Transcript The Rhetoric of the Op-Ed Page: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

The Rhetoric of the Op-Ed Page:
Ethos, Logos, and Pathos
 In this mini-unit you will learn how
to use Aristotle’s concepts of ethos,
logos, and pathos to analyze
editorials and opinion pieces. You
will read an opinion piece about
scientific studies of animal behavior,
and learn how to write a letter to the
editor of a newspaper.
Journal Persuasion
 Think of a time you tried to persuade a
parent, a teacher, or a friend. What were
you trying to persuade them to do or
think? What arguments did you use to
persuade them? Were you successful?
Why or why not?
Persuasion in action
 First, in a small group, discuss the strategies
you and your friends use when they are trying
to borrow a car, go to a concert, buy new
clothes, or achieve some other goal.
 Next, pick one situation and write a short skit
about it showing these persuasive strategies in
action. Each skit should employ logical,
emotional, and ethical persuasion. Rehearse
and perform your skit for the class.
 10 Participation points
Discussion Questions
 Do people use Aristotle’s concepts of
ethos, logos, and pathos everyday
without thinking about it?
 What areas of society are these methods
of persuasion used most widely?
 Are there other means of persuasion not
discussed by Aristotle?
Surveying the Text
 Where and when was this article published?
 Who wrote the article? Do you know anything
about this writer? Where do you look to find out
something about the writer?
 What is the subtitle of the article and what does
that tell you about what the article might say?
 In what section of the paper was this article
published and what does that tell you about the
article?
Making Predictions
 What does it mean tot have “a change of




heart”?
What are some common ideas/feelings about
animals?
What might cause someone to change his/her
ideas/feelings about animals?
What are some groups of people who have
strong feelings about animals? What do you
know about them?
What is a vegetarian or vegan? For what
reasons does a person choose to be either?
 The first paragraph mentions breakthroughs in





biotechnology and nanotechnology. Do you
think this article is about those things? Explain.
Who do you think the intended audience is for
this article?
What do you think is the author’s purpose?
Will the article be negative or positive in
relation to the topic? Explain.
What argument about the topic might the
article present? Explain.
Turn the title into a question to answer after
you have read the text.
Vocabulary Preview
 humane and inhumane
 cognitive
 genetically wired
 empathy
First Reading
 Read Jeremy Rifkin’s “A Change of heart about
Animals.” For the first time through, read to
understand the text; read as if you trust Rifkin
and focus on what he is trying to say. Were the
predictions you made about the text true? Is the
article about what you thought it would be
about? Does Rifkin say what you thought he
would say?
 After you are finished reading answer the
questions given to you.
Second Reading
 Your second reading should be to
question the text, reading against the
grain and playing the disbelieving or
doubting game. Look for claims and
assertions made by Rifkin: Does he back
them up? Do you agree with them?
 As you read, highlight the thesis and
major claims in one color; highlight the
evidence in another color; write
comments or questions in the margins
After reading the article
again, answer the following
questions:
 What is the thesis of this article?
 Are there any claims made by Rifkin that
you disagree with? What are they?
 Are there any claims that lack support?
Analyzing Stylistic Choices
 How would you describe the style of this article? Is it
formal? Informal? Academic? Scientific? Conversational?
 What is the effect of giving the names of most of the
animals involved in the experiments, but not the names of
the scientists?
 Throughout most the article Rifkin refers to “researchers,”
and “scientists,” but in para. 3 he directly quotes Stephen
M. Siviy, “a behavioral scientist at Gettysburg College in
Pennsylvania.” What is the effect of this sudden specificity?
 What is the effect of all the rhetorical questions in para. 25,
followed by “Such questions are being raised” in the next?
Considering the Structure of the
Text
 Draw a line where the introduction ends.
Is it after the first paragraph, or are there
more introductory paragraphs?
 Divide the body of the essay into
sections based on topics.
 Draw a line where the conclusion begins.
Is it the last paragraph, or does it begin
before that?
Descriptive Outlining
 For each paragraph or section, write brief
statements in the margin that describe the
rhetorical function of that paragraph or section
 What does each section say?
 What does each section do for the reader?
 After you have done this, using your marginal
notes, write a concise summary of the Rifkin
article
In his article “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Jeremy
Rifkin argues that animals are more like humans than we
think. He first discusses how scientists are discovering that
animals can feel emotions. Recently, for example, there has
been funding for research provided by fast food companies
that shows how pigs crave attention. He also claims that
animals possess cognitive abilities and self-awareness,
mourn their dead, have the same body chemistry as we do,
and find pleasure from playing. Stephen M. Siviy argues
that if you believe in evolution, you believe that animals
have emotions. Animals use learned behaviors, not just
their instinct. What do all of these results mean? Should we
reevaluate animal treatment? The law is intervening on
behalf of animal rights, which raises the question: should
animals have the same rights as humans? The author
argues that the next step in the evolution of human
empathy is extending rights to animals.
Post-Descriptive Outlining
Questions
 Which section is most developed?
 Which section is least developed?
Does it need more development?
 Which section is most persuasive?
Least?
Ethos, Logos, Pathos
At this point, ethos, logos and pathos come
back into play. From the analysis you
have done so far, you should be wellprepared to analyze the logic and
support of the arguments, the character
and intentions of the author, and the
emotional effects of the language and
the details on the reader.
Discussion Questions
 Bob Stevens disagrees with Jeremy Rifkin, and makes
several points. Does Stevens refute Rifkin’s
arguments?
 In his first paragraph, Stevens argues that because a
predator like a hawk does not feel empathy for its
prey, humans should not need to feel empathy for the
animals they eat, and that such feelings would be
unnatural. Do you agree?
 Stevens notes that some animals can mimic human
speech, but argues that they do not understand what
they are saying. What would Rifkin say to this?
 Stevens implies that it would be a waste of
resources to give toys to pigs, especially when
some human children don’t have them. Do we
respond logically or emotionally to this
argument? Is this argument fair to Rifkin?
 Is it true, as Stevens argues, that Rifkin wants
animals to have more rights than humans?
 Lois Frazier say that pet owners know that
animals have feelings and abilities not too
different from humans. Do some pet owners
treat their pets like people? Is this a good thing?
 Frazier argues that Rifkin needs to take his
argument farther and promote a vegetarian
lifestyle with no animal products. Is this a
reasonable conclusion to draw from Rifkin’s
arguments? Do you agree with her?
 Does the letter start “Dear Editor”? Is the letter









written to the editor in response to Jeremy
Rifkin’s article?
Has the person signed the letter as him/herself?
Is there one direct quote and one paraphrase that
are both cited? E.g. (Rifkin 1)
Has the person responded to the assignment?
Is the purpose clear?
What should be kept? What is most effective?
What can be cut? Are there irrelevant details?
What should be added? Where are more details,
examples, evidence needed? What should be
changed? Are there any parts that are confusing
or contradictory?
Is the person’s position clear?
How is the tone?