Leonid Fridman Ethos Pathos Logos

Year after year, America has been singled out for its deteriorating educational system. Fridman suggests in his passage that this is due to the attitude of anti-intellectualism plaguing American society. Fridman decides to use ethos and logos as his rhetorical strategies in his essay. Ethos convinces someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. Logos appeals to an audience by using logic and reason. In his passage, Leonid Fridman utilizes logos and ethos in order to urge his audience to value intellectual curiosity.

Fridman uses several sources of ethos in his argumentative essay to get his point across to the audience. He makes numerous references to “we” as Americans and “our” country. For example, Fridman states “for America’s

For instance, he claims, “according to the Webster's New World Dictionary,” a geek “is a street performer who shocks the public by biting off heads off live chickens” (lines 5-8). Clearly, Fridman chooses to begin his argument with a shocking fact in order to establish an indisputable basis for his argument. Moreover, he maintains that students “ostracized for their intelligence” “are deprived of a chance to learn adequate social skills and acquire good communication tools” (line 23-27). Here, Fridman explains through a cause and effect relationship that students who pursue knowledge are excluded and therefore put at a disadvantage in personal interaction. By demonstrating his point in a cause-and-effect relationship, Fridman appeals to the reasoning skills of his reader. Furthermore, Fridman maintains “in many parts of the world, university professorships are the most prestigious and materially rewarding positions,” while “ in America… professional ballplayers are much more respected and better paid than faculty members of the best universities” (lines 41-46). In this case, Fridman uses a comparison to demonstrate the stark difference in the valuation of educational positions. By comparing the information that he represents as fact, he demonstrates that Americans severely undervalue their intellectual leaders. Fridman incorporates factual