The Rhetoric of the Op-Ed Page: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

1. The Rhetoric of the Op-Ed Page:Ethos, Logos, and Pathos • In this mini-unit you will learn how to use Aristotle’s concepts of ethos, logos, and pathos to analyze editorials and opinion pieces. You will read an opinion piece, and learn how to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing your own opinion using the methods of persuasion and rhetorical devices.

2. Journal Persuasion • Think of a time you tried to persuade a parent, a teacher, or a friend. What were you trying to persuade them to do or think? What arguments did you use to persuade them? Were you successful? Why or why not?

3. Persuasion in action • In a small group, discuss the strategies you and your friends use when they are trying to borrow a car, go to a concert, buy new clothes, or achieve some other goal. • Pick one situation and write a short skit about it showing your persuasive strategies in action. Each skit should demonstrate logical, emotional, and ethical persuasion. Rehearse and perform your skit for the class. • 10 Participation points

4. Discussion Questions • Do people use Aristotle’s concepts of ethos, logos, and pathos everyday without thinking about it? • What areas of society are these methods of persuasion used most widely? • Are there other means of persuasion not discussed by Aristotle?

5. Surveying the Text • Where and when was this article published? • Who wrote the article? Do you know anything about this writer? Where do you look to find out something about the writer? • What is the subtitle of the article and what does that tell you about what the article might say? • In what section of the paper was this article published and what does that tell you about the article?

6. Making Predictions • What does it mean tot have “a change of heart”? • What are some common ideas/feelings about animals? • What might cause someone to change his/her ideas/feelings about animals? • What are some groups of people who have strong feelings about animals? What do you know about them? • What is a vegetarian or vegan? For what reasons does a person choose to be either?

7. The first paragraph mentions breakthroughs in biotechnology and nanotechnology. Do you think this article is about those things? Explain. • Who do you think the intended audience is for this article? • What do you think is the author’s purpose? • Will the article be negative or positive in relation to the topic? Explain. • What argument about the topic might the article present? Explain. • Turn the title into a question to answer after you have read the text.

8. Vocabulary Preview • humane and inhumane • cognitive • genetically wired • empathy

9. First Reading • Read Jeremy Rifkin’s “A Change of heart about Animals.” For the first time through, read to understand the text; read as if you trust Rifkin and focus on what he is trying to say. Were the predictions you made about the text true? Is the article about what you thought it would be about? Does Rifkin say what you thought he would say? • After you are finished reading answer the questions given to you.

10. Second Reading • Your second reading should be to question the text, reading against the grain and playing the disbelieving or doubting game. Look for claims and assertions made by Rifkin: Does he back them up? Do you agree with them? • As you read, highlight the thesis and major claims in one color; highlight the evidence in another color; write comments or questions in the margins

11. After reading the article again, answer the following questions: • What is the thesis of this article? • Are there any claims made by Rifkin that you disagree with? What are they? • Are there any claims that lack support?

12. Analyzing Stylistic Choices • How would you describe the style of this article? Is it formal? Informal? Academic? Scientific? Conversational? • What is the effect of giving the names of most of the animals involved in the experiments, but not the names of the scientists? • Throughout most the article Rifkin refers to “researchers,” and “scientists,” but in para. 3 he directly quotes Stephen M. Siviy, “a behavioral scientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania.” What is the effect of this sudden specificity? • What is the effect of all the rhetorical questions in para. 25, followed by “Such questions are being raised” in the next?

13. Considering the Structure of the Text • Draw a line where the introduction ends. Is it after the first paragraph, or are there more introductory paragraphs? • Divide the body of the essay into sections based on topics. • Draw a line where the conclusion begins. Is it the last paragraph, or does it begin before that?

14. Descriptive Outlining • For each paragraph or section, write brief statements in the margin that describe the rhetorical function of that paragraph or section • What does each section say? • What does each section do for the reader? • After you have done this, using your marginal notes, write a concise summary of the Rifkin article

15. In his article “A Change of Heart About Animals,”Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals are more like humans than we think. He first discusses how scientists are discovering that animals can feel emotions. Recently, for example, there has been funding for research provided by fast food companies that shows how pigs crave attention. He also claims that animals possess cognitive abilities and self-awareness, mourn their dead, have the same body chemistry as we do, and find pleasure from playing. Stephen M. Siviy argues that if you believe in evolution, you believe that animals have emotions. Animals use learned behaviors, not just their instinct. What do all of these results mean? Should we reevaluate animal treatment? The law is intervening on behalf of animal rights, which raises the question: should animals have the same rights as humans? The author argues that the next step in the evolution of human empathy is extending rights to animals.

16. Post-Descriptive Outlining Questions • Which section is most developed? • Which section is least developed? Does it need more development? • Which section is most persuasive? Least?

17. Ethos, Logos, Pathos At this point, ethos, logos and pathos come back into play. From the analysis you have done so far, you should be well-prepared to analyze the logic and support of the arguments, the character and intentions of the author, and the emotional effects of the language and the details on the reader.

18. Discussion Questions • Bob Stevens disagrees with Jeremy Rifkin, and makes several points. Does Stevens refute Rifkin’s arguments? • In his first paragraph, Stevens argues that because a predator like a hawk does not feel empathy for its prey, humans should not need to feel empathy for the animals they eat, and that such feelings would be unnatural. Do you agree? • Stevens notes that some animals can mimic human speech, but argues that they do not understand what they are saying. What would Rifkin say to this?

19. Stevens implies that it would be a waste of resources to give toys to pigs, especially when some human children don’t have them. Do we respond logically or emotionally to this argument? Is this argument fair to Rifkin? • Is it true, as Stevens argues, that Rifkin wants animals to have more rights than humans? • Lois Frazier say that pet owners know that animals have feelings and abilities not too different from humans. Do some pet owners treat their pets like people? Is this a good thing? • Frazier argues that Rifkin needs to take his argument farther and promote a vegetarian lifestyle with no animal products. Is this a reasonable conclusion to draw from Rifkin’s arguments? Do you agree with her?

20. Does the letter start “Dear Editor”? Is the letter written to the editor in response to Jeremy Rifkin’s article? • Has the person signed the letter as him/herself? • Is there one direct quote and one paraphrase that are both cited? E.g. (Rifkin 1) • Has the person responded to the assignment? • Is the purpose clear? • What should be kept? What is most effective? • What can be cut? Are there irrelevant details? • What should be added? Where are more details, examples, evidence needed? What should be changed? Are there any parts that are confusing or contradictory? • Is the person’s position clear? • How is the tone?