Vote Yes on Prop 2

http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/election_letter_ignore_propaga.html

This week, as an assignment for class, I am supposed to find a local editoral (see above) and critique the ethos, pathos, and logos of the article while including an analysis of the claim, warrant, and evidence of the article. I was pretty happy with this specific assignment, because I had just read a short, but powerful editorial about Michigan's proposal 2 (which is being voted on today).

First, let me give you some background information on what exactly ethos, pathos, and logos mean. The three words find their native roots in the Greek language, and can be translated to mean ethic, pathetic, and logic. Ethos is connected to the moral character of the writer or rhetor. A strong argument will also have strong ethos, meaning the argument is morally sound and trustworthy. Pathos is an appeal to the reader's emotion. In a strong argument, you want to have the ability to sway the emotions of whoever is receiving your argument, as this way you have a better chance of swaying them to your side of any issue, as they can connect to you. Logos is the third of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion and focuses on using logic, or scientific or mathematical proof in an argument. Generally, this type of data may be more difficult to dispute than an emotional appeal, so you also want to find logos in your arguments.

Also, a claim is generally interpreted as your argument, the warrants are the reasons for your argument, and your evidence is how you support your argument.

Now, on to proposal 2. The proposal involves the treatment of stem cells and research pertaining to stem cells---for more information follow this link here:

http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/

The editorial I am focusing on urges its readers to "Ignore Propaganda" because Proposal 2 "saves lives." Now, right off the bat, it is clear that the claim is to vote yes on proposal two and that the warrant for this action is because it saves lives. This title also involves pathos, as it is plays to the emotions of the reader. Would you want to vote against saving a life?

The first half of the editorial brings the late-Christopher Reeve into the discussion. I think this is the writer's attempt to involved ethos and pathos, as saying Reeve would support Prop 2 gives him not only a moral backing but also an aura of reliability as Reeve was both a likable and trustworthy man. It also plays to the reader's emotions, as does one really want to oppose Reeve? He was a hero to many Americans and was certainly one that Americans would not want to double-cross.

The second half of the editorial refutes many of the claims made by those that oppose Prop 2 saying: "Proposal 2 doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research, it doesn't increase taxes and it continues Michigan's prohibition on cloning." He then finishes with a last emotional appeal, saying that Prop 2 can save lives, meaning that if you vote no you are against saving lives. The main problem I have with this part of the editorial is the writer's lack of evidence. How do I know it doesn't increase taxes? How do I know it doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research? I need to see some logos or clear evidence to sway me here. While the writer is strong on pathos, he is definitely lacking in both ethos, and logos/evidence.

I enjoyed the editorial, but if it was written as an assignment for English 225 with Ms. Griffiths, I would have given it around a 75. Sorry Daniel A. Heumann.