Color Plate G Rhetorical Triangle

The triangle for color plate G would look like this-

Exigence- is to sell a car that informs people of the affects that cars have on the environment and its ability to handle any environment.

Purpose- is to encourage car buyers to buy a durable all terrain vehicle that can also be interpreted in this ad as an eco-friendly car.

Audience- is anyone who is interested in buying a new car.

Logic- is that cars should be environment friendly and one should invest in the Saturn VUE, which will decrease the harmful affects to the environment and has the ability to withstand any type of environment, like the forest.

Credibility- is the wildlife around the car, which might signify a fuel-efficient vehicle. It could also be the vehicle’s description in the white box. (The agile handling)

Emotion- appeals to our fear of harming nature and the want of a new vehicle.

The Style, Diction, Syntax, figurative language are lacking in this because it mainly focuses on the visual argument. Except for, “At home in almost any environment.” There is only a brief bit of writing, but the main focus is on the visual aspect.

Visual Arguments

In our society, we are increasing the appeal to visual arguments. Visual arguments can enhance the, “logos, pathos, and ethos of an argument by supporting or clarifying an argument’s logical core, moving audiences imaginatively and emotionally, or enhancing the writer’s credibility and authority.” (Writing Arguments, 161) As appealing as visual arguments are, it does have one flaw. It is harder to make a connection between the verbal and visual parts of the argument.

Although the written arguments don’t have the special fonts or photos, it justifies to the audience the point that is being made. In a visual argument the audience has to interpret the point of the argument because it is not as straightforward.

I find that visual arguments are more appealing due to photos, and fonts that grab the attention of the audience. However, written arguments can also have this grabbing affect, but in a different way. The arguer really has to examine the audience they are making their point to and choose a visual argument or a written argument depending on what they think will grab the audience better.

Ethical Responsibilities

When ethos and pathos are used correctly, they can make an argument clear and effective when capturing the audience. Pathos, appeals to the emotions of the audience. It improves the understanding of the writer because it allows the issues to come alive and the arguers can connect their claims to the reader's values which either triggers a positive or negative reaction. Ethos is used to show the writer’s credibility. This means the writer must demonstrate knowledge about the topic, understand and empathize with other points of view, and finally using shared values and assumptions.

As far as the media and the government today, they do use both ethos and pathos correctly, but usually it is the emotions of the writer which make it difficult for the listener to discern between fact and fiction. There are many different news channels all broadcasting the same news, but each one tells it from their own prospective. It is up to the audience to find the truth, and decide what they believe. The media and government do use ethos, but usually don’t always emphasize with the other points of view, which is why we, as the audience, have to decide for ourselves what to believe.

David Langley's Article

David Langley’s piece on skateboarding was based mostly off of personal experience, and the piece by Michael Levin used more hypothetical situations and a few real life examples in order to possibly persuade the doubter and make them a believer.

David Langley presented many personal experiences to better his argument. He was able to give insight to the reader, which allowed the reader to learn more about skateboarding and relate to him. In addition to his use of personal experience, he does explain the other side of the story, and offered sufficient evidence as to why the opinions of skateboarders were false. For example, he stated, “for one thing, skateboarding tears up public and private property.“ Because Langley presented both sides to his argument he would be more likely to sway the opinion of the reader from maybe a doubter to a believer or vice versa.

However, personal experience doesn’t always connect with a reader because it can be hard for them to relate to the writer’s point of view. Michael Levin’s piece used hypothetical examples, and in class we had discussed that sometimes these types of arguments aren’t convincing.

Real-World Arguments

In the Writing Arguments book, it stated that, “real-world arguments seldom prove anything.” This means that although a writer may supply and support an idea, they only make a case for the argument. The extent the argument would either, “strengthen the resolve of those who agree with you or weaken the resistance of those who oppose you.” Real-world arguments don’t have ‘grounded’ statements or beliefs, they are very abstract. These beliefs often go unstated, but this can lead to problems because the audience and the writer don’t “share the same assumptions.”

Since with a real-world argument you can’t change the opinions people have, we should learn the Toulmin System. The Toulmin system doesn’t just direct the argument to those who are already in favor, but also to those who are not. With the Toulmin system the opinions of the audience may change easier because, “it reminds us to answer opposing arguments fully, without rancor, and to present positive reasons for supporting our case, as well as negative reasons for disbelieving the opposing case.”

Pseudo-Arguments

A pseudo-argument lacks a reasonable argument, which doesn’t allow the possibility of growth and change or the evidence to back up claims that have been made.

Each person involved in the argument are fanatically committed to their positions. Usually a rational argument requires, “reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable behavior and potentially shareable assumptions that can serve as a starting place or foundation for the argument.” (Writing Arguments) A pseudo-argument doesn’t have one or both of these conditions. It also doesn’t allow the participants of the argument to reach a common ground.

For example, I have witnessed a pseudo-argument about whether or not eating a good breakfast helps you do better on a test. There are two sides, one side continues to do well academically and they don’t have to change their opinion, and there is the other side that thinks otherwise. Because the student is doing well in school they don’t have to change their opinion, therefore common assumptions cannot be made.

Biotech Foods

One of the most debatable topics of the twenty-first century is the biotech food debate. Biotech foods are now commonly found in stores and kitchens. Proponents of biotech foods have indicated that the products are similar to organically grown products, and the opponents say that there are dangers with the biotech industry.

This topic is debatable because of the potential health risks. The food products should be labeled so that the consumers who want to purchase biotech foods can and those who don’t want to purchase biotech foods don’t have to. By law the food and drug administration (FDA) requires all products to be labeled with nutritional content. Until such time that we are able to scientifically prove that there is no difference in the health risks. The biotech foods should be included on the nutritional content on the product.

Once again, we must not put the average consumer at risk. By labeling the biotech foods, we allow the consumer to participate in the decision process when buying biotech food products.