Com II

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    A Review of Rhetoric: From Persuasion to Identication (Online Writing Lab- urdue


    %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
  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    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


    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


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


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


    ,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



    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


    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


    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


    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.


    ,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.



    )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#


    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.


    )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


    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.


    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




    /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
  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    : 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


    Indicated meanings or reasons


    #iteral or historical analogies


    %actual data & statistics


    'itations from e(perts & authorities

    Informed opinions

    E(amples real life e(amples"

    )ersonal anecdotes


    Authors publication

    Appearing sincere+ fair

    minded+ *nowledgeable

    'onceding to

    opposition where


    ,orally / ethically


    Appropriate language

    for audience and


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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



    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
  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    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


    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


    !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+


    "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


    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


    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


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    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


    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 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    21 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    22 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    on desires nosalgia sense o& ad"enture

    horror disgust aection huor



    2 A a g e
  • 8/9/2019 Com II



    ',ample: I have a dream speech Kspeech attached


    )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#


    ',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.


    )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.


    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.


    2E A a g e
  • 8/9/2019 Com II


  • 8/9/2019 Com II




    )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.


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

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    )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


    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#


    8issing the point

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

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    )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


    H;aple: *uns are li+e haers

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    )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


    )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


    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


    #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


    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


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


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


    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


    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



    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


    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


    >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


    >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


    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


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    >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


    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


    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


    )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


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


    ',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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    +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.


    .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


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


    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


    E6 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


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

    ,ccording to 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.


    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


    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


    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


    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


  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    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.


    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


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


    %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


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

    character as a writer.


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


    ,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


    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


    52 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    )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


    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.



    5E A a g e
  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    @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


    =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


    55 A a g e

  • 8/9/2019 Com II


    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


    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