argumentation examples

Effective Rhetoric Examples

Prose Text

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

This article from the Scientific American is an example of good rhetorical strategy. First of all, the ethos of the author is established right away by the title of the publication- Scientific American. To the reader this indicates that the information contained in the article will be science-based and relatively accurate, as opposed to some editorial articles. Although the article is in a scientific journal, the author also starts out with a story from "The Simpsons" to enable the reader to better identify them. By mentioning a common t.v. show, the author shows that the article is not "too" scientific for everyday readers. Additionally, the author appeals to the emotions of the audience through their fear of radiation and radioactive particles. Comparing coal ash to nuclear radiation, a common fear for many people, is an effective way for the author to convince them of the dangers of coal ash. Finally, by using scientific terms like "millirems" and including quotes from an associate lab director, the author establishes the logos of the argument. Overall this piece uses rhetoric in an effective manner.

Visual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ats3dClc0No

This video, though short, has a few good examples of effective argumentation. The narrator identifies the participants right away as people who have credibility and expertise on the subject: the National Field Coordinator for Appalachian Voices, the Hurricane Creekeeper, and the Watauga Riverkeeper. The audience recognizes these people as those who care about the environment and the river, and who have experience in this area. The visual images shown are designed to incite the emotions of the viewer. Dead fish, sludgy black water, and a complete lack of activity arouse anger in the audience. As to the utilization of logos, the narrator cites statements from the TVA website indicating that cleanup is underway, but the video provides clear evidence that none is underway, giving the audience good reason to believe that there is little being done. This video does a good job of arguing that the idea of clean coal is not working, at least in its present state.

Ineffective Rhetoric

Prose

http://www.ecologicalhope.org/featured/the-scandal-of-coal-ash-dumps/

This article is not the best example of good use of rhetorical strategies. The author does not really give the audience any reason to listen to her, establishing her credibility only by the fact that she lives near an area where water contamination poses a health risk. However, this does not necessarily make her a trustworthy or an expert. The author also does not inspire the pathos of her audience in a good way; for most of the article it seems like she is complaining about the state of the environment, but not offering any real solutions. She clamors for the reader to be involved, but does not offer concrete reasons or emotional appeals. While she does include some logistical information to back up her argument, most of it is vague; she provides little explanation of her statement that coal ash has claimed the lives of more than 104,000 miners in the past century. This argument attempts to engage the audience, but falls short through a lack of logos and ethos.

Visual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcUzdUtD7Dw&feature=related

This piece employs almost all of the strategies of rhetoric very poorly. The author gives no indication as to why the audience should listen to or believe what she has to say, and does almost nothing to establish her ethos. In addition, the facts, or logos of her argument are relatively weak. She gets the name of the town wrong, calling it Harrison instead of Harriman, which damages the believability of her argument. Her statements are vague and sometimes unclear; she uses "like" a lot and she does not present her facts very professionally or scientifically. Other than stating the dangers of the fly ash in order to make people fear the effects of the disaster, she does not do a good job of presenting her argument in a clear, factual, and believable way. The viewer sees no reason to listen to her argument, and she basically states that other people should care about this event because she cares, without really giving them good facts or using strategies to appeal to their values.