Logical Fallacies 11.25.2016

          Logical fallacies can be seen on a daily basis. For example, ad hominem can be seen in the presidential election when the candidates attack one another instead of the actual argument at hand.  Another example is slippery slope, which can be seen by the reasoning that parents tend to give their children. Unknowingly, we all sometimes use logical fallacies out of frustration. However, the use of logical fallacies is usually not effective and always unprofessional. This week we made posters for logical fallacies. The fallacies that my partner and I chose was ad hominem. The advertisement below was an interesting example of ad hominem that I found.

         This advertisement uses pathos through its word choice of the word "problem" and its dark background, which creates a serious tone. This may seem like an effective advertisement at first, but after carefully examining it, this advertisement makes a weak argument. The advertisement does not mention how Romney is a problem and provides no evidence to support this statement. If the advertisement included some of Romney's policies to support this statement, it would have been an effective argument, but it did not. This is an example of ad hominem because it is an attack on the person directly with no evidence to show how this statement is even related to the actual argument.

Analysis on "Don't Fight Flames With Flames" 11.19.16

          The article "Don't Fight Flames With Flames" is about arguments on social media. The author's viewpoint on this topic is that a person could never win an argument on social media. I agree with this point of view because of my own experience. Although I have never gotten into an argument on social media, I have seen many, and most of them didn't end well and never really ended at all. The author's point of view is pretty understandable in the real world. All humans have an opinion about something and not everyone agrees with these opinions, which is why not everyone is vocal about it. However, with social media, people feel protected behind a screen, which causes them to be more vocal and have more hateful comments. With all these different opinions clashing, it is hard for a single person to win an argument online.

          This article is effectively developed through the use of rhetorical devices, such as imagery and word choice. An example of imagery is when the author states, "My phone lit up like flashing Christmas lights as hate-filled messages were hurled at me." Through this statement, the author gives the reader an image of how fast the hate comments were coming. This helps make his argument more effective because it shows that with all these messages coming at once, it is hard for a single person to respond to all of them and try to prove his or her point. Another use of imagery is when the author compares an argument online with an argument between a husband and a wife. This helps effectively develop the author's argument because it creates a visual image of an argument on social media for those who don't use it. The author uses a lot of word choice to develop his argument. One of his word choice is "constructive conversation." By using the word "constructive," the author says that an educational argument is difficult to have online, which connects back to his original argument that an argument on social media could never be won. This connects to his argument because in an constructive conversation, people would try to understand each other's point of view and try to come to a consensus, but if an argument is not constructive, the argument would go on and on with no one actually winning. Another example of word choice is the word "abort." The author uses word this to emphasize how heated an online argument would be and that the best option would be to "abort" the argument instead of trying to win it. Through the use of imagery and word choice, the author effectively builds his argument.

Analysis of "Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power" 11.4.2016

          Is nuclear power truly dangerous? This issue is discussed in the paper "Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power." The author's purpose of this paper is to explain why nuclear power is beneficial and not as dangerous as we thought. I found this position to be somewhat shocking since I previously believed that nuclear power was harmful. This was most likely because in this day and age, social media is everywhere, and it mostly talks about all the dangers of nuclear power and not its benefits, which causes many of the modern day people to imagine mutated animals and tumors when nuclear power is mentioned.
          Throughout the paper, the author uses rhetorical techniques, such as logos and another source's ethos. In the paper, the author uses logos by comparing many objects that were thought to be harmless, such a toaster and a brick wall, to nuclear power. Comparing two objects shows a use of logos because it makes a logical connection that if a brick is emits more radiation than nuclear power plants, then nuclear power may not be as dangerous as what we believe. This rhetorical appeal is extremely effective because many people in the world would have never thought that a brick had the ability to emit radiation; therefore by using a brick wall as a comparison, it really puts an emphasis on the fact that nuclear power is harmless. The comparison between the toaster and nuclear power gives off the same effect as the comparison between the brick wall and nuclear power. Although the author does not mention his own ethos, he does mention the ethos of the sources he used, which makes his evidence more credible and effective in supporting his position. An example of using another source's ethos is when he uses information from the U.S. Department of Labor. The U.S. Department of Labor is a government source, which makes its evidence credible and reliable. Overall, through the use of rhetorical techniques, this paper is effective and supports its position well.