1

An Introduction to Rhetoric
Using the Available Means

T o many people, the word rhetoric automatically signals that trickery or

deception is afoot. They assume that an advertiser is trying to manipu-
late a consumer, a politician wants to obscure a point, or a spin doctor is spin-
ning. Empty rhetoric! is a common criticism and at times an indictment. Yet
the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384322 b.c.e.) defined rhetoric as the faculty
of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.
At its best, rhetoric is a thoughtful, reflective activity leading to effective
communication, including the rational exchange of opposing viewpoints. In
Aristotles day and in ours, those who understand and can use the available means
to appeal to an audience of one or many find themselves in a position of strength.
They have the tools to resolve conflicts without confrontation, to persuade read-
ers or listeners to support their position, or to move others to take action.
Rhetoric is not just for Roman senators in togas. You might use rhetoric to
convince a friend that John Coltrane is worth listening to, explain to readers of
your blog why Night of the Living Dead is the most influential horror movie of all
time, or persuade your parents that they should buy you a car. Rhetoric is also not
just about speeches. Every essay, political cartoon, photograph, and advertisement
is designed to convince you of something. To simplify, we will call all of these
things texts because they are cultural products that can be read, meaning not
just consumed and comprehended, but investigated. We need to be able to read
between the lines, regardless of whether were reading a political ad, a political
cartoon, or a political speech. Consider documentary films: every decision such
as what lighting to use for an interview, what music to play, what to show and
what to leave out constitutes a rhetorical choice based on what the filmmaker
thinks will be most persuasive.
It is part of our job as informed citizens and consumers to understand how
rhetoric works so that we can be wary of manipulation or deceit, while appreciat-
ing effective and civil communication. And it is essential that each of us commu-
nicates as effectively and honestly as possible.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 2 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

ACTIVITY
Identify an article, a speech, a video, or advertisement that you think is
manipulative or deceptive and one that is civil and effective. Use these two
examples to explain what you see as the difference.

The Rhetorical Situation

Lets start out by looking at a speech that nearly everyone has read or heard: the
speech that baseball player Lou Gehrig gave at an Appreciation Day held in his
honor on July 4, 1939. Gehrig had recently learned that he was suffering from
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a neurological disorder that has no cure (today
it is known as Lou Gehrigs disease). Although Gehrig was a reluctant speaker, the
fans chant of We want Lou! brought him to the podium to deliver one of the
most powerful and heartfelt speeches of all time.

Farewell Speech
LOU GEHRIG
Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet
today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I have been in ball-
parks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encour-
agement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldnt consider
it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?
Sure, Im lucky. Who wouldnt consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert;
also the builder of baseballs greatest empire, Ed Barrow; to have spent six years
with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins; then to have spent the next nine years
with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology the best manager
in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Who wouldnt feel honored to have roomed with
such a grand guy as Bill Dickey?
Sure, Im lucky. When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right
arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift thats something! When everybody
down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with
trophies thats something!
When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles
against her own daughter thats something! When you have a father and mother
who work all their lives so that you can have an education and build your body
its a blessing! When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown
more courage than you dreamed existed thats the finest I know!
So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I have an
awful lot to live for! Thank you.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 THE RHETORICAL SITUATION 3

While in our time the word rhetoric may suggest deception, this speech reminds
us that rhetoric can serve sincerity as well. No wonder one commentator wrote,
Lou Gehrigs speech almost rocked Yankee Stadium off its feet.

Occasion, Context, and Purpose

Why is this an effective speech? First of all, rhetoric is always situational. It has an
occasion the time and place the text was written or spoken. The occasion exists
within a specific context the circumstances, atmosphere, attitudes, and events
surrounding the text. Purpose is the goal the speaker wants to achieve. In the case
of Gehrigs speech, the occasion is Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day. More specifi-
cally, his moment comes at home plate between games of a doubleheader. The
context is first and foremost Gehrigs recent announcement of his illness and his
subsequent retirement, but as is often the case, the context goes well beyond that.
Gehrig, known as the Iron Horse, held the record for consecutive games played
(2,130) and was one of the greatest sluggers of all time. For such a durable and
powerful athlete to fall victim to a disease that strips away strength and coordina-
tion seemed an especially cruel fate. Just a couple of weeks earlier, Gehrig was still
playing ball; but by the time he gave this speech, he was so weak that his manager
had to help him walk out to the mound for the ceremony.
One of Gehrigs chief purposes in delivering this speech is to thank his fans and
his teammates, but he also wants to demonstrate that he remains positive: he empha-
sizes his past luck and present optimism and downplays his illness. He makes a
single reference to the diagnosis and does so in the strong, straightforward language
of an athlete: he got a bad break. There is no blame, no self-pity, no plea for sym-
pathy. Throughout, he maintains his focus: to thank his fans and teammates for their
support and get on with watching the ballgame. Gehrig responds as a true Yankee,
not just the team but the can-do Yankee spirit of America, by acknowledging his ill-
ness and accepting his fate with dignity, honor, humility, and even a touch of humor.

The Rhetorical Triangle

Another important aspect of the rhetorical situation is the relationship among
the speaker, audience, and subject. One way to conceptualize the relationship
among these elements is through the rhetorical triangle. Some refer to it as the
Aristotelian triangle because Aristotle used a triangle to illustrate how these three
elements are interrelated. How a speaker perceives the relationships among these
elements will go a long way toward determining what he or she says and how he
or she says it.
Lets use the rhetorical triangle (see p. 4) to analyze Gehrigs speech.
The speaker is the person or group who creates a text. This might be a politi-
cian who delivers a speech, a commentator who writes an article, an artist who
draws a political cartoon, or even a company that commissions an advertisement.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 4 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Speaker

Text

Audience Subject
Aristotles Rhetorical Triangle

Dont think of the speaker solely as a name, but consider a description of who the
speaker is in the context of the text. The speaker of the speech we just read is not
just Lou Gehrig, but baseball hero and ALS victim Lou Gehrig. Sometimes, there
is a slight difference between who the speaker is in real life and the role the speaker
plays when delivering the speech. This is called a persona. Persona comes from
the Greek word for mask; it means the face or character that a speaker shows to
his or her audience. Lou Gehrig is a famous baseball hero, but in his speech he
presents himself as a common man who is modest and thankful for the opportu-
nities hes had.
The audience is the listener, viewer, or reader of a text or performance, but it
is important to note that there may be multiple audiences. When making rhetori-
cal decisions, speakers ask what values their audiences hold, particularly whether
the audience is hostile, friendly, or neutral and how informed it is on the topic at
hand. Sure, Gehrigs audience was his teammates and the fans in the stadium that
day, but it was also the teams he played against, the fans listening on the radio,
and posterity us.
The subject is the topic. And the subject should not be confused with the pur-
pose, which is the goal the speaker wants to achieve. Gehrigs subject is his illness,
but it is also a catalog of all the lucky breaks that preceded his diagnosis.

ACTIVITY
Construct and analyze a rhetorical situation for writing a review of a movie,
video game, or concert. Be very specific in your analysis: What is your subject?
What is your purpose? Who is your audience? What is your relationship to the

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 THE RHETORICAL SITUATION 5

audience? Remember, you need not write a full essay; just analyze the rhetori-
cal situation.

SOAPS
In discussing the rhetorical situation surrounding a text, weve talked about some
of the background that you should consider (like the occasion, context, and pur-
pose) and relationships that are more directly related to the text (like those among
the speaker, audience, and subject). One way to remember all of these things is to
use the acronym SOAPS, which stands for Subject, Occasion, Audience, Purpose,
and Speaker. Its a mnemonic device that offers a practical way to approach the
concept of the rhetorical situation. Think of it as a kind of checklist that helps you
organize your ideas rhetorically. Lets use SOAPS to look at the rhetorical situation
in a letter written by Albert Einstein.
Widely considered the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Einstein
(18791955) is responsible for the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and
other foundational scientific concepts. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.
In 1936, he wrote the following letter to a sixth-grade student, Phyllis Wright, in
response to her questions: Do scientists pray? And if so, what do they pray for?
January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is
determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For
this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be
influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only
imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-
embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been
largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of
science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest
powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feel-
ing of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone
more naive.
I hope this answers your question.

Best wishes
Yours,
Albert Einstein

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 6 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Subject The explicit subject here is whether scientists pray and, if so, what they pray for.
Implicitly, the subject is the nature of faith.
Occasion The occasion is Einsteins receipt of a letter from Phyllis Wright asking questions
about science and religion.
Audience The primary audience for the letter is Phyllis herself, though the formality of
his response suggests that Einstein realized that his letters would have a larger
audience. (Note that he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, so by 1936 he
was a world-renowned scientist.)
Purpose Einsteins purpose is probably the most complex element here. At its most straight-
forward, his purpose is to respond to a sincere schoolgirls question about science
and religion. Beyond that, it seems that Einsteins purpose is to expand Phylliss
horizons a bit, to help her understand that science and religion do not necessarily
represent two antagonistic ways of thinking.
Speaker The speaker, a scientist approaching age sixty, is responding to a girl who is likely
twelve, so his purpose is intertwined with that speakeraudience relationship: the
wise elder in dialogue with the younger generation.

Ultimately, Einstein does not answer Phyllis directly at all; rather, he returns
the question to her by offering different ways to think about the nature of science
and religion and the way spiritual and scientific perspectives interact. Viewed in this
light, Einsteins purpose can be seen as engaging a younger person who might
become a scientist in thinking more deeply about her own question.

ACTIVITY
Using SOAPS, analyze the rhetorical situation in the following speech.

9/11 Speech
GEORGE W. BUSH

Good evening.
Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under
attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.
The victims were in airplanes or in their offices secretaries, businessmen
and women, military and federal workers. Moms and dads. Friends and
neighbors.
Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures
collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyield-
ing anger.
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos 5
and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been
moved to defend a great nation.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 7

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they
cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they can-
not dent the steel of American resolve.
America was targeted for attack because were the brightest beacon for
freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from
shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded
with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring
for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they
could.
Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our governments emer-
gency response plans. Our military is powerful, and its prepared. Our emer-
gency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C., to help with
local rescue efforts.
Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured and to take 10
every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from
further attacks. The functions of our government continue without interruption.
Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopen-
ing for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow.
Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be
open for business as well.
The search is under way for those who are behind these evil acts. Ive directed
the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find
those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the
terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Appeals to Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

Now that we understand how to assess the rhetorical situation, the next step is to
use the tools of rhetoric to persuade an audience. Lets start with what Aristotle
called rhetorical appeals. He identified three main appeals: ethos, logos, and
pathos.

Ethos
Speakers appeal to ethos (Greek for character) to demonstrate that they are
credible and trustworthy. Think, for example, of a speech discouraging teenagers
from drinking. Speakers might appeal to ethos by stressing that they are concerned
parents, psychologists specializing in alcoholism or adolescent behavior, or recover-
ing alcoholics themselves. Appeals to ethos often emphasize shared values between
the speaker and the audience: when a parent speaks to other parents in the same
community, they share a concern for their childrens education or well-being.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 8 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Lou Gehrig brings the ethos of being a legendary athlete to his speech, yet in it he
establishes a different kind of ethos that of a regular guy and a good sport who
shares the audiences love of baseball and family. And like them, he has known
good luck and bad breaks.
In some instances, a speakers reputation immediately establishes ethos. For
example, the speaker may be a scholar in Russian history and economics as well
as the nations secretary of state. Or the speaker may be the dog whisperer, a well-
known animal behaviorist. In these instances, the speaker brings ethos to the text;
but in other cases, a speaker establishes ethos through what he or she says in the text
by sounding reasonable, acknowledging other opinions, or being thoughtful and
well informed. The speakers ethos expertise, knowledge, experience, sincerity,
common purpose with the audience, or a combination of these factors gives
the audience a reason for listening to this person on this subject.

Automatic Ethos
Lets look at an example of how a speakers title or status automatically brings
ethos to the rhetorical situation. On September 3, 1939, King George VI gave a radio
address to the British people declaring that the country was at war with Germany.
The very fact that he is king gives him a certain degree of automatic ethos to speak
on the subject of war, yet King George also emphasizes the shared values that
unite everyone.

The Kings Speech (September 3, 1939)

KING GEORGE VI
In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in history, I send to every household of my
peoples, both at home and overseas, this message, spoken with the same depth of
feeling for each one of you as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to
you myself.
For the second time in the lives of most of us, we are at war. Over and over
again, we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between our-
selves and those who are now our enemies, but it has been in vain. We have been
forced into a conflict, for we are called, with our allies to meet the challenge of a
principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the
world.
It is a principle which permits a state in the selfish pursuit of power to disregard
its treaties and its solemn pledges, which sanctions the use of force or threat of
force against the sovereignty and independence of other states. Such a principle,
stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right, and
if this principle were established throughout the world, the freedom of our own
country and of the whole British Commonwealth of nations would be in danger. But
far more than this, the peoples of the world would be kept in bondage of fear, and

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 9

all hopes of settled peace and of the security of justice and liberty among nations,
would be ended.
This is the ultimate issue which confronts us. For the sake of all we ourselves hold
dear, and of the world order and peace, it is unthinkable that we should refuse to
meet the challenge.
It is to this high purpose that I now call my people at home and my people
across the seas who will make our cause their own. I ask them to stand calm and
firm and united in this time of trial. The task will be hard. There may be dark days
ahead, and war can no longer be confined to the battlefield, but we can only do the
right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to God. If one and all we
keep resolutely faithful to it, ready for whatever service or sacrifice it may demand,
then with Gods help, we shall prevail.
May He bless and keep us all.

At the outset, King George expresses his commitment to his people, his sub-
jects, knowing that he is asking them to make their own commitment and sacri-
fice. As their king he is not expected to present himself as a common man, yet he
establishes the ethos of a common experience. He tells them he speaks with the
same depth of feeling . . . as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to you
myself.
He uses we in order to speak as one of the people. He acknowledges that
we are at war for the second time in the lives of most of us. He also uses the
inclusive first person plural possessive as he identifies our enemies, not Britains
enemies. This personalization and emphasis on the people themselves is followed
by several sentences that are much more abstract in discussion of a principle. At
the end of that discussion, King George reinforces the nations shared values: For
the sake of all we ourselves hold dear, and of the world order and peace, it is
unthinkable that we should refuse to meet the challenge.
Later on, he calls the citizenry to this high purpose and refers to them not
as citizens or subjects but as my people, a description that suggests a closeness
rather than emphasizing the distance between a ruler and his subjects. The pen-
ultimate paragraphs references to God are another reminder of their shared
beliefs: they worship the same god and commit [their] cause to him. King George
brings ethos to his speech by virtue of his position, but when he assures his audi-
ence that we shall prevail, rather than saying that England or Britain shall pre-
vail, he is building ethos based on their common plight and common goals. They
are all in this together, from king to commoner.

Building Ethos

So, what do you do if youre not a king? Writers and speakers often have to build their
ethos by explaining their credentials or background to their readers, or by empha-
sizing shared values. Youre more likely to listen to someone who is qualified to

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 10 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

speak on a subject or who shares your interests and concerns. Following is the
opening from The Myth of the Latin Woman: I Just Met a Girl Named Maria by
Judith Ortiz Cofer. Note how she draws on her own Puerto Rican heritage as she
describes her experience with prejudice as a young Latina:

from The Myth of the Latin Woman: I Just Met a Girl Named Maria
JUDITH ORTIZ COFER
On a bus trip to London from Oxford University where I was earning some grad-
uate credits one summer, a young man, obviously fresh from a pub, spotted me
and as if struck by inspiration went down on his knees in the aisle. With both
hands over his heart he broke into an Irish tenors rendition of Maria from
West Side Story. My politely amused fellow passengers gave his lovely voice the
round of gentle applause it deserved. Though I was not quite as amused, I man-
aged my version of an English smile: no show of teeth, no extreme contortions of
the facial muscles I was at this time of my life practicing reserve and cool. Oh,
that British control, how I coveted it. But Maria had followed me to London, remind-
ing me of a prime fact of my life: you can leave the Island, master the English
language, and travel as far as you can, but if you are a Latina, especially one
like me who so obviously belongs to Rita Morenos gene pool, the Island travels
with you.
This is sometimes a very good thing it may win you that extra minute of
someones attention. But with some people, the same things can make you an
island not so much a tropical paradise as an Alcatraz, a place nobody wants to
visit. As a Puerto Rican girl growing up in the United States and wanting like most
children to belong, I resented the stereotype that my Hispanic appearance called
forth from many people I met.

As Cofer develops her argument about common stereotypes of Latin women,

she establishes her authority to speak on the subject of racial prejudice through
her background (Puerto Rican, Latina), education (graduate student at Oxford
University), and experience (firsthand encounter with ethnic bias) and thus she
gains her readers trust.

ACTIVITY
Think of a situation in which you are presenting your view on the same sub-
ject to two different audiences. For instance, you might be presenting your
ideas on ways to stop bullying (1) to the School Board or a group of parents
and (2) to a group of middle schoolers. Discuss how you would establish ethos
in each situation.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 11

Logos
Speakers appeal to logos, or reason, by offering clear, rational ideas. Appealing to
logos (Greek for embodied thought) means thinking logically having a clear
main idea and using specific details, examples, facts, statistics, or expert testimony
to back it up. Creating a logical argument often involves defining the terms of the
argument and identifying connections such as causality. It can also require con-
siderable research. Evidence from expert sources and authorities, facts, and quan-
titative data can be very persuasive if selected carefully and presented accurately.
Sometimes, writers and speakers add charts and graphs as a way to present such
information, but often they weave this information into their argument.
Although on first reading or hearing, Lou Gehrigs speech may seem largely
emotional, it is actually based on irrefutable logic. He starts with the thesis that he
is the luckiest man on the face of the earth and supports it with two points: (1) the
love and kindness hes received in his seventeen years of playing baseball, and (2) a
list of great people who have been his friends, family, and teammates in that time.

Conceding and Refuting

One way to appeal to logos is to acknowledge a counterargument that is, to
anticipate objections or opposing views. While you might worry that raising an
opposing view might poke a hole in your argument, youll be vulnerable if you
ignore ideas that run counter to your own. In acknowledging a counterargument,
you agree (concede) that an opposing argument may be true or reasonable, but
then you deny (refute) the validity of all or part of the argument. This combination
of concession and refutation actually strengthens your own argument; it appeals
to logos by demonstrating that you understand a viewpoint other than your own,
youve thought through other evidence, and you stand by your view.
In longer, more complex texts, the writer may address the counterargument
in greater depth, but Lou Gehrig simply concedes what some of his listeners may
think that his bad break is a cause for discouragement or despair. Gehrig refutes
this by saying that he has an awful lot to live for! Granted, he implies his conces-
sion rather than stating it outright; but in addressing it at all, he acknowledges a
contrasting way of viewing his situation that is, a counterargument.
Lets look at an example by Alice Waters, a famous chef, food activist, and
author. Writing in the Nation, she argues for acknowledgment of the full conse-
quences of what she calls our national diet:

from Slow Food Nation

ALICE WATERS
Its no wonder our national attention span is so short: We get hammered with the mes-
sage that everything in our lives should be fast, cheap and easy especially food.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 12 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

So conditioned are we to believe that food should be almost free that even the rich,
who pay a tinier fraction of their incomes for food than has ever been paid in human
history, grumble at the price of an organic peach a peach grown for flavor and
picked, perfectly ripe, by a local farmer who is taking care of the land and paying
his workers a fair wage. And yet, as the writer and farmer David Mas Masumoto
recently pointed out, pound for pound, peaches that good still cost less than Twinkies.
When we claim that eating well is an elitist preoccupation, we create a smokescreen
that obscures the fundamental role our food decisions have in shaping the world.
The reason that eating well in this country costs more than eating poorly is that we
have a set of agricultural policies that subsidize fast food and make fresh, whole-
some foods, which receive no government support, seem expensive. Organic foods
seem elitist only because industrial food is artificially cheap, with its real costs being
charged to the public purse, the public health, and the environment.

To develop a logical argument for better, healthier food for everyone, Waters
refutes the counterargument that any food that is not fast, cheap and easy is
elitist. She does that by redefining terms such as cheap, [eating] well, expen-
sive, and cost. She explains in a step-by-step fashion the smokescreen of price
that many people use to argue that mass-produced fast food is the best alternative
for all but the very wealthy. She points out that [o]rganic foods seem elitist only
because industrial food is artificially cheap (emphasis added). Waters asks her read-
ers to think more deeply about the relationships among availability, production,
and distribution of food: she appeals to reason.

ACTIVITY
Following is an excerpt from an article by George Will, a columnist for the
Washington Post and Newsweek, entitled King Coal: Reigning in China. Discuss
how he appeals to logos in this article on Chinas ravenous appetite for coal.

from King Coal: Reigning in China

GEORGE WILL

Half of the 6 billion tons of coal burned globally each year is burned in China.
A spokesman for the Sierra Club, which in recent years has helped to block
construction of 139 proposed coal-fired plants in America, says, This is under-
mining everything weve accomplished. America, say environmentalists, is
exporting global warming.
Can something really be exported if it supposedly affects the entire planet?
Never mind. America has partners in this crime against nature, if such it is. One
Australian company proposes to build the Cowlitz facility; another has signed
a $60 billion contract to supply Chinese power plants with Australian coal.
The Times says ships all burning hydrocarbons hauled about 690 mil-
lion tons of thermal coal this year, up from 385 million in 2001. China, which

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 13

imported about 150 million tons this year, was a net exporter of coal until 2009,
sending abroad its low-grade coal and importing higher-grade, low-sulfur coal
from, for example, the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Because
much of Chinas enormous coal reserves is inland, far from coastal factories,
it is sometimes more economical to import American and Australian coal.
Writing in the Atlantic on Chinas appetite for coal and possible aptitude for
using the old fuel in new, cleaner ways, James Fallows quotes a Chinese official
saying that the countrys transportation system is the only serious limit on how
fast power companies increase their use of coal. One reason China is building
light-rail systems is to get passenger traffic out of the way of coal trains.
Fallows reports that 15 years from now China expects that 350 million
people will be living in cities that do not exist yet. This will require adding to
Chinas electrical system a capacity almost as large as Americas current
capacity. The United States, China, Russia and India have 40 percent of the
worlds population and 60 percent of its coal.

Pathos
Pathos is an appeal to emotions, values, desires, and hopes, on the one hand, or fears
and prejudices, on the other. Although an argument that appeals exclusively to
the emotions is by definition weak its generally propagandistic in purpose and
more polemical than persuasive an effective speaker or writer understands the
power of evoking an audiences emotions by using such tools as figurative lan-
guage, personal anecdotes, and vivid images.
Lou Gehrig uses the informal first person (I) quite naturally, which reinforces
the friendly sense that this is a guy who is speaking on no ones behalf but his
own. He also chooses words with strong positive connotations: grand, greatest,
wonderful, honored, blessing. He uses one image tower of strength that may
not seem very original but strikes the right note. It is a well-known description
that his audience understands in fact, they probably have used it themselves.
But, of course, the most striking appeal to pathos is the poignant contrast between
Gehrigs horrible diagnosis and his public display of courage.
Lets look at a more direct example of pathos. As a vice-presidential candi-
date, Richard Nixon gave a speech in 1952 defending himself against allegations
of inappropriate use of campaign funds. In it, he related this anecdote, which is
the reason that the speech will forever be known as the Checkers speech:

from The Checkers Speech

RICHARD NIXON
One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I dont theyll probably be say-
ing this about me, too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down
in Texas heard Pat [his wife] on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 14 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

would like to have a dog. And believe it or not, the day before we left on this
campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying they had
a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little
cocker spaniel dog in a crate that hed sent all the way from Texas, black and
white, spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers. And
you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now,
that regardless of what they say about it, were gonna keep it.
This example of pathos tugs at every possible heartstring: puppies, children, warm
paternal feelings, the excitement of getting a surprise package. All of these images
fill us with empathetic feelings toward Nixon: our emotions are engaged far more
than our reason. Despite never truly addressing the campaign funds issue, Nixons
speech was a profound success with voters, who sent enough dog food to feed
Checkers for a year! And yet, history has come to view this part of the speech as
baldly manipulative.

Images and Pathos

You can often appeal to pathos by using striking imagery in your writing, so its
no surprise that images often serve the same purpose. A striking photograph, for
example, may lend an emotional component that greatly strengthens an argument.
Advertisers certainly make the most of photos and other visual images to entice
or persuade audiences. In the accompanying example, which appeared in both the
New York Times and the New Yorker magazine in 2000, the American Civil Liber-
ties Union (ACLU) makes a dramatic assertion, an appeal to pathos through both
visual images and written text, as a call to support its organization. According to
its mission statement, the ACLU seeks to defend and preserve the individual
rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee
everyone in this country.
The headline below the pictures reads:
It happens every day on Americas highways. Police stop drivers based on their skin
color rather than for the way they are driving. For example, in Florida 80% of those
stopped and searched were black and Hispanic, while they constituted only 5% of all
drivers. These humiliating and illegal searches are violations of the Constitution and
must be fought. Help us defend your rights. Support the ACLU.
The advertisement does not name the two men pictured, assuming the audience will
recognize revered civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. on the left and convicted
serial killer Charles Manson on the right. The headline at the top is an assertion
that is bound to evoke a visceral response. The written text below the photos makes
a series of logical appeals by pointing out that racial profiling accounts for the police
stopping drivers on the basis of their race, and by offering statistical evidence from
the state of Florida. The main appeal, however, is to pathos through the juxtaposi-
tion of a hero with a madman presented in a form reminiscent of a wanted poster.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 15

Humor and Pathos

Another way to appeal to pathos is through humor. Since we like to hear things
that we already believe are true, our first reaction to anything that challenges our
beliefs is often negative: we think thats all wrong! and get defensive or outright

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 16 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

offended. Humor works rhetorically by wrapping a challenge to our beliefs in some-

thing that makes us feel good a joke and thus makes us more receptive to the
new idea.
This goes not just for new ideas, but for the people who are presenting those
ideas. Whether it is gentle tongue-in-cheek teasing or bitter irony, humor may help
a writer to make a point without, for instance, seeming to preach to the audi-
ence or take himself or herself too seriously. Political commentator Ruth Marcus
employs gentle humor in the following essay from 2010 in which she addresses
the speaker of the House of Representatives and objects to the members of Con-
gress using electronic devices during hearings and other deliberations. Even the
title, a play on words, signals the humorous tone: Crackberry Congress. Lets
look at a few passages:

from Crackberry Congress

RUTH MARCUS
Mr. Speaker, please dont.
Go ahead, if you must, and cut taxes. Slash spending. Repeal health care. I
understand. Elections have consequences. But BlackBerrys and iPads and laptops
on the House floor? Reconsider, before its too late.
The current rules bar the use of a wireless telephone or personal computer on
the floor of the House. The new rules, unveiled last week, add three dangerous
words. They prohibit any device that impairs decorum.
In other words, as long as youve turned down your cellphone ringer and youre
not strolling around the floor chatting with your broker or helping the kids with their
homework, feel free to tap away.
If the Senate is the worlds greatest deliberative body, the House is poised to be 5
the worlds greatest tweeting one.
A few upfront acknowledgements. First, Im not one to throw stones. I have been
known to sneak a peek, or 10, at my BlackBerry during meetings. For a time my
daughter had my ringtone set to sound like a squawking chicken; when I invariably
forgot to switch to vibrate, the phone would cluck during meetings. In short, I have
done my share of decorum impairing.
Second, lets not get too dreamy about the House floor. John Boehner, the incom-
ing speaker, once passed out campaign checks from tobacco companies there. One
of his former colleagues once came to the chamber with a paper bag on his head
to dramatize his supposed embarrassment at fellow lawmakers overdrafts at the
House bank. Worse things have happened on the House floor than a game of
Angry Birds check it out! on the iPad.
Nonetheless, lines have to be drawn, and the House floor is not a bad place to
draw them. Somehow, it has become acceptable to e-mail away in the midst of meet-
ings. Even Emily Post has blessed what once would have been obvious rudeness, rul-
ing that tapping on a handheld device is okay if its related to whats being discussed.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 17

The larger war may be lost, but not the battle to keep some remaining space in
life free of gadgetry and its distractions. Im not talking Walden Pond just a few
minutes of living the unplugged life. There are places dinner table, church, school
and, yes, the House floor where multitasking is inappropriate, even disrespectful.

First of all, Marcus structures her criticism as a letter, which obviously is a fiction
and sets a humorous note right away. Who, after all, would begin a letter to the
Speaker of the House by saying, please dont? Marcus often works by teasing
about decorum, yet she makes a serious point about connectivity as she exag-
gerates her fear that the House is poised to be the worlds greatest tweeting [body].
Humor is also one of her strategies for establishing ethos in this case, as she says,
Im not one to throw stones and admits to checking her own BlackBerry during
meetings. Overall, by taking a more lighthearted approach and not sounding like
Ms. Manners, Marcus makes her point about the inappropriateness of elected offi-
cials interacting with their electronic devices while colleagues and others are debat-
ing important issues.
Marcus could have marshaled all manner of examples that illustrate the decline
in civility and courtesy in modern life, but readers would likely have dismissed her
as old-fashioned or shrill. By taking a humorous approach, she appeals to readers
sense of humor as well as their community values: dont we want our elected offi-
cials to forego instantaneous communication for more thoughtful deliberations
when they are making decisions about the laws of the land?

ACTIVITY
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expedi-
tionary Force in Europe, distributed the following Order of the Day to the
military troops right before the 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy. Discuss
how General Eisenhower appeals to pathos.

Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and
prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with
our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the
destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over
the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped,
and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 18 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
194041. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength
in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have
given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war and
placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned!
The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.
We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this
great and noble undertaking.

Combining Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

Most authors dont rely on just a single type of appeal to persuade their audience;
they combine these appeals to create an effective argument. And the appeals them-
selves are inextricably bound together: if you lay out your argument logically, that
will help to build your ethos. It is only logical to listen to an expert on a subject,
so having ethos can help build a foundation for an appeal to logos. Its also pos-
sible to build your ethos based on pathos for example, who better to speak
about the pain of losing a loved one than someone who has gone through it? The
best political satirists can say things that are both perfectly logical and completely
hilarious, thus appealing to both logos and pathos at the same time.
Lets examine a letter that Toni Morrison, the only African American woman
to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, wrote to then-senator Barack Obama endors-
ing him as the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. The letter was pub-
lished in the New York Times.
Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me a public endorsement of a Presidential can-

didate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help
gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that
nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one
thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not
come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.
May I describe to you my thoughts?
I have admired Senator [Hillary] Clinton for years. Her knowledge always
seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more
compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared
little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based
on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or
new-centrist ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 APPEALS TO ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS 19

race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might
make me proud.
In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when
I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity, and
a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience,
race, or gender and something I dont see in other candidates. That something is
a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad
if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision
naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored
for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds
and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you cant train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class,
or earn it in the workplacethat access can foster the acquisition of knowledge,
but not wisdom.
When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? 5
Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of
mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his countrys citizens as we, not they?
Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it
fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?
Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory
of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its
birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.
There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for
this time.
Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

Lets take a step back. Who is Morrisons audience for this letter? Of course,
she claims Senator Obama is, yet it is an open letter printed in a newspaper. Thus,
we have a sense that while she does intend that he read the letter, she also under-
stands that her public endorsement of his candidacy, and not Senator Hillary
Clintons, will have an impact on a much larger audience than Obama himself:
her audience is the large national and international readership of the Times, read-
ers who value the viewpoint of a Nobel Prize winner.
Given that audience, Morrison need not establish her ethos as a credible per-
son whose opinion should carry some weight. After all, both Obama and the
readers of the New York Times in fact, readers in general know her as an award-
winning author, someone who has written many novels, a professor at Princeton
University, and the winner of a Nobel Prize. She is not, however, a person accus-
tomed to publicly weighing in on political campaigns, so she opens with her
announcement that this endorsement is a first for her. She does not assume that
she has the authority or position to make Senator Obama (or others) listen to her;
instead, she asks, deferentially, May I describe to you my thoughts? As a woman
in her seventies with a proven record as a respected author and thinker, she could
demand that Obama listen to her, but she does not; asking a question rather than

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 20 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

launching into her viewpoint presents herself as courteous and reasonable. The
ethos she establishes is as a person who cares deeply for the future of America and
is moved to speak out because she believes that the country is at a crossroads (this
is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril).
Although she does not offer facts and figures nor cite expert sources, Morrison
develops a logical argument. She addresses two counterarguments: (1) Senator
Clinton is the better candidate, and (2) her support of Obama is driven primarily
by race. In paragraph 3, she concedes and refutes both. She points out that she has
admired Senator Clinton over the years and offers reasons; gender is not, how-
ever, among them. She effectively makes that argument also serve as evidence that
she would not support Obama purely because of race, saying, I would not sup-
port you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me proud. In
paragraph 4, Morrison provides reasons for her support of Obama. She acknowl-
edges that he is a person of keen intelligence, integrity, and a rare authenticity,
yet those qualities are neither her only nor her chief reasons for supporting his
candidacy. She claims that she sees in him a creative imagination which coupled
with brilliance equals wisdom. Once Morrison makes this point, she addresses
another counterargument: that Obama is too young. She refutes that belief by
claiming that wisdom is not necessarily a matter of age.
Morrison continues to develop her reasons for supporting Obama as she
adds appeals to pathos. By asking a series of rhetorical questions, she calls up
the shared values of the country; for instance, she asks when the country was
actually guided by [s]omeone whose moral center was un-embargoed. She
chooses language likely to evoke emotions, such as her distinction between cour-
age instead of mere ambition. By the end of the letter, she uses images of birth
(the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so
frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb)
and language that pulls at our heartstrings, such as Our future is ripe, outra-
geously rich.
She draws the conclusion, again appealing to logos, that given all the evi-
dence presented in the letter Senator Obama is the man for this time. Morrison
closes with a final appeal to ethos as she emphasizes that she is an integral part of
the community of the country: Good luck to you and to us. The us is decid-
edly not just African Americans but all Americans.

ACTIVITY
Select one of the following rhetorical situations, and discuss how you would
establish your ethos and appeal to logos and pathos.
You are trying to persuade your skeptical parents that a gap year
taking a year off between high school graduation and college will be
beneficial.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF VISUAL TEXTS 21

You have been asked to make a presentation to your schools principal

and food service staff to propose healthier food choices in the cafeteria
at a time when the overall school budget is constrained.
You are making the case for the purchase of a specific model and make
of car that will best fit your familys needs and resources.
You are the student representative chosen to go before a group of local
businesspeople to ask them to provide financial support for a proposed
school trip.

Rhetorical Analysis of Visual Texts

Many visual texts are full-fledged arguments. Although they may not be written in
paragraphs or have a traditional thesis, they are occasioned by specific circum-
stances, they have a purpose (whether it is to comment on a current event or simply
to urge you to buy something), and they make a claim and support it with appeals

SOURCE: Toles 2005 The Washington Post. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL UCLICK. All rights
reserved.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 22 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

to authority, emotion, and reason. Consider the cartoon on page 21, which cartoon-
ist Tom Toles drew after the death of civil-rights icon Rosa Parks in 2006. Parks was
the woman who in 1955 refused to give up her seat on the bus in Montgomery, Ala-
bama; that act came to symbolize the struggle for racial equality in the United States.
We can discuss the cartoon rhetorically, just as weve been examining texts
that are exclusively verbal: The occasion is the death of Rosa Parks. The speaker is
Tom Toles, a respected and award-winning political cartoonist. The audience is
made up of readers of the Washington Post and other newspapers that is, its a
very broad audience. The speaker can assume that his audience shares his admi-
ration and respect for Parks and that they view her passing as the loss of a public
figure as well as a private woman. Finally, the context is a memorial for a well-
loved civil-rights activist, and Toless purpose is to remember Parks as an ordinary
citizen whose courage and determination brought extraordinary results. The sub-
ject is the legacy of Rosa Parks, a well-known person loved by many.
Readers familiarity with Toles along with his obvious respect for his
subject establishes his ethos. The image in the cartoon appeals primarily to
pathos. Toles shows Rosa Parks, who was a devout Christian, as she is about to
enter heaven through the pearly gates; they are attended by an angel, probably
Saint Peter, who is reading a ledger. Toles depicts Parks wearing a simple coat and
carrying her pocketbook, as she did while sitting on the bus so many years ago.
Her features are somewhat detailed and realistic, making her stand out despite her
modest posture and demeanor.
The commentary at the bottom right reads, Weve been holding it [the front
row in heaven] open since 1955, a reminder that more than fifty years have
elapsed since Parks resolutely sat where she pleased. The caption can be seen as an
appeal to both pathos and logos. Its emotional appeal is its acknowledgment that, of
course, heaven would have been waiting for this good woman; but the mention of
the front row appeals to logic because Parks made her mark in history for refus-
ing to sit in the back of the bus. Some readers might even interpret the caption as a
criticism of how slow the country was both to integrate and to pay tribute to Parks.

ACTIVITY
The following advertisement is from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a con-
servation organization that combines global reach with a foundation in sci-
ence, involves action at every level from local to global, and ensures the delivery
of innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature.
What rhetorical strategies does the WWF use to achieve its purpose in
this advertisement? Pay particular attention to the interaction of the written
text with the visual elements. How does the arrangement on the page affect
your response? How does the WWF appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos? How
effective do you think the advertisement is in reaching its intended audience?
Explain.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG $0
 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE RHETORIC 23

(See insert for color version.)

Determining Effective and Ineffective Rhetoric

Not every attempt at effective rhetoric hits its mark. A famous example of humor-
ously ineffective rhetoric is the proposal of Mr. Collins to the high-spirited hero-
ine Elizabeth Bennet in the novel Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Mr. Collins,

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 24 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

a foolish and sycophantic minister, stands to inherit the Bennet estate; thus, he
assumes that any of the Bennet sisters, including Elizabeth, will be grateful for his
offer of marriage. So he crafts his offer as a business proposal that is a series of rea-
sons. Following is a slightly abridged version of Mr. Collinss proposal:

from Pride and Prejudice

JANE AUSTEN
My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman
in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish.
Secondly, that I am convinced it will add very greatly to my happiness; and
thirdly which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular
advice and recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of
calling patroness. . . . But the fact is, that being, as I am, to inherit this estate after
the death of your honoured father (who, however, may live many years longer), I
could not satisfy myself without resolving to chuse a wife from among his daugh-
ters, that the loss to them might be as little as possible, when the melancholy event
takes place which, however, as I have already said, may not be for several
years. This has been my motive, my fair cousin, and I flatter myself it will not sink
me in your esteem. And now nothing remains for me but to assure you in the most
animated language of the violence of my affection. To fortune I am perfectly indif-
ferent, and shall make no demand of that nature on your father, since I am well
aware that it could not be complied with; and that one thousand pounds in the 4 per
cents, which will not be yours till after your mothers decease, is all that you may
ever be entitled to. On that head, therefore, I shall be uniformly silent; and you may
assure yourself that no ungenerous reproach shall ever pass my lips when we are
married.

Mr. Collins appeals to logos with a sequence of reasons that support his
intent to marry: ministers should be married, marriage will add to his happi-
ness, and his patroness wants him to marry. Of course, these are all advantages
to himself. Ultimately, he claims that he can assure Elizabeth in the most ani-
mated language of the violence of [his] affection, yet he offers no language at
all about his emotional attachment. Finally, as if to refute the counterargument
that she would not reap many benefits from the proposed alliance, he reminds
her that her financial future will be grim unless she accepts his offer, and he prom-
ises to be uniformly silent rather than to remind her of that fact once they are
married.
Where did he go wrong? Without devaluing the wry humor of Austen in her
portrayal of Mr. Collins, we can conclude that at the very least he failed to under-
stand his audience. He offers reasons for marriage that would have little appeal to
Elizabeth, who does not share his businesslike and self-serving assumptions. No

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE RHETORIC 25

(See insert for color version.)

wonder she can hardly wait to get way from him; no wonder he responds with
shocked indignation.
Unlike Mr. Collinss clearly bad attempt at rhetoric, in the real world decid-
ing whether rhetoric hits or misses its mark is often a matter of debate. Con-
sider the advertisement above from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals).
Its important to note that PETA, an animal rights group, sponsors this ad.
A positive reading would see the image of an overweight child about to bite into
a burger as an effective attention-getter. The headline, with meat the only word
in red, makes the bold assertion that parents who allow children to eat meat are
guilty of child abuse. Since most people would not have thought of this connec-
tion, its boldness might have the shock value to make them stop and think. By
choosing a particularly unappetizing burger and plump-looking kid, PETA pre-
sents an image of childhood obesity that might want to make the viewer grab the
burger from the child before she gets it in her mouth! The smaller print calls for
a vegan diet to combat obesity, asserting that replacing burgers with vegetables
is a healthier alternative a claim few people would find questionable.
But thats not the only way to interpret this ad. Claiming that allowing a child
to eat a hamburger is the same as committing child abuse is a serious allegation,
and it could be seen as hyperbole. If you read the large print as an unfounded exag-
geration, then the ads purpose is lost. Its unlikely that anyone would argue with
the exhortation to fight the fat, but to link consumption of any kind of meat
with a heinous act of child abuse might not seem logical to every view, which could
undermine the ads effectiveness.
Lets turn to an essay, an op-ed piece that appeared in the Washington Post
in 2011 after Japan was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami that severely dam-
aged nuclear reactors. Columnist Anne Applebaum uses this devastating situation

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 26 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

to argue against further use of nuclear power. As you read the article, analyze it
rhetorically and ask yourself if she is likely to achieve her purpose or if her strate-
gies miss the mark.

If the Japanese Cant Build a Safe Reactor, Who Can?

ANNE APPLEBAUM

In the aftermath of a disaster, the strengths of any society become immediately visible.
The cohesiveness, resilience, technological brilliance and extraordinary competence
of the Japanese are on full display. One report from Rikuzentakata a town of
25,000, annihilated by the tsunami that followed Fridays massive earthquake
describes volunteer firefighters working to clear rubble and search for survivors;
troops and police efficiently directing traffic and supplies; survivors are not only
calm and pragmatic but also coping with politeness and sometimes amazingly
good cheer.
Thanks to these strengths, Japan will eventually recover. But at least one Japa-
nese nuclear power complex will not. As I write, three reactors at the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power station appear to have lost their cooling capacity. Engineers
are flooding the plant with seawater effectively destroying it and then letting off
radioactive steam. There have been two explosions. The situation may worsen in the
coming hours.
Yet Japans nuclear power stations were designed with the same care and pre-
cision as everything else in the country. More to the point, as the only country in the
world to have experienced true nuclear catastrophe, Japan had an incentive to build
well, as well as the capability, laws and regulations to do so. Which leads to an
unavoidable question: If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese cant
build a completely safe reactor, who can?
It can and will be argued that the Japanese situation is extraordinary.
Few countries are as vulnerable to natural catastrophe as Japan, and the scale of
this earthquake is unprecedented. But there are other kinds of extraordinary situa-
tions and unprecedented circumstances. In an attempt to counter the latest worst-
possible scenarios, a Franco-German company began constructing a super-safe,
next-generation nuclear reactor in Finland several years ago. The plant was designed
to withstand the impact of an airplane a postSept. 11 concern and includes a
chamber allegedly able to contain a core meltdown. But it was also meant to cost
$4 billion and to be completed in 2009. Instead, after numerous setbacks, it is still
unfinished and may now cost $6 billion or more.
Ironically, the Finnish plant was meant to launch the renaissance of the nuclear 5
power industry in Europe an industry that has, of late, enjoyed a renaissance
around the world, thanks almost entirely to fears of climate change. Nuclear plants
emit no carbon. As a result, nuclear plants, after a long, post-Chernobyl lull, have

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE RHETORIC 27

became fashionable again. Some 62 nuclear reactors are under construction at the
moment, a further 158 are being planned and 324 others have been proposed.
Increasingly, nuclear power is also promoted because it is safe. Which it is
except, of course, when it is not. Chances of a major disaster are tiny, one in a
hundred million. But in the event of a statistically improbable major disaster, the
damage could include, say, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country.
The cost of such a potential catastrophe is partly reflected in the price of plant con-
struction, and it partly explains the cost overruns in Finland: Nobody can risk the
tiniest flaw in the concrete or the most minimal reduction in the quality of the steel.
But as we are about to learn in Japan, the true costs of nuclear power are
never reflected even in the very high price of plant construction. Inevitably, the enor-
mous costs of nuclear waste disposal fall to taxpayers, not the nuclear industry. The
costs of cleanup, even in the wake of a relatively small accident, are eventually
borne by government, too. Health-care costs will also be paid by society at large,
one way or another. If there is true nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the entire world will
pay the price.
I hope that this will never, ever happen. I feel nothing but admiration for the
Japanese nuclear engineers who have been battling catastrophe for several days.
If anyone can prevent a disaster, the Japanese can do it. But I also hope that a
near-miss prompts people around the world to think twice about the true price of
nuclear energy, and that it stops the nuclear renaissance dead in its tracks.

Does Applebaum miss her mark? Does she use a worst-case scenario to make
her case? Do her references to September 11 and World War II make nuclear
power seem alarming, or do they just make Applebaum sound alarmist? Are her
fears fully justified, or is this nothing but fear mongering? Consider that she does
acknowledge that Japans situation is unusual because the country is so vulner-
able to natural catastrophe and the earthquake that struck was unusually strong.
She cites facts and figures about the efforts in Finland to build a nuclear plant that
is meant to be super-safe and withstand every imaginable contingency. She
explains that other European nations are following the Finnish lead (158 are
being planned and 324 others have been proposed) because nuclear power, which
does not emit carbon dioxide, is not thought to contribute to climate change.
There is quite a bit to consider, even in this relatively brief piece.

ACTIVITY
Following is a rhetorical analysis of the effectiveness of Applebaums argu-
ment written by an AP student, Tamar Demby. How does she develop her
position? Why do you agree or disagree with her? How might she improve
her essay?

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 28 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Alarmist or Alarming Rhetoric?

TAMAR DEMBY

In an age when threats to life as we know it seem to grow too enormous to

face, it becomes tempting to regard any danger as an apocalypse waiting to happen.
But however huge and urgent an incident appears, it is important to look at the
big picture and calmly analyze the true risks of all responses. Within the context
of Japans struggle to avert a nuclear meltdown in Fukushima Prefecture, Anne
Applebaum, writing for the Washington Post, argues against any further expansion
of nuclear power. However, she undermines her own purpose by basing her argument
on unsupported claims, relying on highly emotional language, and failing to
establish her ethos as a credible authority on the issue.
As a journalist rather than a nuclear physicist or someone with credentials
earned by education and training, she has to present a clear viewpoint supported by
solid evidence. If she has a history of reporting on nuclear power issues, then she
should have explained that expertise. Instead, she relies on hot-button issues such
as Chernobyl to alarm her readers, who are likely an educated and well-informed
audience. Even though she is writing in the midst of the crisis in Japan when no
one knew what would happen to the reactors, she needs to establish a fair-minded
ethos and build a more fact-based case. Unless she moves her audience to share her
concern and alarm, she fails to achieve her purpose of making them see the true
cost of nuclear power and oppose further expansion.
Applebaums central point is spelled out in the title of her piece: If the
Japanese Cant Build a Safe Reactor, Who Can? In order to ask and then answer this
question, she must establish the supremacy of the Japanese to build a safe nuclear
reactor. In her first paragraph, she highlights the strengths of the Japanese:
cohesiveness, resilience, technological brilliance and extraordinary competence
and cites examples of all these traits except technological brilliance leaving the
reader with no reason to agree with her assessment of Japanese technological prowess.
This pattern continues in the second paragraph, as Applebaum attempts to explain
that the Japanese can be expected to have built the safest possible nuclear reactors
because they were designed with the same care and precision as everything else in
the country a statement she fails to support. Verified details seem to be reserved
for viscerally effective descriptions of the situation in the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Applebaum states that the plant will not eventually recover, as three reactors are
letting off radioactive steam . . . (and) there have been two explosions. These facts
serve only to appeal to the readers emotions, focusing on the horrifying results of
the catastrophe but not addressing or supporting Applebaums claims. Ultimately,
Applebaums position seems to be based more on personal alarm than analysis of facts.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE RHETORIC 29

ACTIVITY
Examine the following advertisement sponsored by the Federal Highway
Administration. Analyze the rhetorical situation and appeals used in the
advertisement, and determine whether you think this advertisement is effec-
tive or ineffective.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 30 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

CULMINATING ACTIVITY
By this point, you have analyzed what we mean by the rhetorical situation,
and you have learned a number of key concepts and terms. Its time to put all
the ideas together to examine a series of texts on a single subject. Following
are four texts related to the 1969 Apollo 11 mission that landed the first
humans on the moon. The first is a news article from the Times of London
reporting the event; the next is a speech by William Safire that President
Nixon would have given had the mission not been successful; the third is a
commentary by novelist Ayn Rand; the last is a political cartoon that appeared
at the time. Discuss the purpose of each text and how the interaction among
speaker, audience, and subject affects the text. How does each text appeal to
ethos, pathos, and logos? Finally, how effective is each text in achieving its
purpose?

Man Takes First Steps on the Moon

THE TIMES
The following article appeared in a special 5 A.M. edition of the Times of London.

Neil Armstrong became the first man to take a walk on the moons surface
early today. The spectacular moment came after he had inched his way down
the ladder of the fragile lunar bug Eagle while colleague Edwin Aldrin watched
his movements from inside the craft. The landing, in the Sea of Tranquillity,
was near perfect and the two astronauts on board Eagle reported that it had
not tilted too far to prevent a take-off. The first word from man on the moon
came from Aldrin: Tranquillity base. The Eagle has landed. Of the first view
of the lunar surface, he said: There are quite a few rocks and boulders in the
near area which are going to have some interesting colours in them. Armstrong
said both of them were in good shape and there was no need to worry about
them. They had experienced no difficulty in manoeuvring the module in the
moons gravity. There were tense moments in the mission control centre at
Houston while they awaited news of the safe landing. When it was confirmed,
one ground controller was heard to say: We got a bunch of guys on the ground
about to turn blue. Were breathing again. Ten minutes after landing, Aldrin
radioed: Well get to the details of whats around here. But it looks like a col-
lection of every variety, shape, angularity, granularity; a collection of just about
every kind of rock. He added: The colour depends on what angle youre
looking at . . . rocks and boulders look as though theyre going to have some
interesting colours.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 CULMINATING ACTIVITY 31

Armstrong says: one giant leap for mankind

From the News Team in Houston and London
It was 3.56 A.M. (British Standard Time) when Armstrong stepped off the ladder
from Eagle and on to the moons surface. The modules hatch had opened at
3.39 A.M.
Thats one small step for man but one giant leap for mankind, he said as
he stepped on the lunar surface.
The two astronauts opened the hatch of their lunar module at 3.39 A.M. in
preparation for Neil Armstrongs walk. They were obviously being ultra careful
over the operation for there was a considerable time lapse before Armstrong
moved backwards out of the hatch to start his descent down the ladder.
Aldrin had to direct Armstrong out of the hatch because he was walking 5
backwards and could not see the ladder.
Armstrong moved on to the porch outside Eagle and prepared to switch the
television cameras which showed the world his dramatic descent as he began
to inch his way down the ladder.
By this time the two astronauts had spent 25 minutes of their breathing time
but their oxygen packs on their backs last four hours.
When the television cameras switched on there was a spectacular shot of
Armstrong as he moved down the ladder. Viewers had a clear view as they saw
him stepping foot by foot down the ladder, which has nine rungs.
He reported that the lunar surface was a very fine-grained powder.
Clutching the ladder Armstrong put his left foot on the lunar surface and 10
reported it was like powdered charcoal and he could see his footprints on the
surface. He said the L.E.M.s engine had left a crater about a foot deep but they
were on a very level place here.
Standing directly in the shadow of the lunar module Armstrong said he could see
very clearly. The light was sufficiently bright for everything to be clearly visible.
The next step was for Aldrin to lower a hand camera down to Armstrong. This
was the camera which Armstrong was to use to film Aldrin when he descends
from Eagle.
Armstrong then spent the next few minutes taking photographs of the area
in which he was standing and then prepared to take the contingency sample
of lunar soil.
This was one of the first steps in case the astronauts had to make an emergency
take-off before they could complete the whole of their activities on the moon.
Armstrong said: It is very pretty out here. 15
Using the scoop to pick up the sample Armstrong said he had pushed six
to eight inches into the surface. He then reported to the mission control centre
that he placed the sample lunar soil in his pocket.
The first sample was in his pocket at 4.08 A.M. He said the moon has soft
beauty all its own, like some desert of the United States. . . .

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG $0
 32 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Greatest moment of time

President Nixon, watching the events on television, described it as one of the
greatest moments of our time. He told Mr. Ron Ziegler, the White House press
secretary, that the last 22 seconds of the descent were the longest he had ever
lived through.
Mr. Harold Wilson, in a television statement, expressed our deep wish for
a safe return at the end of what has been a most historic scientific achievement
in the history of man. The Prime Minister, speaking from 10 Downing Street,
said: The first feeling of all in Britain is that this very dangerous part of the
mission has been safely accomplished.
Moscow Radio announced the news solemnly as the main item in its 11.30 20
news broadcast. There was no immediate news of Luna 15.
At Castelgandolfo the Pope greeted news of the lunar landing by exclaiming:
Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to men of good will!
In an unscheduled speech from his summer residence the Pope, who fol-
lowed the flight on colour television, said: We, humble representatives of that
Christ, who, coming among us from the abyss of divinity, has made to resound
in the heavens this blessed voice, today we make an echo, repeating it in a
celebration on the part of the whole terrestrial globe, with no more unsurpass-
able bounds of human existence, but openness to the expanse of endless
space and a new destiny.
Glory to God! President Saragat of Italy said in a statement: May this vic-
tory be a good omen for an even greater victory: the definite conquest of peace,
of justice, of liberty, for all peoples of the World.
President Charles Helou of Lebanon followed the flight and landing with spe-
cial dispatches from the Information Ministry. A spokesman said he would send
an official message later.
In Jordan King Husain sent a congratulatory message to the astronauts and 25
President Nixon.
In Stockholm Mr. Tage Erlander, the Swedish Prime Minister, said he planned
to cable President Nixon his congratulations as soon as the astronauts returned
to Earth. King Gustav Adolf was watching television at touchdown time and
told friends he was thrilled by the Apollo performance.
In Cuba the national radio announced the moon landing 12 minutes after
it was accomplished.
Sir Bernard Lovell, Director of the Jodrell Bank observatory, said: The
moment of touchdown was one of the moments of greatest drama in the his-
tory of man. The success in this part of the enterprize opens the most enormous
opportunities for the future exploration of the universe.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 CULMINATING ACTIVITY 33

In Event of Moon Disaster

WILLIAM SAFIRE
The following speech, revealed in 1999, was prepared by President Nixons
speechwriter, William Safire, to be used in the event of a disaster that would maroon
the astronauts on the moon.

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will
stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no
hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in
their sacrifice. These two men are laying down their lives in mankinds most
noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.
They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned
by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be
mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.
In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in
their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.
In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constella- 5
tions. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of
flesh and blood.
Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Mans search will not be
denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our
hearts. For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come
will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.

The July 16, 1969, Launch: A Symbol of Mans Greatness

AYN RAND
The following commentary by novelist Ayn Rand first appeared in the Objectivist,
a publication created by Rand and others to put forward their philosophy of
objectivism, which values individualism, freedom, and reason.

No matter what discomforts and expenses you had to bear to come here,
said a NASA guide to a group of guests, at the conclusion of a tour of the
Space Center on Cape Kennedy, on July 15, 1969, there will be seven minutes
tomorrow morning that will make you feel it was worth it.
It was.
[The launch] began with a large patch of bright, yellow-orange flame shoot-
ing sideways from under the base of the rocket. It looked like a normal kind
of flame and I felt an instants shock of anxiety, as if this were a building on
fire. In the next instant the flame and the rocket were hidden by such a sweep of

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG $0
 34 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

dark red fire that the anxiety vanished: this was not part of any normal experi-
ence and could not be integrated with anything. The dark red fire parted into
two gigantic wings, as if a hydrant were shooting streams of fire outward and
up, toward the zenith and between the two wings, against a pitch-black sky,
the rocket rose slowly, so slowly that it seemed to hang still in the air, a pale
cylinder with a blinding oval of white light at the bottom, like an upturned
candle with its flame directed at the earth. Then I became aware that this was
happening in total silence, because I heard the cries of birds winging franti-
cally away from the flames. The rocket was rising faster, slanting a little, its tense
white flame leaving a long, thin spiral of bluish smoke behind it. It had risen
into the open blue sky, and the dark red fire had turned into enormous billows
of brown smoke, when the sound reached us: it was a long, violent crack, not
a rolling sound, but specifically a cracking, grinding sound, as if space were
breaking apart, but it seemed irrelevant and unimportant, because it was a
sound from the past and the rocket was long since speeding safely out of its
reach though it was strange to realize that only a few seconds had passed.
I found myself waving to the rocket involuntarily, I heard people applauding and
joined them, grasping our common motive; it was impossible to watch passively,
one had to express, by some physical action, a feeling that was not triumph,
but more: the feeling that that white objects unobstructed streak of motion was
the only thing that mattered in the universe.
What we had seen, in naked essentials but in reality, not in a work of
art was the concretized abstraction of mans greatness.
The fundamental significance of Apollo 11s triumph is not political; it is 5
philosophical; specifically, moral-epistemological.
The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of
fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence,
but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out
of existence and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed,
and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power
and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising
craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature,
like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably
human with human, for once, meaning grandeur that a purpose and a
long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments,
and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for
seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel not How small
is man by the side of the Grand Canyon! but How great is man and how
safe is nature when he conquers it!
That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt
this was the cause of the events attraction and of the stunned numbed state in
which it left us. And no one could doubt that we had seen an achievement of
man in his capacity as a rational being an achievement of reason, of logic,
of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 CULMINATING ACTIVITY 35

Frustration is the leitmotif in the lives of most men, particularly today the
frustration of inarticulate desires, with no knowledge of the means to achieve
them. In the sight and hearing of a crumbling world, Apollo 11 enacted the
story of an audacious purpose, its execution, its triumph, and the means that
achieved it the story and the demonstration of mans highest potential.

Transported
HERBLOCK
The following editorial cartoon by the famous cartoonist Herb Lock, or Herblock,
appeared in the Washington Post on July 18, 1969.

SOURCE: A 1969 Herblock Cartoon, copyright by The Herb Block Foundation.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG $0
 36 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

Glossary of Rhetorical Terms

Aristotelian triangle See rhetorical triangle.

audience The listener, viewer, or reader of a text. Most texts are likely to have
multiple audiences.
Gehrigs audience was his teammates and fans in the stadium that day, but it was also
the teams he played against, the fans listening on the radio, and posterity us.
concession An acknowledgment that an opposing argument may be true or rea-
sonable. In a strong argument, a concession is usually accompanied by a refuta-
tion challenging the validity of the opposing argument.
Lou Gehrig concedes what some of his listeners may think that his bad break is a
cause for discouragement or despair.
connotation Meanings or associations that readers have with a word beyond its
dictionary definition, or denotation. Connotations are usually positive or neg-
ative, and they can greatly affect the authors tone. Consider the connotations
of the words below, all of which mean overweight.
That cat is plump. That cat is fat. That cat is obese.
context The circumstances, atmosphere, attitudes, and events surrounding
a text.
The context for Lou Gehrigs speech is the recent announcement of his illness and his
subsequent retirement, but also the poignant contrast between his potent career and his
debilitating disease.
counterargument An opposing argument to the one a writer is putting forward.
Rather than ignoring a counterargument, a strong writer will usually address it
through the process of concession and refutation.
Some of Lou Gehrigs listeners might have argued that his bad break was a cause for
discouragement or despair.
ethos Greek for character. Speakers appeal to ethos to demonstrate that they
are credible and trustworthy to speak on a given topic. Ethos is established by
both who you are and what you say.
Lou Gehrig brings the ethos of being a legendary athlete to his speech, yet in it he
establishes a different kind of ethos that of a regular guy and a good sport who shares
the audiences love of baseball and family. And like them, he has known good luck and
bad breaks.
logos Greek for embodied thought. Speakers appeal to logos, or reason, by
offering clear, rational ideas and using specific details, examples, facts, statis-
tics, or expert testimony to back them up.
Gehrig starts with the thesis that he is the luckiest man on the face of the earth and
supports it with two points: (1) the love and kindness hes received in his seventeen
years of playing baseball, and (2) a list of great people who have been his friends,
family, and teammates.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 GLOSSARY OF RHETORICAL TERMS 37

occasion The time and place a speech is given or a piece is written.

In the case of Gehrigs speech, the occasion is Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day. More
specifically, his moment comes at home plate between games of a doubleheader.
pathos Greek for suffering or experience. Speakers appeal to pathos to emo-
tionally motivate their audience. More specific appeals to pathos might play on
the audiences values, desires, and hopes, on the one hand, or fears and preju-
dices, on the other.
The most striking appeal to pathos is the poignant contrast between Gehrigs horrible
diagnosis and his public display of courage.
persona Greek for mask. The face or character that a speaker shows to his or
her audience.
Lou Gehrig is a famous baseball hero, but in his speech he presents himself as a
common man who is modest and thankful for the opportunities hes had.
polemic Greek for hostile. An aggressive argument that tries to establish the
superiority of one opinion over all others. Polemics generally do not concede
that opposing opinions have any merit.
propaganda The spread of ideas and information to further a cause. In its negative
sense, propaganda is the use of rumors, lies, disinformation, and scare tactics
in order to damage or promote a cause. For more information, see How to Detect
Propaganda on page 756.
purpose The goal the speaker wants to achieve.
One of Gehrigs chief purposes in delivering his Farewell Address is to thank his fans
and his teammates, but he also wants to demonstrate that he remains positive: he
emphasizes his past luck and present optimism and downplays his illness.
refutation A denial of the validity of an opposing argument. In order to sound
reasonable, refutations often follow a concession that acknowledges that an
opposing argument may be true or reasonable.
Lou Gehrig refutes that his bad break is a cause for discouragement by saying that he
has an awful lot to live for!
rhetoric As Aristotle defined the term, the faculty of observing in any given
case the available means of persuasion. In other words, it is the art of finding
ways to persuade an audience.
rhetorical appeals Rhetorical techniques used to persuade an audience by empha-
sizing what they find most important or compelling. The three major appeals
are to ethos (character), logos (reason), and pathos (emotion).
rhetorical triangle (Aristotelian triangle) A diagram that illustrates the interrela-
tionship among the speaker, audience, and subject in determining a text. See p. 4.
SOAPS A mnemonic device that stands for Subject, Occasion, Audience, Pur-
pose, and Speaker. It is a handy way to remember the various elements that
make up the rhetorical situation.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30
 38 CHAPTER 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORIC

speaker The person or group who creates a text. This might be a politician who
delivers a speech, a commentator who writes an article, an artist who draws a
political cartoon, or even a company that commissions an advertisement.
In his Farewell Address, the speaker is not just Lou Gehrig, but baseball hero and ALS
victim Lou Gehrig, a common man who is modest and thankful for the opportunities
hes had.
subject The topic of a text. What the text is about.
Lou Gehrigs subject in his speech is his illness, but it is also a catalog of all the lucky
breaks that preceded his diagnosis.
text While this term generally means the written word, in the humanities it has
come to mean any cultural product that can be read meaning not just con-
sumed and comprehended, but investigated. This includes fiction, nonfiction,
poetry, political cartoons, fine art, photography, performances, fashion, cul-
tural trends, and much more.

B6+(BB&KBBLQGG 30