Chapter 7 9/20/07

When using ethos and pathos, an author has responsibilities of making their audience more emotionally engaged. They are able to do this by making a connection with the beliefs’ of their audience, which is important in making an argument. It is very important for the author to be creditable, without this the audience would feel insecure about believing the argument of the author.
In order to appeal to ethos, and present themselves as a trustworthy and knowledgeable source they must make their statements with a sense of care for the audience. This means that they must have knowledge about the issue they are talking about, be fair and not bombard the audience, and share the assumptions of the audience and build a bridge. This allows the author to gain the respect of the audience and further engage their audience in order to have them side with their audience and get their point across in a fair and agreeable way.
They must also take into consideration about how to create pathos, and appeal to the emotions and beliefs of their audience. In doing so, the audience will be able to connect in their own way. In order to do this, the author must use concrete language and use specific details to set off positive feelings within the audience. They must also be sure to use specific examples and illustrations, so that the audience will be able to paint a picture in their mind about the argument. They also support the reasons of the author by giving vital evidence, and they give a your argument more substance and presence. Another way in which to trigger ethos is to use narratives, so that the audience can follow a story that leads up to the argument, and are very good attention grabbers. These are also very risky, in the sense that they cannot be too personal, for if they are, they can backfire on you.
I think that our government uses pathos, by using illustrations, like in trials and court cases, but they often do not use concrete language all the time. In my opinion, I believe that our government tries to create an effective ethos, but is unable to. I say this because when you look at most things you see on the news, you do not get the full story. But, in a courtroom, you are able to hear the arguments of the lawyer’s. Are they always fair? I think that most of the time they are fair in their arguments, but they are making them to just get paid. Lawyers are very knowledgeable about their topics, and know how to argue, but I personally think that they are unable to build a bridge to their audience, since they are getting paid to argue.
Most politicians do care about the issues that they bring up in political debates. They provide good evidence, and know how to appeal to their audience and know what their audience wants. They are also fair in the way they debate, as most politicians realize that they must come to an agreement at some point, but this is not the case with all politicians. In debates, they are not able to create pathos, since they are not able to use power points, but they do use these visual stimulators in other aspects of their careers like: commercials, and posters, and documentaries.
So, in conclusion I believe that there are some aspects of politics that display pathos better than ethos, and some display ethos better than pathos. It is hard to display both of these in an argument, but it is essential that you do.