Examples of logos, ethos, and pathos in Adams

Examples of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

in the Adams Essay

Some examples of the three rhetorical appeals in the essay by Gordon

Adams, “Petition to Waive the University Mathematics Requirement”:

Logos (Logic)

Adams effectively argues that the ASU math requirement makes little sense to his case.

He also throws back the answers from the department chair that confirm that the skills

taught in these two math classes will never be applicable to his profession.

Ethos (Credibility)

He proves that he has drive and initiative — he recalls his ability to enter and succeed

in college without having earned a high school diploma, he proudly reveals his 3.9 GPA

and academic honors, he identifies his ambition for law school, and he strives to be a

leader to his people. He doesn’t seem like some slacker just trying to get out of hard

work, so this author establishes his credibility well. He also takes the initiative to

anticipate the questions that the committee members might ask and he asks those

questions himself to the department chairs and attorneys in the field to reveal their

answers in his favor. He further proves that he can use functional math skills in the real

world when he recalls his 15-year career in construction and his successful business

operations.

Pathos (Emotion)

He applies a guilt trip on the committee — he recalls ASU’s claim that they go out of

their way to assist Native Americans, yet he questions how adhering to the math

requirement in his case promotes Native American outreach. He also makes the reader

feel proud for this man’s accomplishments, which further promotes sympathy from the

audience.

Further Critique and Discussion

Notice that Adams establishes his credibility very effectively, and this can be

demonstrated by the length of the examples above. Notice that this type of argument

would normally be made by some lazy student looking to scam the system, so Adams

knows that his request and his motivation for making it will be met initially with

skepticism by the committee. Adams knows that he must focus on every possible

question about his character and intentions, so he develops several examples to justify

his unique circumstances.

Yes, Adams also writes logically and passionately (without being snooty or rude), but

the logic and passion would not carry the argument on the committee without their

sympathy. He achieves pathos by developing a strong sense of ethos.

So, what we see here is an example of a very strong, valid argument, and its validity

stems from the strength in all three areas of influence (logos, ethos, and pathos).

Therefore, one lesson learned from this is that a good college opinion paper needs to be

strong in all three of these areas.

Had Adams been weak in any one of these, he would have created holes in his claim

that could easily make his argument’s effectiveness fall apart. However, many

arguments still retain their strength even with weak moments, but these are all

determined by the context: the audience, the situation, the immediacy of action, etc.

Here’s a question: “Is Adams’ argument flawed in any way?”

The answer is yes.

This essay is not perfect. Some punctuation and mechanical errors exist, many of his

examples redundantly repeat the same claims, and he uses the university’s lower

administration (the department chair) against the upper administration, which often

can be considered unethical.

The biggest flaw in his argument is an illogical claim that he will gladly substitute two

other classes to replace the two required math courses. The logical question then must

be asked: “So, how does the class switch get this guy graduating any sooner?” He still

has to take these two classes, so his graduation date has not been changed by this

maneuver.

However, the overall strength of the argument is evident, and therefore can survive a

bump in the road or two. Because his argument is so comprehensive, his strengths far

outpace his weaknesses.