Comment below with a link to your article or social media post and then respond to it.
Look at the use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. What are they using to convince others? Who is their audience?
250 Words
Summarize the text as you read it, then respond to it. Use what we learned in class this week.
Professor Ramos' Blog 
https://youtu.be/ixMEEI0Zq9g In this ad they are trying to convince the watcher that smoking can cost you more than just money. It can cause skin cancer to your body. Their main audience is teens and young adults that are able to purchase cigarettes.
LikeLike
The main point of this video was to show how he (Logan Paul) has changed and learned from his mistake concerning making a joke of suicide. In a past video, Logan went to Japan’s “suicide forest”, Aokigahara, and filmed the body of a man who hung himself from a tree. This caused a massive backlash and a three week hiatus from YouTube. He returned to YouTube yesterday, and in this video he uses a ton of pathos and ethos. He uses emotional background music, edits his videos and uses shots in a way that will produce sympathy from his audience, and finds a suicide survivor to tell their story. He also gets a man named John Draper whom he claims to be a doctor and works with a company seeking the goal of suicide prevention, to add credibility and to show he’s going above and beyond to change and learn. Obviously, a huge portion of his video regarded ignorance, specifically his ignorance. He claims to have never known someone who took their life, which is what made him so oblivious to the idea that suicide is a serious issue. He said himself that he was ignorant on the subject and wanted to change. Which is why he seeked out an “expert” on suicide and its prevention, and a suicide survivor so he could learn his story and get his shocked and sad reaction on camera. His audience is a very young demographic so I’m sure this apology and “journey” video did wonders for his image and career. It was very well written, shot, and edited, making it more effective to his impressionable audience.
LikeLike
https://youtu.be/jtQ9H1MrrPo This is an AT&T commercial whose intended audience is cell phone users. It is trying to convince people to not pick up their phones for anything while driving. With the use of ethos, it brings out the severity of what can happen and who it can effect.
The woman picked up her phone, glanced down for a few moments, drifted into the other lane, and crashed into another vehicle. This demonstrates how quickly distracted driving can have extreme consequences.
By putting a child in the back seat of the car with the woman, it shows that she is not only endangering her own life, but her child’s life as well. The man in the truck was talking to his wife (using a hands-free device while keeping his eyes on the road) and on his way to his son’s baseball game. This lets us know he has a family and it’s not just him being effected.
The crash is first shown in real time so the force of the impact can be seen. It is then reversed in slow motion to show the severity of the crash and the surroundings of the accident. The reactions of the witnesses shows it impacts them as well. Notice the proximity of all the pedestrians. The boy on the bike, the baby sitting on the lawn, the man walking his dog, etc. This leaves us to question, what could have happened if she had drifted a different direction? How many lives were actually in danger from that quick glance at the phone?
LikeLike
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/piers-morgan-interview-donald-trump_us_5a6ad3e3e4b0ddb658c523c0?section=us_religion
In the video above, we see the president of the United States, Donald Trump, “sincerely” apologizing about the racist comment he had made on twitter during his Piers Morgan’s interview.
We see how little pathos was used in Trump’s apology. Morgan had to “coax an apology out of Trump”. He was short and quickly changed the subject to the British prime minister, in order to, get the attention off of his commentary and not so heartfelt apology. We see how this directly ties in with the ethos that Trump has over certain voters. His support is about 50/50 either you love or hate him. Some people see him as so high and mighty that he could do or say whatever and still have support from these people. Whereas, some people will see Trump and will realize a lot of what he posts on social media is truly racist and offensive to many different cultures. Trump’s logos has no effect and he will speak the first thing that comes to mind with truly has no powerful rhetoric.
I believe Trump did this in order to avoid more confrontation than he was already facing from his social media audience. I believe that if he wasn’t told to apologize he truly wouldn’t have and would have used more racist slurs if he could.
LikeLike
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/larry-nassar-former-usa-gymnastics-doctor-due-to-be-sentenced-for-sex-crimes/2018/01/24/9acc22f8-0115-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.c8911ff6f81c
This short video is a depiction of what seems like the end of former US gymnastics Doctor, Larry Nasser’s court procedure in which he was convicted to 40-175 years in federal prison on January 24th, 2018
In the beginning of the video Larry is seen empathetically reading his written apologetic statement in which he intends to speak to his victims and convey his sense of guilt and remorse for his actions. During the beginning of his speech a listener can easily spot his use of Pathos when he can be seen turning to the back of the courtroom sincerely apologizing for his wrongdoings through statements such as, “the words of all of you within these past days have really had an emotional toll on me and have shaken me to the core, I also recognize that what I am feeling pales in comparison to the pain, trauma, and emotional destruction that all of you are feeling because of me”. Looking critically at this video it is known that Larry is attempting use Pathos to encumber his lack of credibility or Ethos. Later on in the video the scene changes which unfortunately leaves you to fill in the rest of his talk so it is unsure if he spoke more on the subject after he concluded his apology. In the next scene the judge is using what seemed like destructive comments towards Larry such as starting off her sentencing process with “It is my privilege … to sentence you to up to 175 years” showing that she too can appeal to the audience with an emotional approach by savoring every word she spoke to Larry and reading off his punishable counts very slowly. The words of Larry Nasser embody such a strong use of Pathos that I was drawn to this event after hearing about it on the news and although I have no credibility or Ethos on this topic beyond a criminal justice course, I think it is safe to say that the use of emotional rhetoric can be so powerful in any conversation let alone a political or judicial one.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS STUDY HOW A PERSON IS SPEAKING AND YOU CAN INSTANTLY TELL WHAT FORM OF RHETORIC HE IS USING 🙂
LikeLike
In 2013, Margaret Heffernan gave a TED Talk to warn humans about willful blindness by using the story of Gayla Benefield as an example. Gayla discovered a life threating problem in her hometown, after witnessing numerous people on oxygen tanks and the loss of loved ones’, she developed a theory that asbestosspecifically vermiculiteis used throughout the town. Shockingly, she learned that everyone in her hometown chose to disagree with her theory; however, Gayla was determined to prove her theory correct. Eventually, Gayla contacted a federal agency to come to her hometown, which they uncovered, “the town had a mortality rate 80 times higher than anywhere in the United States.”
Margaret uses Gayla’s story to demonstrate pathos, to help prove the severe and possibly deadly “dangers of willful blindness,” when humans choose to ignore a problem. Margaret provides her definition of willful blindness: “If there’s information that you could know and you should know but you somehow manage not to know, the law deems that you’re willfully blind. You have chosen not to know.”
Secondly, Margaret uses logos by providing other cases of willful blindness in banks, the Catholic Church, Iraq War, “in people’s families, in people’s homes, and communities, and particularly in organizations and institutions.” Additionally, Margaret uses academic research from corporations in the United States which concluded that “eighty-five percent of people know there’s a problem, but won’t say anything.” Then, Margaret presents her identical research in Europe, also matching eighty-five percent. These facts and studies support her idea that willful blindness is a human problem, because everyone is willfully blind in some aspects of their life. Furthermore, Margaret acknowledges whistle blowers like Gayla Benefield, Joe Darby, Steve Bolsin and Cynthia Thomas, to encourage her audience to use their freedom to fight against a problem, rather than being willfully blind.
Lastly, Margaret Heffernan is the author of Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at our Peril. Margaret effectively applies ethos to gain trust from her audience by using her in depth knowledge of willful blindness, background in speaking and writing, and dedication to research and meet Gayla Benefield.
LikeLike
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/26/who-is-jesus-google-home-doesnt-have-clue.html
In the article associated with the link above, Fox News comments on the Google Home Device. Their commentary expresses concern with regard to questions asked of the device associated with prominent religious figures. Their major concern is that when the device is asked about religious figures such as Allah, Brahman, and Buddha, the device is able to give definition to each of these figures. On the contrary, when the device is asked about Jesus or Jesus Christ, specifically, the device can provide no definition.
Ethically, or the ethos of the article focuses on the idea that if the device can define one prominent religious figure, it should define all religious figures. Fox News argues that the Google Home Device, ethically, treats some religious figure as being more relevant than others.
Emotionally, or the pathos of the article explains that in a country, such as the United States where the Google Home Device is prominently advertised and sold and where the dominant religion is Christian, the lack of a definition for Jesus or Jesus Christ, might be seen as offensive or unfair. The author of this commentary vehemently expresses this point of view.
Logically, or the logic attempted to be expressed by the author, is that if the Google Home Device is able to define one religious figure, it should be able to define all prominent religious figures.
Although the article itself is rather subjective, the author does address the issues of ethos, pathos, and logos associated with his argument.
LikeLike
I recently came upon a video titled “Why New Generations Are Fed Up With the Present System”. The title alone appealed to me, piquing my curiosity. I was ill-prepared for the amount of embarrassment I’d experience after critically analyzing the “piece”. The video begins with a man in black glasses and a plaid flannel, standing atop a tall city building somewhere. He states his generation is fed up with Capitalism and proceeds to claim that 44% of American Millennials would prefer to live in a Socialist Country. Directly following this statement, he admits that the results of this ambiguous study may be moot, considering that, according to this unintroduced man, many of these Millennials may not be able to accurately define common government structures such as Socialism. “But that’s not the point.” he continues. In an attempt to appeal to the common worker, he describes our current system as “dog-eat-dog” and refers to daily paid labor as a sort of modern slavery to Capitalism.
His proposed solution was a focus on empathy for others and to focus on interpersonal support. The video ends there. No logistics, no explanation, just “I believe this change is inevitable”. The man that posted this video is Joseph Ohayon, who runs the Youtube channel “Crossroads by Joseph Ohayon”. In the description of the video were no citations, no sources, and no credentials. The only description was, “Almost half of American Millennials prefer to live in a Socialist country. Why?” In a response to this description, one Youtube user by the name of David Connors commented, “Almost half of American Millennials prefer to live in a Socialist country. Why? Because they don’t understand economics.”
This video has been circulating Facebook for almost two months and has accumulated 1,468,262 views. I even shared it. It appealed to this naive sense of martyrdom that myself and many others have experienced when faced with our current political system. Many of us don’t even possess the self-awareness to admit that we know little about it. Upon further investigation, (just a quick Google search) I found that Joseph Ohayon recently directed a film documentary titled “Crossroads: Labor Pains of a New World View”, which was released in 2014. I am unsure as to whether or not I’ll even investigate, given that I’ve found no real credentials or viable proof of research from this young director, however, this was a humbling experience and a small step to thinking critically. In other words, I know very little and I am very gullible. Teach me.
LikeLike
https://youtu.be/ruav0KvQOOg
In this YouTube video it starts off with a little boy entering the plane of Turkish airlines. The little boy is shocked to see Lionel Messi sitting right in front of him. As the little boy is going to get his signature another big name is seen. You can hear Kobe Bryant yell out “Hey kid” and he is seen a couple rows back holding a basket ball. Then the competition between Lionel Messi and Kobe Bryant begins as they show off some of their skill while still sitting in their seat of the plane as the boy goes back and forth being amazed by both players tactics of trying to impress the boy. Such as Kobe’s ball handling skills followed by Messi’s juggling skills with his feet. One after another whatever one does they try and top it. Even competing with who can build a house of cards better as well as ballon animals. All to be beaten with a Steward with Ice cream. This commercial uses Ethos as its attention grabber. Ethos is an appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. By having Lionel Messi and Kobe Bryant on the plane it’s insinuating that Turkish airlines must be a top flight airline that such athletes of high caliber would consider to fly with them and ending the commercial for Turkish Airlines that “the best fly with Europe’s best airline”
LikeLike
In this seminar, the host Justin Baldoni is discussing many of the negative views men have about what truly being a “man” is about. He discusses how for men to be accepted amongst other men in society they must have a “disgusted view of the feminine”, and “how it is wrong, “toxic and how it needs to end” (Baldoni). He states that for men to lose this view about women they need to embrace the attributes they were taught were feminine and learn from the women that show those attributes. He states that men in society tend to avoid discussing conflicts that they themselves may be facing internally in fear that they will be looked down upon by other men, and that the only way to resolve that is by showing vulnerability which in turn may give the other men “permission” to also be vulnerable in conversations.
Throughout the entire seminar Justin Baldoni uses his credibility(Ethos) as a male role model to persuade the men in the audience to take a step back and look at what negative views/traits society may have instilled in our subconscious mind and look for possible ways to get rid of and possibly destroy those “toxic” views. He then uses logic/evidence(Logos) to show that many men deal with these problems and often consider their actions/ thoughts to be “normal”. He then appeals to the men’s guilt to challenge them to look inside themselves and see whether they(men) can voluntarily show vulnerability and compassion for everyone.
LikeLike
http://people.com/home/youtube-star-claims-shes-received-death-threats-after-being-publicly-shamed-by-dublin-hotel/
On January 16 of this year, Paul Stenson, owner of a Dublin-based establishment The White Moose Café, posted a screenshot of an email he had received on the cafe’s Facebook page. The email was sent to the Charleville Lodge’s email, a hotel that Stenson manages. It was sent by a 22-year-old British YouTube influencer named Elle Darby. Darby was requesting a free stay in the Charleville Lodge in return for exposure of the hotel on all her social media sites. Stenson did not take well to Darby’s request. In the caption of the screenshot, he uses Logos by mentioning how her free stay will affect the hotel employees. “If I let you stay here in return for a feature in your video, who is going to pay the staff who look after you” (Stenson). He also points out that although his establishments too have a significant social media following, he would never ask anyone for anything for free. This statement challenges her character, which is a use of Ethos. Though the name and email of the sender were blacked out, people figured out it was Elle Darby because when you zoom in to the screenshot, her information becomes visible. The post quickly garnered a great amount of ‘likes’ and comments. The majority of the comments were against Darby’s request, and she then began to receive critical comments and death threats on her social media profiles. Later in the day, she released a 17-minute video on her YouTube channel, explaining the incident from her perspective. Throughout the video, she attempted to use Pathos. She often mentioned how she feels upset and embarrassed, and how she cried in her car and almost had a panic attack. However, the way she said she was feeling did not depict her emotions in the video. Instead, she had an egocentric attitude by completely making herself out to be the victim. She did not at all seek to view the incident from the perspective of Paul Stenson. With their posts, they are both trying to convince their audience that the other is in the wrong.
LikeLike
In this video you have a fox “news anchor” and the CEO of Concerned Women for America (Penny Nance) criticizing the “biased media” coverage of the Women’s March vs. the coverage of the March for Life. Their biggest complaint was a lack of coverage by the media for the March of Life, even though Mike Pence made a special appearance/speech at the march. They say the reason their march (March for Life) didn’t gather as much media coverage was due to their marchers not holding signs with “vulgar” language, or women dressed up as female reproductive organs, and not having celebrities, or celebrities shouting profanities. They also talk about their march (March for Life) being filled with many families, children, and people of faith. This is an example of a very biased point of view and them not looking at the subject objectively. I would have a few questions for them: How do you know that people at the Women’s March aren’t people of faith? What evidence do you have that families and children did not attend the Women’s March? Do you believe that your cause is superior to theirs? What do you know about their cause? Are celebrities not part of society? Do celebrities not have the rights that you and I have, because they are celebrities? I attended the Women’s March last year in LA, unfortunately I couldn’t make it this year, and what I saw was massive amounts of families, women, children, and men standing up for equality, and against injustice. So, sorry ladies (Nancy Penn and FOX & Friends) but I’m not buying what you’re selling. Fox News is known for being biased and it appeals and caters to many Trump supporters. It avoids subjects that might hurt the president and the constant messes he creates for himself, or they find a way to spin it. In these people’s defense (Trump supporters) it is easier to go with the flow, people who agree with their point of view, than it is to step out of their bubble.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the video above, a news anchor talks about an advertisement that was supposedly going to be aired during the commercials at the 2018 Super Bowl. The commercial tells viewers “Do Not ADOPT A Pit-Bull” it shows images of pit bulls, and claims they are the leading dog breed responsible for 75% of people mauled to death in 2017. She later confirms that the rumor is false, the commercial will not be aired during the Super Bowl. The ad was created by an attorney named Kenneth M. Phillips who specializes in Dog Bite Law. He uses Pathos and Logos in his advertisement by showing statistics that would cause people to fear pit bulls. On his website, he has a bunch of statistics and sources that are outdated and not credible. Current information shows that most fatal dog bites are actually mistakenly identified as Pit Bulls. Dogs do attack and bite, and do cause fatalities every year. Allot of anti-pit bull groups like to put the blame on the breed because they claim, that they were bred to fight, attack and kill, it’s in their DNA. Okay? Herding dogs are bred to herd and that too was on purpose. So, the question is, who is actually at fault? Humans domesticated dogs, and bred them for different purposes. It’s not the dogs fault. It starts with irresponsible dog owners, and people who breed them for fighting. I would attack humans too if all I was ever shown from birth was abuse. This type of treatment will cause severe mental/behavior issues. Pit bulls get a bad rep but are actually make the most amazing companions/pets.
LikeLike
In this 3 minute clip, both Timothee Chalamet and Armie Hammer respond to the interviewer, Amanpour, on her question concerning men’s roles in both the Women’s Equality movement as well as the Me Too movement currently developing. Both actors are in the spotlight for their recent film together “Call Me By Your Name” which has been nominated for several awards this year; translating into the pathos aspect of their responses. Chalamet and Hammer are wealthy, white, and woefully popular which means they represent a group of people that have had the most power in Western culture throughout the last few hundred years. Thus placing a certain amount of weight and significance on how they choose to answer the question. But I want to focus on Chalamet’s response solely. Digging into the content of his words which will contain the logos and ethos features, Chalamet gives a particularly interesting story(ethos) of how he went to the Golden Globes with his sister and relayed how it was like an “education” for him. Since at this event many of the Me Too movement allies were making their stance publicly known in solidarity for the people shamed and guilted into silence who had been sexually abused/manipulated inside this particular industry. Chalamet was also asked his opinion on working with Woody Allen who is a widely known director that was accused by his own step-daughter of sexual abuse. To which he responded that he can’t say much considering he is under contract currently but he did say, “I don’t want to profit from my work on the film, and to that end, I am going to donate my entire salary.” Which I feel like is the most logos-significant statement made in this interview. Since he made it seem like he supported this revolution of rights and equality the entire time leading up to this this is where he’s actually taking action on it rather than just offering rhetoric to appease the public who is the audience. This isn’t just a teen magazine it’s a real news source with millions of watchers and subscribers. Chalamet’s intentions are to convince others that men play an important role in these movements and that there is something every person can contribute to a more wholesome social structure for all.
LikeLike
In this video, the main discussion is the “Time’s Up” movement. This movement is a response to a movement called the “Me Too” movement where victims of sexual assault shared their stories online with the hashtag “me too” stating that they also have been sexually assaulted. The movement was started 10 years ago by a woman named Tarana Burke but was revamped by actress Alyssa Milano on Twitter. The hashtag went viral overnight and inspired many brave women to speak out about their stories. This movement then sparked the “Time’s Up” movement in which people are fighting back and demanding to be heard and stop sexual assaults. In response to this movement, most of the celebrities that attended the Golden Globes award show this year banded together and wore black attire in support for the movement. Many of the speeches and presenters spoke up about the movement but the many people think that the most powerful speech of the night came from Oprah. She speaks directly to the female audience and with a very powerful tone, stating that “a new day is on the horizon”. She also states that many men and women are fighting for the day that no one ever has to use the words “me too” when it comes to sexual harassment, assault or abuse. The video states that the reactions to the awards show and the speech were mainly positive but as usual there were some critics. Others responded online by asking that Oprah should run for president in 2020. Overall, the movement took the Golden Globes by storm and stole the spotlight. As this movement continues and more assault allegations surface, it is important to stand with and support those speaking out because it is an incredibly brave thing to do.
LikeLike
“Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too” is an opinion piece written by Salma Hayek about her experience with Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. Hayek elaborates that while working on Frida, a movie about the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, that she had starred in and helped produce, Weinstein had asked Hayek to do a number of sexual favors for him, including requesting to shower with her, as well as watch her shower. Hayek displays a strong use of Ethos and Pathos throughout this whole article. By opening up about her specific experience with sexual misconduct, she evokes a strong sense of sadness that someone could get away with exercising their disgusting power over vulnerable women for so long. For me it did more. Reading Hayek’s account of her unfortunate experience made me feel nauseous because it brought feelings from my own unfortunate happenings. Reading about what Hayek had to deal with, to make a dream come true saddens anyone simply because nobody deserves that kind of power exerted over them. Hayek also challenges the ethics of the film industry, stating that as long as men continue to have so much power over women in this industry, sexual misconduct and assault will continue to happen at nauseating rates. She uses an ethical appeal to make the audience feel even worse about what was done to her, and that Harvey Weinstein is a terrible person to exert this same power over so many other women. She makes a point that it is ethically wrong to use your power to pressure women into sex.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-xScLIevw0
In the first 20 seconds of this ad, it shows you the stage of a “Friday night light” environment. It believes to be half time, and people on the field are helping unravel the United States of America flag. People take notice and give some type of appreciation with a smirk. Then the famous kiss cam pops up, automatically giving this ad an emotional effect. For example, the fist 2 people the camera is aiming at, is a man and a women. But then the man to his left, leans in and kisses him. Shocking everyone. Each couple the camera is aiming at is very different within each other. The majority of the ad is packed with pathos. This ad is using race, religion, disability, gender and love in a smart way. They knew people can’t resist/hate on pure innocent love. This ad is also showing a lot of Ethos. And what I mean by that is this ad is trying to convince the audience that is it okay to love different type of characters ( that is outside your own race/gender, religion, or disability.) The ad’s initial audience is anyone who enjoys watches football. It can range from 5 years old-95 years old. Anyone who has the ability to understand the message the ad is trying to give (and that is that love has no gender, religion, race, or disability.)
LikeLike
http://www.doolecommunications.com/inaugural-speech-donald-trump-persuasive/
President Donald Trump used pathos, egos and logos very effectively throughout his campaign as we can see. Pathos was especially effective and of good use for Donald Trump. In his inaugural speech, especially he applied to Americas emotions by using “we” a lot. Especially during this time, people’s emotions were high, some were angry, some were sad, others were happy. The point of that speech was to start the healing process of the much-divided political views that our nation was feeling. “That whether we are black or brown or white we all bleed the same red blood of patriots”, this I felt applied to people’s emotions emencially. He was saying at the end of the day we are all part of this great nation and we are all the same and equal. With political disagreements and emotions so high he throws in a sentence that really hits you hard, “What truly matters is not which party controls our government. But whether our country is controlled by the people.” He realizes that much of the nation is divided and is trying to say, just because I am conservative does not meant that I make all of the decisions, the government is for the people and you control. I think that trump did an effective job at appealing to Americans emotions by using pathos effectively and cunningly.
LikeLike
JMontiel
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrSbnEKv2pa7.QAdndXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbGZiMWJ1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVUlDMV8xBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=logan+paul+japan+apology+video&fr2=piv-web&fr=mcafee#id=1&vid=fe0168072478637f09495b8c3156efa9&action=
In this particular video youtube star Logan Paul is apologizing for his action in the Aokigahara( a forest where many people go to try and commit suicide). When he visited the forest he encountered a man’s dead body hanging(suicide). He then went on saying inappropriate things about this man. It went viral and he got a lot of judgment. So in the apology video he says that when he encountered the body he didn’t know how to react to it. He also states he “shouldn’t of” done what he did. Well, I comprehend that a dead body is absolutely shocking to see; he should of reacted a different way then making fun of the body and trying to make it humours. He is very ignorant if that is what he first thinks to do when he encountered the dead body. Suicide is serious and should not be made fun of. In this apology video his audience is his fans or generally anyone who got offended by his content. Logan Paul is trying to convince his audience that he is truly sorry and that he made a huge mistake. Well, I mean how can someone think of seeing a dead human beings body as a light issue. Logan Paul uses abundant amount of pathos in his apology video. He does this by saying his is disappointed at himself and also saying he understands he was wrong and feels for whomever he affected.
LikeLike
JGrunewald
President Elect Donald Trump was booed not only by the Press, world political leaders, but also the world and US top elite business leaders in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum(WEF). During President Trump’s Closing address “America First” message after attacking the press by stating “The press is; nasty, mean, vicious, and fake.” The World leaders were also surprised with President Trump’s dominating speech about how “The US economy is back for business to act on its best interest on trade and Foreign policy.” President Trump also had stated; “The US economy is booming and will continue to thrive with the release of his economic tax plan used to cut taxes for corporations from 35 percent, down to twenty one percent, which will have a trickle-down effect to the middle class.”
Though I believe that President Trump is using pathos and ethos correctly by telling the press and the attendees at WEF what they want to hear. President Trump is using rhetoric correctly in a few areas but not in all areas. I believe that Mr. Trump is not using Logos correctly on all of his statistic as they seem a bit far out there, he is including statistic in that could possibly be included in the late Obama administration. This happens among current presidents that want to make an Image for themselves and claim that they are the successful ones. We as American’s have seen this numerous time throughout history when a new President Elect take office.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC6endUIykE&w=560&h=315%5D
LikeLike