Exam date: Thursday, 10-15

• Path os: Generates emotions
– Em path y, sym path y
• Eth os: Based on ethics, what is right and wrong
– Eth ics
• Log os: Based on logic, what makes sense, uses reasons
& evidence
– Log ic

• “I feel your pain.”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_SFvgbrlY
• 1 st ) assurances, 2 nd ) trust
• Help readers identify with your experiences

• Trustworthiness/credibility +
– A person/group/institution is [not] trustworthy or credible on this issue.
• Authority +
– A person/group/institution does [not] have the authority to speak on this issue.
• Unselfish or clear motives =
– A person/group/institution does [not] have unselfish or clear motives for addressing this subject.
• ETHOS

• Humor + reasonable claims w/ evidence
• Connecting your own beliefs to core principles that are well established & widely respected
• Use language that shows your respect for readers’ intelligence

• Reader asks:
– What does the author know about the subject?
– What experiences does she have that make her especially knowledgeable?
– Why should I pay attention to this writer?
• Title with name
– Dr. Smith
– Professor Johnson
– President O’Malley

• Providing hard evidence
• Ethics of evidence
– Good evidence vs. slanted/fabricated evidence

• Just because someone says it’s true doesn’t mean it is true.
• Internet age
• Do you think it’s harder to believe “facts” in 2015 than it was to believe “facts” in 1915?

• Stats need interpretation by writers.
– Often those writers have their own agendas that shape the interpretations.
• Just because they are often misused doesn’t mean they are meaningless.
• Ask basic questions:
– Who compiled/computed the stats? Where? When?
Why?
– Sample composition, methodology
– Self-reported/voluntary vs. mandatory

• http://www.nbc.com/saturday-nightlive/video/census/n12816
• Question poll numbers, especially when they represent your point of view.
• It’s not wrong to be suspicious/skeptical.
• How are the questions asked?
• When was the poll taken?

• Associated with ethos (credibility)
• Court testimony, deposition
• Personal narrative

• Degree—very common structure
– More of a good thing = good
– Less of a bad thing = good
• Analogies—complex or extended comparisons
• Precedent—comparison of current argument with a similar argument previously settled

• What are they?
• Faulty reasoning of some kind.
• Fallacies of emotional argument (pathos)
• Fallacies of ethical argument (ethos)
• Fallacies of logical argument (logos)

• Scare tactics—Exaggerating possible dangers beyond their statistical likelihood
– Can be used to stampede legitimate fears into panic or prejudice
• Slippery slope—Portrays today’s tiny misstep as tomorrow’s slide into disaster.
– Ideas and actions do have consequences, but they aren’t always as dire as predicted by “slippery slope” users.
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoalDox-B-I

• Bandwagon appeals—Urge people to follow the same path that everyone else is taking.

• Ad hominem—Attack the character of a person rather than the claims he/she makes
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
• Stacking the deck—Show only one side of the story
(the one in the arguer’s favor)

• Hasty generalization: Inference drawn from insufficient evidence
– Done a lot in advertising
– Bacon club chulupa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Ts4TtEwDc
• Faulty causality (aka post hoc, ergo propter hoc)—
Faulty assumption that because one event or action follows another, the first causes the second.
– Salsa! (my personal story)

• Non sequitur—Argument whose claims, reasons or warrants don’t connect logically.
– You must not love me because you didn’t buy me that bicycle.
– Logic: love = buying me what I want
• Straw man—Attack an argument that isn’t really there
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0

• Red herring—Changes the subject abruptly to throw readers/listeners “off the trail”
– Sarah Palin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLdDQ32ltiA