http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4683.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjz2SMH3VQs&feature=related
The above links are examples of effective rhetorical arguments covering the issue of Overpopulation. The pathos in the article is seen in the writers straight forward approach by telling the audience how things should be done to stop this problem. His sincerity is picked up by the reader and makes them think. The logos and ethos is seen in the evidence and data he gives, which gives him some credibility and helps the reader trust him a little more. The pathos of the video is shown through all the images of a poverty strickin world and all the photos of huge, overcrowded neighborhoods. The ethos and logos are the facts of the world that are given, also giving him good credibility by showing factual evidence.
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/cellbiol/1996-August/005042.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCk508EaT6w
These links are examples of ineffective rhetorical arguments on overpopulation. The article is pretty offensive and does not make much sense. The pathos appeals to the audience in a very negative way, and I'm sure most people didnt finish reading it because they were offended of its content. The ethos and logos are completely absent. The video is decent but has almost too much logos. It is mainly just mathmatical facts about the worlds overpopulation. Its ethos is very trustworthy, but for me it is lacking all pathos. There is just way too much boring factual information. It doesnt have a good balance.
Wow, that article by Gemini was absolutely ridiculous! I agree with you totally, people probably did not make it past the first sentence or two. This person sounds like a crack job. The effective video was really great--I loved all the images and information presented. The ineffective video was OK, it presented facts, but I agree--too much boring facts. They should have used more images like they did at the end.
ReplyDeleteWow - The Church of Euthanasia? Are those guys tax exempt? It does, however, highlight the moral/ethical divisiveness of this issue, despite its rhetoric being unequivocally dumb and offensive. This is a tough topic to argue. Good Luck.
ReplyDelete