Paul Abramson is a psychology professor at UCLA. There he teaches classes on Human Sexuality and Sex & The Law. He has written several books on romance, sexuality, and relationships. In his 2007 article “The Right to Romance: Why Universities Shouldn’t Prohibit Relations Between Teachers and Students” he argues for student/teacher relationships. He believes it is a restriction of rights and in his article he uses several appeals to validate his argument. This article comes off as an Aristotelian argument as Abramson is emphatic on his view that universities are wrong in this matter. However it is Rogerian in some aspects as he does give some leverage to the other side and offers his rebuttals to opposing arguments. The appeals used in this article along with the way it is constructed makes it a valid argument. …show more content…
He concludes that despite how the movie has a happy and satisfying ending, it would be illegal in the real world. Due mainly to the fact that universities have strict restrictions on student and teacher relationships. This is a pathos appeal as Abramson is capturing the audience’s attention by referencing a popular film and subsequently saying how it would be a violation in the real world. This appeals to the audience’s emotion because despite the positive ending in the movie it wouldn't be possible in real live because universities prohibit it. With this opening appeal he grabs the audience’s attention and inclines them to read further into his