Grown More Mindful of How

¶ … grown more mindful of how I construct arguments. Before I took this class, when I was writing a persuasive research paper, I would tend to throw information onto the page, hoping that one of my ideas or facts would resonate with the reader, but without thought to how I structured my arguments. I also would not think very much about the difference between using logic and emotion to persuade people. This class had taught me that it is not only important what I say, but how I say it. I have learned the importance of writing out an outline, even an informal one, to ensure that my arguments are clear, logically constructed, and varied. One student learning outcome for the course is: "students will use writing to embrace complexity and think about open-ended questions." It is impossible to discuss a complex issue where there are two sides to the 'story' without presenting an organized argument. Arguments must also be multi-dimensional when discussing complex issues.

The most helpful strategy provided by this course in terms of creating a persuasive argument was encouraging me to think about Aristotle's classifications of rhetorical devices according to logos, ethos, and pathos. Good arguments are logically coherent; however, most people are not persuaded by logic alone. They need to feel that the argument resonates with some higher moral principle to be motivated to act. The argument also needs to be emotionally compelling and well-written (or spoken). This can be seen in my English 102 essay analyzing the rhetoric of the "Set Turkish Journalists Free" movement (Drin 1). The essay discusses the use of ethos, appealing to the principles of freedom and democracy that the reader presumably supports as well as draws upon the pathos of the journalists' plight.

The essay on the Turkish journalists shows how personalizing a difficult situation is a very important component of using 'pathos' when discussing a tragedy. For example, one of the journalists was imprisoned for two years, and never got to witness the birth of his young daughter. However, there is also 'logos' used in the campaign when it is pointed out that the detained journalists have never been formally indicted for any crime, indicating a likely lack of evidence on the government's part that they have committed a real offense. Using these different persuasive strategies in combination makes for an effective campaign -- and also an effective essay. By analyzing and breaking down the rhetoric used by the defenders of the Turkish activists, I was able to sharpen my own persuasive abilities and realize the need not to over-rely upon one type of rhetorical strategy.

However, the plight of the Turkish journalists also highlights the limits of pathos and ethos in terms of motivating real, concrete actions in the world. Because of the interests of many countries in retaining the ruling Turkish government as an ally in the war against terror, many of them turned a blind eye or did not leverage political pressure against the Turkish government and thus the situation remained unchanged. No matter how strong arguments may be in terms of their 'ethos' or 'pathos,' there must be some rational basis to an argument, particularly when it involves changes in political policy.

A second essay analyzing a campaign that I composed was one addressed to Christa Melfi on the subject of anti-drug and alcohol advertising (Drin 1). Once again, this illustrates the limits of using pathos and ethos alone, and the need for more logos or logical, informed, organized argumentation. 'Scare' techniques seldom work in persuading people to not try or to stop using drugs, despite the fact an alarmist approach is used in so many public service announcements directed at teens.

When responding to Melfi's campaign, I drew upon my own, personal experience living in Turkey where alcohol was neither demonized nor celebrated, as it is in the U.S. Alcoholism rates tend to be much lower in Turkey. There simply is not a culture of people drinking until they lose consciousness, as is often the case in the United States, where legal controls are much more stringent but there is a much more serious problem of alcoholism, particularly binge drinking amongst young people.

However, if I was rewriting my letter to Melfi, I would have used more research and included some specific citations, to substantiate my analysis. Drawing upon personal reflection is useful in appealing to the reader's sense of ethos or pathos, but logos is also necessary to be persuasive. I would have used statistics regarding the alcoholism rate amongst young people in the United States, for example, versus other countries. Although I criticized Melfi for not using sufficient logos in her essay, I think this is also true of my response.

Fortunately, I believe I have drastically improved in my ability to find credible and substantive analysis to support my argumentation. In my first draft on drug and alcohol policy at Drexel, I once again relied primarily upon my own personal impressions and gut instincts, rather than drawing upon research on the issue. I believe that I made a good point regarding the fact that alcohol abuse can be just as serious as drug abuse, and simply because our society does not take alcohol abuse as seriously does not mean that it cannot have the same biological and social effects as drug abuse (Drin 2). But much of my analysis was very emotional, because of my strong feelings about the abuse of drugs and alcohol in society.

More evidence regarding the specific, quantifiable medical and legal costs of alcohol addiction, along with some compelling anecdotes, would have enabled me to make my case more persuasively. I did point out that underage alcohol abuse is illegal and some of the physical consequences of addiction, but it would have been more persuasive if I could have cited actual facts and figures. I could have presented statistical evidence (logos) and followed them with specific examples (ethos and pathos).