Rhetorical Triangle

One of the ways that effective writers use to successfully persuade their intended audience in an argumentative writing is through the use of the rhetorical triangle. Each point on the triangle represents one of the persuasive appeals. The persuasive appeals are the Logos, the Ethos, and the Pathos. Lagos is Greek for “word” and applies to the quality of the message. Ethos is Greek for “character” or the credibility of the writer. Pathos is Greek for “suffering” or “experience” and centers on the values or beliefs of the audience.

            Examining the terms more closely, Logos to me is the main body of the paper or speech. It is the topic of the argument and the additional information used to support the topic.  The reasons used to support the claim have to be reasonable and convincing. For instance, if I were writing a paper on preventing shark attacks in the Caribbean, one of the supporting claims could be reducing or eliminating shark feeding excursion near populated swimming areas. I think that this is a reasonable claim and is one of several that could be made to support the main topic.

            Ethos is the credibility of the writer and can be established before the article is written, during the actual article, or after the article has been written. This is how believable or trustworthy the author is or is not. My city recently hired a new City Manager. During the first few weeks of his new job, he was caught telling several lies during meetings with city employees. His credibility has been damaged beyond repair. He cannot be trusted now and I don’t believe he can ever be trusted. This can happen to a writer also. If during any writing he is uncovered as being untruthful, none of his argumentative papers will be believable. On the other hand, an author who has a reputation of being fair and impartial would be believable, even if some of his information might be questionable.

            The values and beliefs of the audience are called Pathos. When writing an argumentative paper, it is wise to know you audience. When writing the paper, ask yourself how can I get the audience to feel how I feel about the topic? Using the example above on shark attacks, I would take a different approach when writing to the dive operators whose livelihood depends on shark feeding excursions than if I were writing to the managers and staff of the vacation resorts. It all comes down to, who am I writing to and where do I feel their beliefs lie.

            So when writing an argumentative paper, the rhetorical triangle is an approach that should always be in the back of your mind. Use information that is logical and reasonable when supporting the topic, know your audience and their values, and always strive to acquire and maintain a high level of credibility.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

The Toulmin System

The Toulmin system is an argumentative style of writing using an audience based courtroom model. In the 1950’s, philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed his system to change the existing models based on formal logic. Toulmin’s system is based on the theory that assumptions and assertions are contestable by opposing council and the verdict about the persuasiveness of the argument will be rendered by a neutral third party, the judge and jury.

            This system made a lot of sense to me right from the beginning. I am a former detective with over 10 years of experience in criminal investigations and courtroom testimony. When referencing the courtroom or investigations, I could relate. When investigating a crime, I would gather all the evidence of the crime and then put myself in the shoes of the defense attorney. I would try to anticipate what questions the attorney would possibly ask and then answer them during the investigation and prior to entering the courtroom. This seems to be the same as the Toulmin system, present and support the claim, anticipate and counter any rebuttal, then qualify the claim.

            The Enthymeme is an argument in which the conclusion is not given. The Enthymeme combines a claim with a reason expressed as a because clause. The audience must then supply the missing assumption. This is similar to the opening argument of a trial. The defendant killed his wife because she was cheating on him. The audience must assume that the killing of the wife was illegal.

            Grounds are supporting evidence that cause the audience to believe the reason. These are the facts of the case. The who, what, when, where, how, and why that would lead you to believe the husband killed his wife because she was cheating.

            Warrant is the value, belief or principal that the audience has to hold if the reliability of the argument is to be assured. This would be that that the husband did kill his wife and that killing her was intentional and illegal.

            Backing is the argument that supports the warrant. In this case, the evidence that shows the husband intentionally killed his wife and the killing was illegal is the backing.

            Rebuttal is areas where a skeptic can attack the arguments given by the writer. These are areas where the writer did not convincingly argue his points or provide sufficient information for an audience to believe him. This is the defense attorney’s job during a trial. The defense attorney will try and raise doubt about the arguments the prosecuting attorney made. If all the information about the case is either not gathered or not presented during the trial, the defense attorney will raise doubt whether the husband did kill his wife.

            Finally the qualifier is used to indicate the degree of probable truth of the claim. During a trial, the closing argument is the qualifier. The prosecuting attorney will summarize the entire case and inform the jury that if prosecutor’s argument was believable, the jury should find the husband guilty of killing his wife. 

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

Blog 2

Immigration Reform Dilemma

            In the nation today, not a day goes by that you do not hear something about immigration. People on one side of the issue believes that we should close off our border with Mexico, and not allow any illegal aliens into the United States. The other side believes that illegal immigrants from Mexico are sorely needed in order for the country’s economy to remain stable. The remaining people are either undecided or uncaring based on the fact that the dilemma does not affect their daily life, so they think.

            The segment of U.S. Citizens who wish for the border with Mexico to be closed call for this for many reasons; however one of the main reasons is that Americans are losing jobs to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are “doing work that Americans won’t” and for wages that are far less than Americans are willing to work for (Wagner). Another reason is that illegal alien street gangs and criminals come across the border to set up shop in the United States. These criminals commit violent, heinous crimes, and when caught are only deported back to their home country.

            The opposition to closing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants are citizens that believe the illegal immigrants are needed to keep the country’s economy stable. The belief is that if there were no illegal immigrants to work in the fields, farms and factories, the cost for food and most everything else purchased would go through the roof. According to Chris Isidore in a CNN article in 2006, "Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants.”

            I can only comment from a law enforcement view. People ask “why don’t the police just round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them back to their own country?” The answer is that unless the person has committed a crime, City, County and State law enforcement officers cannot even ask the person if they are illegal aliens or have a green card. The immigration laws are federal laws and only federal law enforcement officers can enforce them. Local law enforcement has no power to investigate or enforce any of the immigration laws. When referring the violent crimes committed by street gangs and violent criminals, again law enforcement’s hands are sometimes tied. If an illegal immigrant is accused of a violent crime, a large number of times the individual is deported, or flees back to his home country prior to any court proceedings. Law enforcement is just as frustrated as everyone else on the issue of violence committed by illegal immigrants. The legislature needs make up its mind and take a stand one way or another. The majority of illegal immigrants are decent, hard working people who just want to make a living. If we look back just one generation or two, we would more than likely see immigrants in our own family tree. I know there are in mine.

Works Cited

Isidore, Chris. “Illegal Workers: Good for the US Economy.” N.p. May 1, 2006. Web. March 27,      2011. http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration-economy/index.htm.

Wagner, P. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” N.p. N.d. Web. March 27, 2011. http://www.us.illegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_jobs.html.