“Thank You for Smoking!” -email or hand it in class -typed or hand written Answer at least 3 for 15 pts: Up to 30 pts possible (5 pts max per question) -3-4 sentences a piece -Due Mon. Nov 9
How does Nick use ‘ethos’ to his advantage? (charisma, character, competence)
Nick uses his charisma and character when he talked to the committee about the cigarettes danger labels. He appeals to them as a professional who is well dressed and spoke rhetorically. Because Naylor is the Vice president of the academy of tobacco, that makes him the ideal person to convince people to believe him, and he was smart that he agree that smoke is dangerous but using the product is a matter of personal choice. Even with his own son, that …show more content…
One example of uses of pathos is that when the boy tried to make his mother feel guilty for not sending him with his father to California, he made his argument cleverly about the parents differences and how is caught up in the middle, which worked great and he went to California. Another example from the hearing is when Nick points out that his son is in the audience, and that educating the young generation about the dangers of tobacco usage should be at home and school, starting with parents.
Nick tells his son that if you argue correctly, then you are never wrong. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? I agree with the statement logically, and disagree morally and ethically. Yes, if anything is argued correctly then you are never wrong, because arguing correctly would necessarily include persuasion techniques and rhetorical devices. And that's probably the why I agree with the statement in general, however; my moral and ethical standards would require me to argue correctly for what is right. for arguing for what's wrong makes a one wrong by default, and can never be correct or right, no matter how well the argument is presented, but that's just
How does Nick use ‘ethos’ to his advantage? (charisma, character, competence)
Nick uses his charisma and character when he talked to the committee about the cigarettes danger labels. He appeals to them as a professional who is well dressed and spoke rhetorically. Because Naylor is the Vice president of the academy of tobacco, that makes him the ideal person to convince people to believe him, and he was smart that he agree that smoke is dangerous but using the product is a matter of personal choice. Even with his own son, that …show more content…
One example of uses of pathos is that when the boy tried to make his mother feel guilty for not sending him with his father to California, he made his argument cleverly about the parents differences and how is caught up in the middle, which worked great and he went to California. Another example from the hearing is when Nick points out that his son is in the audience, and that educating the young generation about the dangers of tobacco usage should be at home and school, starting with parents.
Nick tells his son that if you argue correctly, then you are never wrong. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? I agree with the statement logically, and disagree morally and ethically. Yes, if anything is argued correctly then you are never wrong, because arguing correctly would necessarily include persuasion techniques and rhetorical devices. And that's probably the why I agree with the statement in general, however; my moral and ethical standards would require me to argue correctly for what is right. for arguing for what's wrong makes a one wrong by default, and can never be correct or right, no matter how well the argument is presented, but that's just