Persuasive argument techniques and applications

¶ … Hochswender piece persuasive? Why is it persuasive and in what passages do ethos, pathos, and logos come in to play in terms of assuring that it is persuasive (or not persuasive)? This paper critiques the Hochswender essay and finds it is not persuasive; and in fact it comes off as a conservative rant against two progressive personalities who advocate for reducing dependence on foreign oil and for cars that use less fuel than gas-guzzling SUVs.

Why Hochswender's argument is more hyperbole than substance

First of all Hochswender does not establish ethos in his piece -- he fails miserably at trying to be a credible source -- because while he negatively references progressives like Arianna Huffington and Lawrence Bender in his opening paragraph, he doesn't quote anything that either of them said vis-a-vis his assertion that they have "…linked SUVs with Mideast terrorism." He uses the film "Pulp Fiction" -- a movie produced by Bender that is known for its violent scenes -- as proof somehow that Bender does not have enough credibility to be urging Americans to drive cars that get high gas mileage. Anyone familiar with Hollywood movies knows that Bender has been nominated for 19 Academy Awards, including nine nominations (and two Oscars) for "Good Will Hunting," a masterpiece that stands as one of the best films Matt Damon has made.

Further embarrassing himself -- and continuing to show he is not a believable source by illustrating his lack of ethos -- Hochswender rages that anyone that would criticize the use of gas-sucking SUVs is "trendy" and "illogical." Moreover, Hochswender dips deep into the well of hyperbole by describing America as a place known for "breathtaking freedoms." He goes about trying to prove that SUVs are "safer in many situations than cars" by embracing catchy phrases like "reasoned individualism" (i.e., SUVs are "safer" than cars and "a lot of intelligent people realize that"). Who are those "intelligent people"; how does individualism relate to this subject?

As to pathos -- a writer attempting to appeal to an audience through emotional narrative -- Hochswender again falls short. He writes "So, busybodies…how big is your house?" -- as though those who might not be in agreement with his raging, fumbling attack might own a house that uses too much fuel. Using "busybodies" as a reference to get people's attention is an insult and it stirs the wrong kind of emotion for an essayist. After that rude introduction to a new topic, Hochswender attacks Huffington's 9,000 square foot home, saying "…we all know what it costs to heat and air-condition a joint like that," and compares it to his 3,000 square foot home. Does Hochswender know whether or not Huffington's home is energy efficient? Does Huffington, a powerful advocate for renewable energy sources, use solar photovoltaic collectors? Attacking someone because of the size of her home is not only unfair; it is a cheap shot from a person who has ulterior motives. As Christ's apostle Matthew writes (7:15-20): "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sleep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves…" (Open Bible).