"Logos", "Ethos", and "Pathos"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12wed3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

“Not only do America’s businesses need better-educated workers, the country needs better-educated citizens as well.”

This article talks about how many people in the United States do not have proper education and this affects their jobs and the companies or people they work for. This is a “Logos” argument because it talks about how people use the mind to go on with their lives. Whatever you work for is mostly influenced by the knowledge on that subject. For your job to be successful you have to have a big part of your intelligence focused on that kind of actions and works.

My opinion towards this article is that this is not a problem that occurs just in the United States, it is actually a problem that imposes obstacles through out the whole world. Illiteracy is a problem that is not very easy to fix and the need for more education is also a strong demand in every country. Just as said in the article, successful men usually come from good students (once more “Logos”) since they have begun to adapt that way of thinking and processing information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12wed4.html

"But to say whether Alex loved the human who taught him, we’d have to know if he had a separate conceptual grasp of what love is, which is different from understanding the context in which the word occurs."

This story talks about a parrot that could have learned how to “think”. This passage shows two kinds of rhetoric argument because it has both “Logos” and “Pathos”. It shows “Logos” when it discusses the fact that animals might have the possibility to actually understand what humans speak and actually get the message being expressed. It also questions if humans could actually learn a lot from animals and their behavior and if we could actually learn as Alex, the parrot did with humans. The article shows “Pathos” when the man shows the affection the parrot had toward him and how he probably had the same loving feeling towards the parrot. This could affect the argument of the writer because he has affection towards the bird and a part of him wants to believe that the bird IS able to understand what he says, or at least a small part. It could also be that the parrot does understand the context of the word but not the actual feeling, but as said before, the owner of the parrot has had him for 31 years and he wishes, even if it is unconsciously, for the parrot to understand and share what he is saying.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html?8qa

"A numbed country with red-rimmed eyes came to understand the ugly menace of terrorism."

This article is about the event of 2001´s 9/11 when the world trade center was burnt down by a plane crash an how there was a later attack on the pentagon. It reminds people of how it was that the United States finally became aware of what problem terrorism is.
This is a “pathos” way of rhetoric writing since it is showing sympathy towards what occurred on 9/11 through a personification by saying that the US realized the horror of terrorism with red eyes from crying and showing sympathy for those who died and their relatives. It is making a stronger argument by saying that the whole country of the US suffered for the actions of a few terrorist groups. It shows how people are affected by each others actions and how our emotions may be mixed and messed up by facing problems, as the one that occurred six years ago, constantly. It show how the heart of the United States is now beating with pain as its feelings have been hurt as way too many of its innocent citizens have died and nothing can be done to change the events. This is why the US then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, because the “Pathos” rhetoric of the United States won over their “Logos” and “Ethos” point of views and the feelings and emotions lead to revenge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/business/13toys.html?ref=business

"But senators at the hearing said the safety measures promised by Mr. Eckert and others in the toy industry were inadequate."

In this case “Ethos” is actually what acts against the credibility of Mr. Eckert. The others senators know Mr. Eckert and know that he is not to trust because in the past when he had seemed trustworthy, he hadn’t kept his word and then this opposite of “Ethos” is actually what is making Mr. Eckert loose his argument and making the other team win since he hasn’t proven his “Ethos” side a strong and convincing one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/fashion/shows/09INTRO.html?ref=style

“Designers are, of necessity, the public face of the business, the big wizardly auras blowing puffs of important fashion. Stylists are the handsomely paid but largely unheralded behind-the-curtain personnel.”

This article talks about how the stylist do much of the designers work but only the designer gets the credit for it. This could be considered the “Ethos” rhetoric form of writing since the designers are getting a trustworthy image of being able to design everything and control all that revolves around them when what actually occurs is that they have a very important person, a stylist, which helps and gives assistance. The image given to the designers is unfair since they don’t completely deserve it and should accept the fact that they get help from the Stylists. This way the Stylists could also be known worldwide for their works as the designers, and receive the recognition they deserve.