering

opinions are wrong outright students should note how opinions that do not align

with their thesis ight not be well in&ored or how the# ight be out o& date.

'vidential support Jwhether factual$ logical$ statistical$ or anecdotalC&

)he arguentati"e essa# reuires well-researched accurate detailed and current

in&oration to support the thesis stateent and consider other points o& "iew. 7oe

&actual logical statistical or anecdotal e"idence should support the thesis.9owe"er students ust consider ultiple points o& "iew when collecting e"idence.

,s noted in the paragraph abo"e a success&ul and well-rounded arguentati"e

essa# will also discuss opinions not aligning with the thesis. 3t is unethical to e;clude

e"idence that a# not support the thesis. 3t is not the student8s 'ob to point out how

other positions are wrong outright but rather to e;plain how other positions a#

not be well in&ored or up to date on the topic.

A conclusion that does not simpl restate the thesis$ "ut readdresses it in

light of the evidence provided&

3t is at this point o& the essa# that students a# begin to struggle. )his is theportion o& the essa# that will lea"e the ost iediate ipression on the ind o&

the reader. )here&ore it ust be eecti"e and logical. Bo not introduce an# new

in&oration into the conclusionG rather s#nthesi?e the in&oration presented in the

bod# o& the essa#. %estate wh# the topic is iportant re"iew the ain points and

re"iew #our thesis. Nou a# also want to include a short discussion o& ore

research that should be copleted in light o& #our wor+.

5 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

54/60

A complete argument

erhaps it is help&ul to thin+ o& an essa# in ters o& a con"ersation or debate with a

classate. 3& 3 were to discuss the cause o& World War 33 and its current eect on

those who li"ed through the tuultuous tie there would be a beginning iddle

and end to the con"ersation. 3n &act i& 3 were to end the arguent in the iddle o second point uestions would arise concerning the current eects on those who

li"ed through the conict. )here&ore the arguentati"e essa# ust be coplete

and logicall# so lea"ing no doubt as to its intent or arguent.

*he ve(paragraph essa

, coon ethod &or writing an arguentati"e essa# is the "e-paragraph

approach. )his is howe"er b# no eans the onl# &orula &or writing such essa#s. 3&

it sounds straight&orward that is because it isG in &act the ethod consists o& (a$ an

introductor# paragraph (b$ three e"identiar# bod# paragraphs that a# include

discussion o& opposing "iews and (c$ a conclusion./onger argumentative essas

Fople; issues and detailed research call &or cople; and detailed essa#s.

,rguentati"e essa#s discussing a nuber o& research sources or epirical

research will ost certainl# be longer than "e paragraphs. ,uthors a# ha"e to

discuss the conte;t surrounding the topic sources o& in&oration and their

credibilit# as well as a nuber o& dierent opinions on the issue be&ore concluding

the essa#. @an# o& these &actors will be deterined b# the assignent.

http://ell.stan&ord.edu/sites/de&ault/les/ela\pd&/HL,20Lesson2020-20Bec

202012.pd&

5E A a g e

http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ela_pdf/ELA%20Lesson%203%20-%20Dec%202012.pdfhttp://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ela_pdf/ELA%20Lesson%203%20-%20Dec%202012.pdfhttp://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ela_pdf/ELA%20Lesson%203%20-%20Dec%202012.pdfhttp://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ela_pdf/ELA%20Lesson%203%20-%20Dec%202012.pdf

8/9/2019 Com II

55/60

@artin Luther 4ing Dr. 3 9a"e a Brea

Beli"ered 2J ,ugust 1I6 at the Lincoln @eorial Washington B.F.

3 a happ# to 'oin with #ou toda# in what will go down in histor# as the greatest

deonstration &or &reedo in the histor# o& our nation.

>i"e score #ears ago a great ,erican in whose s#bolic shadow we stand toda#

signed the Hancipation roclaation. )his oentous decree cae as a great

beacon light o& hope to illions o& Cegro sla"es who had been seared in the aes

o& withering in'ustice. 3t cae as a 'o#ous da#brea+ to end the long night o& their

capti"it#.

=ut one hundred #ears later the Cegro still is not &ree. One hundred #ears later the

li&e o& the Cegro is still sadl# crippled b# the anacles o& segregation and the chains

o& discriination. One hundred #ears later the Cegro li"es on a lonel# island o&

po"ert# in the idst o& a "ast ocean o& aterial prosperit#. One hundred #ears later

the Cegro is still languished in the corners o& ,erican societ# and nds hisel& an

e;ile in his own land. ,nd so weT"e coe here toda# to draati?e a shae&ul

condition.

55 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

56/60

3n a sense weT"e coe to our nationTs capital to cash a chec+. When the architects

o& our republic wrote the agnicent words o& the Fonstitution and the Beclaration

o& 3ndependence the# were signing a proissor# note to which e"er# ,erican was

to &all heir. )his note was a proise that all en #es blac+ en as well as white

en would be guaranteed the Zunalienable %ightsZ o& ZLi&e Libert# and the pursuit

o& 9appiness.Z 3t is ob"ious toda# that ,erica has de&aulted on this proissor#note inso&ar as her citi?ens o& color are concerned. 3nstead o& honoring this sacred

obligation ,erica has gi"en the Cegro people a bad chec+ a chec+ which has

coe bac+ ar+ed ZinsuUcient &unds.Z

=ut we re&use to belie"e that the ban+ o& 'ustice is ban+rupt. We re&use to belie"e

that there are insuUcient &unds in the great "aults o& opportunit# o& this nation. ,nd

so weT"e coe to cash this chec+ a chec+ that will gi"e us upon deand the riches

o& &reedo and the securit# o& 'ustice.

We ha"e also coe to this hallowed spot to reind ,erica o& the erce urgenc# o&

Cow. )his is no tie to engage in the lu;ur# o& cooling o or to ta+e the tranuili?ingdrug o& gradualis. Cow is the tie to a+e real the proises o& deocrac#. Cow is

the tie to rise &ro the dar+ and desolate "alle# o& segregation to the sunlit path

o& racial 'ustice. Cow is the tie to li&t our nation &ro the uic+sands o& racial

in'ustice to the solid roc+ o& brotherhood. Cow is the tie to a+e 'ustice a realit#

&or all o& *odTs children.

3t would be &atal &or the nation to o"erloo+ the urgenc# o& the oent. )his

sweltering suer o& the CegroTs legitiate discontent will not pass until there is

an in"igorating autun o& &reedo and eualit#. Cineteen si;t#-three is not an end

but a beginning. ,nd those who hope that the Cegro needed to blow o stea and

will now be content will ha"e a rude awa+ening i& the nation returns to business asusual. ,nd there will be neither rest nor tranuilit# in ,erica until the Cegro is

granted his citi?enship rights. )he whirlwinds o& re"olt will continue to sha+e the

&oundations o& our nation until the bright da# o& 'ustice eerges.

=ut there is soething that 3 ust sa# to # people who stand on the war

threshold which leads into the palace o& 'ustice: 3n the process o& gaining our right&ul

place we ust not be guilt# o& wrong&ul deeds. Let us not see+ to satis our thirst

&or &reedo b# drin+ing &ro the cup o& bitterness and hatred. We ust &ore"er

conduct our struggle on the high plane o& dignit# and discipline. We ust not allow

our creati"e protest to degenerate into ph#sical "iolence. ,gain and again we ust

rise to the a'estic heights o& eeting ph#sical &orce with soul &orce.

)he ar"elous new ilitanc# which has engul&ed the Cegro counit# ust not

lead us to a distrust o& all white people &or an# o& our white brothers as

e"idenced b# their presence here toda# ha"e coe to reali?e that their destin# is

tied up with our destin#. ,nd the# ha"e coe to reali?e that their &reedo is

ine;tricabl# bound to our &reedo.

56 A a g e

8/9/2019 Com II

57/60

We cannot wal+ alone.

,nd as we wal+ we ust a+e the pledge that we shall alwa#s arch ahead.

We cannot turn bac+.

)here are those who are as+ing the de"otees o& ci"il rights ZWhen will #ou