While reading chapter five, Fallacies of Argument, and chapter six, Rhetorical Analysis, there were key words that stood out to me that related to the podcast, Researchers Study Effects Of Social Media On Young Minds. Fallacies are argumentative moves flawed by their very nature or structure. There are fallacies of emotional argument, such as bandwagon appeals, which is when we urge people to follow the same path everyone else is taking. Continuing, fallacies of ethical arguments are important to think about when determining an argumentative writing piece; stacking the deck means that the person talking is showing only one side of the story, going with ethical arguments in writing. Rhetorical Analysis is the analyzing of how well the components
…show more content…
It talked about the study of how likes on posts from social media change the way people view that post and whether or not they will like it themselves. While listening to the podcast, at first, it seemed as though there was not fallacies present, however, as I continued I noticed that there was some. The bandwagon appeal is shown when the people in the research study follow what other people do even when, maybe, they do not agree entirely with it; some people will like others photos because many other people have liked it, not because they necessarily like it themselves. In addition, the podcast seems to stack the deck, because they only think that people like a picture or post because of how other people like the photo, but there is definitely other reasons for liking a picture or post. The use of pathos is used in the podcast when they talk about how getting a like makes you feel accepted and liked among your peers, drawing to emotional appeals; it even makes your brains nucleus accumbens feel rewarded when you get a like. Also, in the podcast there is a sense of ethos. Ethos is shown when they talked about Lauren Sherman, who is a researcher at UCLA who studied the amount of likes a post gets and the impact of that on other viewers. She is a credible source because she has done the research on this area of study, therefore, I feel as though she can be trusted. Concluding, I feel as though this podcast makes very realistic and reasonable approaches to what it is trying to be conveyed. All in all, fallacies and rhetorical analysis can be seen in all areas of life especially when it comes to arguments and research in
It talked about the study of how likes on posts from social media change the way people view that post and whether or not they will like it themselves. While listening to the podcast, at first, it seemed as though there was not fallacies present, however, as I continued I noticed that there was some. The bandwagon appeal is shown when the people in the research study follow what other people do even when, maybe, they do not agree entirely with it; some people will like others photos because many other people have liked it, not because they necessarily like it themselves. In addition, the podcast seems to stack the deck, because they only think that people like a picture or post because of how other people like the photo, but there is definitely other reasons for liking a picture or post. The use of pathos is used in the podcast when they talk about how getting a like makes you feel accepted and liked among your peers, drawing to emotional appeals; it even makes your brains nucleus accumbens feel rewarded when you get a like. Also, in the podcast there is a sense of ethos. Ethos is shown when they talked about Lauren Sherman, who is a researcher at UCLA who studied the amount of likes a post gets and the impact of that on other viewers. She is a credible source because she has done the research on this area of study, therefore, I feel as though she can be trusted. Concluding, I feel as though this podcast makes very realistic and reasonable approaches to what it is trying to be conveyed. All in all, fallacies and rhetorical analysis can be seen in all areas of life especially when it comes to arguments and research in