6b. Distinguishing between legitimate and unfair emotional appeals
There is nothing wrong with appealing to readers’ emotions. After all, many issues worth arguing about have an emotional as well as a logical dimension (see the chart at the bottom of the page). Even the Greek logician Aristotle lists pathos (emotion) as a legitimate argumentative tactic. For example, in an essay criticizing big-box stores (see 4a), writer Betsy Taylor has a good reason for tugging at readers’ emotions: Her subject is the decline of city and town life. In her conclusion, Taylor appeals to readers’ emotions by invoking their national pride.
legitimate emotional appeal
Is it anti-American to be against having a retail giant set up shop in one’s community? Some people would say so. On the other hand, if you board up Main Street, what’s left of America?
Emotional appeals, however, are frequently misused. Many of the arguments we see in the media, for instance, strive to win our sympathy rather than our intelligent agreement. A TV commercial suggesting that you will be thin and attractive if you drink a certain diet beverage is making a pitch to emotions. So is a political speech that recommends electing a candidate because he is a devoted husband and father who serves as a volunteer firefighter. (See the ad at the bottom of the page.)
The following passage illustrates several types of unfair emotional appeals.
unfair emotional appeals
This progressive proposal to build a ski resort in the state park has been carefully researched by Western Trust, the largest bank in the state; furthermore, it is favored by a majority of the local merchants. The only opposition comes from tree huggers who care more about trees than they do about people. One of their leaders was actually arrested for disturbing the peace several years ago.
Words with strong positive or negative connotations, such as progressive and tree hugger, are examples of biased language. Attacking the people who hold a belief (environmentalists) rather than refuting their argument is called ad hominem, a Latin term meaning “to the man.” Associating a prestigious name (Western Trust) with the writer’s side is called transfer. Claiming that an idea should be accepted because a large number of people (the majority of merchants) are in favor of it is called the bandwagon appeal. Bringing in irrelevant issues (the arrest) is a red herring, named after a trick used in fox hunts to mislead the dogs by dragging a smelly fish across the trail.
hackerhandbooks.com/bedhandbook
- Academic reading and writing > As you write: Identifying appeals
Evaluating ethical, logical, and emotional appeals as a reader
Ancient Greek rhetoricians distinguished among three kinds of appeals used to influence readers—ethical, logical, emotional. As you evaluate arguments, identify these appeals and question their effectiveness. Are they appropriate for the audience and the argument? Are they balanced and legitimate or lopsided and misleading?
Ethical appeals (ethos)
Ethical arguments call upon a writer’s character, knowledge, and authority. Ask questions such as the following when you evaluate the ethical appeal of an argument.
- Is the writer informed and trustworthy? How does the writer establish authority and credibility?
- Is the writer fair-minded and unbiased? How does the writer establish reasonableness and good judgment?
- Does the writer use sources knowledgeably and responsibly?
- How does the writer describe the views of others and deal with opposing views?
Logical appeals (logos)
Reasonable arguments appeal to readers’ sense of logic, rely on evidence, and use inductive and deductive reasoning. Ask questions such as the following to evaluate the logical appeal of an argument.
- Is the evidence sufficient, representative, and relevant?
- Is the reasoning sound?
- Does the argument contain any logical fallacies or unwarranted assumptions?
- Are there any missing or mistaken premises?
Emotional appeals (pathos)
Emotional arguments appeal to readers’ beliefs and values. Ask questions such as the following to evaluate the emotional appeal of an argument.
- What values or beliefs does the writer address, either directly or indirectly?
- Are the emotional appeals legitimate and fair?
- Does the writer oversimplify or dramatize an issue?
- Do the emotional arguments highlight or shift attention away from the evidence?