Kenneth Cole is not the typical clothing designer, instead of trying to merely increase his profits by selling as much as possible he attempts to employ a different technique, one that “encourages consumers to work for social change.” His intended audience is adults, moreover people who can grasp the meaning behind his advertisements. He tries to appeal to his audience by means of creating a “controversial” edge. The rhetorical elements that stand out the most in his advertisement We All Walk In Different Shoes are pathos and logos but mostly pathos. By using a cancer survivor not only is he creating an appropriate person to represent his design, but he is also reaching out to the rest of the public that are not cancer survivors and explaining to them that not everyone shares the same story and that regardless of that his designs are not focused on one particular audience. Pathos is also capture in the cancer survivor’s smile which could leave the public to assume she is happy with the product. Yes this is an effective argument but a little confusing compared to his other advertisements. The first thing one is aware of upon looking at the advertisement is the cancer survivor’s smile, then one looks at the bigger white letters with the statement followed by who it is that is modeling his design. The black outfit plays well against the white lettering which then leads the consumer to notice his website in medium size letters on the corner of the page. After that one might decide to go ahead and look online and see what other designs he produces and therefore the advertisement did indeed work its magic.
Review of Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It
Mark Coleman’s article Review of Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It praises the author Elizabeth Royce’s book of the same title. He agrees with her point of view and finds her writing insightful. The audience of his article can be said to be the general public, the diction is simple and clear, easy for the average person to understand. Coleman is not necessarily looking for supporters; on the contrary he just wants to voice his opinion on how great he thinks Royce is.
The rhetorical element that stands out the most from Royce’s review is logos, closely followed by ethos. The logos she uses, “more than 89% of tap water meets or exceeds federal health and safety regulations” could be proven true and to the common reader it appears quite believable. The ethos she uses does not build her up as much as she would have intended or maybe like I stated above she does not intend anything but just to voice her opinion on certain issues. Her argument can and cannot be effective the reason being when she states “I’m not immune to the appeal of spring water.” So in the end she is not as strong on her position as in the beginning which in a way weakens her argument.
The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality
Walter Michaels’, The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality is aimed at the average reader. His diction is easily understood and put in a way the general public can comprehend. He uses examples like “The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Ernest Hemingway” that his audience is familiar with. He provides a brief summation of the book so his readers will be able to understand his point. By using these examples he is establishing his ethos, but he also uses logos so his piece appears more well-rounded and creditable. The logos he uses is the Supreme Court ruling Bakke v. Board of Regents in which the University of California was relent to accept a typical American “white boy” in the university because it wanted to diversify student body. Michaels’ diversity problem is not a problem involving race; it is more a problem of the economic inequality in the US today. Yes we have come a long way and we have learned to embrace racial differences (for the most part in my opinion, but yet we are ignorant to see one thing and choose altogether to ignore another. His argument is indeed effective not only because of his examples but also because of his reasoning and argument that we should shift our attention to the economic inequality surrounding us.
“Why Take Food Seriously? Because Your Life Depends on It.”
The audience of, “Why Take Food Seriously? Because Your Life Depends on It” by Mark Bittman could be any person willing to take into account his point of view however mostly it is aimed at his readers, “some-food obsessed segment of the public”. His piece is a factual argument, wanting to people to be drawn to the matter so a change can take place. His concern of the public and their health appeals to the public because they are able to see where he is coming from, from where his claim originates. Bittman tries to appeal to them mostly with pathos, although he does use logos and ethos as well. He wants to see a change in the importance in food, his logos includes that in the 1950’s when women entered the work force there was no one home to cook wholesome and good food rather they depended mostly on fast food because every lived quite a fast paced life. It is a decent c connection to make in which is also adds that because of this more men decided to pursue a career in cooking and become chefs. Yes the argument is indeed effective because it makes people realize the importance food plays in daily life.
My Sister’s Keeper- Analysis of Pathos, Ethos, & Logos
In the first paragraph it stated that that paper contained pathos and logos. By saying the movie appeals to emotions one can agree that there will be a connection between the movie and the audience, something the audience can relate to and most important something that the audience can feel. One can conclude that in saying that the movie has a more realistic ending and that it might not end how other movies end with a happily ever after provides logic to the real world.
My paper primarily used pathos; it used pathos all throughout it in fact. It lacked ethos my only example being that I was open to critiques of the movie by The New York Times.
More Religion, but Not the Old-Time Kind
The audience of More Religion, but Not the Old-Time Kind by Laurie Goodstein would be any common person interested in what she means when she says more people are becoming “faithful” but in a different way than before. The text is easy to understand, and she provides a definition for the uncommon words that people are not familiar with. Goodstein is a reputable author; one can see in her article that she has done her research. This is what appeals to her audience, she establishes credibility by the way in which she mentions her sources, adding where they are from and what they do. She mostly sticks to using logos but she also uses ethos. The charts and graphs included in her article help on visually see the different religions and how they are broken up. Goodstein uses various averages accompanied with dates and for the most part the name of the events so one if one is curious about her findings one can look them up for themselves. However since this is a definitional argument one can argue that in order for this argument someone had to make any sense someone had to make a definition on what exactly was the old kind of religion and what defines more religion. Goodstein uses rhetorical questions and then answers them herself leaving little room for other opinions. All in all it was a good article but not exactly an effective one.
RE Eat Your Brains
The lyrics are catchy, Jonathan Coulton, the songwriter planned for the audience to sing it all day long.Google recognizes him for “his songs about geek culture and his use of the Internet to draw fans.” Interestingly enough he attended Yale University, therefore he MUST be quite intelligent. His credibility is strong but yet with the song lyrics it contradicts itself. He does not literally means that “zombies” want to eat our brains, I think the lyrics reflect work stress. By using an office setting and “I’ve got another meeting Tom” it makes the argument more real so it can appeal to the general public. The song starts with a friendly opening later leaving room for logic and fear when it’ll eat the brains and not the eyes because nobody wants those.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
Happy blogging!
yoana93 