Ethos Pathos And Logos

As humans, we have an almost involuntary propensity to act through our emotional frame of thought rather than our frame of logic; hence, pathos over logos. This is not due to a lack of understanding, rather is it because of our ability to understand. Our ability to understand circumstance, morale, beliefs, and the types relationships we’ve forged. Since we are able to understand these things so well, our minds, almost like muscle memory, piece together the elements of our circumstance and conceive a response that feels suitable within the context of the subject matter. In terms of subject matter, I will be providing three examples that enforce the idea that pathos most often appeals over logos, all dealing with the currently-relevant and

However, in order to craft his suggested solution in this excerpt, he discreetly and tactfully places phrases of emotional appeal in conjunction with statements of fact in order to reel his audience into the clear-cut reality of the issue he is discussing. Brooks begins his article with “The pattern by now is numbingly familiar" (Brooks, 1). “Pattern” is in reference to the pattern of mass shootings, and the events that preceded and followed them in the United States over the past few decades. The word "numbingly" implies that this is a pattern that we have become desensitized to. This appeals to pathos because it deals with our [the government's] lack of proactive sympathy towards a sensitive issue which is now reflected through our submissive behavior that has allowed these acts to continue- in simpler terms, we’ve done nothing. The word “familiar” upholds a negative connotation due to its relationship with the negative topic of mass shootings, suggesting that mass shootings have become exceedingly customary which begs an ill-disposed emotional response. Brooks’ introductory statement, while short, presents an issue without having to provide facts, offering a vehicle in which he can go on to construct his argument

Brooks goes on to quote writer Tali Sharot to support his argument, which suggests that

““better facts tend to be counterproductive on hot-button issues like gun control.” As Tali Sharot notes in her book “The Influential Mind,” when you present people with evidence that goes against their deeply held beliefs, the evidence doesn’t sway them. Instead, they invent more reasons their prior position was actually correct. The smarter a person is, the greater his or her ability to rationalize and reinterpret discordant information, and the greater the polarizing boomerang effect is likely to be” (Brooks,