About Rhetoric: Logos (February 4)
Read Jay Heinrichs, Chapters 13-14.
Describe a moment when you saw "logos" in action. You could describe a moment you deployed logos in attempting to communicate with someone else or a moment you felt it being used on you. You can describe the way you saw it working in a televised speech, a written essay, or a dialogue in a television show, movie, or drama. You can use political examples, as a politician tries to win your vote, or you can talk about the moment you tried to convince your teacher that you deserved a better grade. Big stakes or small, personal or public, choose an example that really lets you explain what logos is and how it works.
To complete this, you will need to summarize the communication interaction you are talking about. (50 words)
You will need to define the tools of logos you saw at work. Support your definition using quotations from both of the two chapters of the book that discuss ethos. When quoting, include page numbers and include a bibliographic reference at the end of your answer (just to practice bibliography). (100 words)
Then, explain how you saw logos "working" -- what did the speaker/writer do to generate logos, and did you find it effective in achieving their rhetorical purpose?
This semester, I’ve been rewatching The Office Superfan Episodes in my free time. After reading the chapters on logic, I now realize that Dwight both relies heavily on logos and repeatedly commits several logical fallacies. In Season 5 Episode 7, “Customer Survey,” Dwight spends the entire day trying to prove Kelly planted fake negative customer reviews of the salesmen. When Kelly reveals she was guilty – she sabotaged the sales team to exercise her revenge after they didn’t attend a party she threw – Jim muses, “So, as it turns out, Dwight was right. I wonder what else he’s been right about…” A slew of ‘Dwight fact’ clips ensue, including, “According to my sources, Scranton mayor, Chris Doherty, checked out Patio Gardening over nine weeks ago from the Scranton Public Library. No fees. No fines. No nothing. Guess who appointed the head librarian?”
ReplyDeleteJay Heinrichs describes inductive logic as “argument by example. This type of logic starts with the specific and moves to the general … inductive logic uses the circumstances to form a belief” (Heinrichs 133). Dwight uses almost purely inductive logic. In his library claim, he states his knowledge that the Scranton mayor is in possession of an overdue book, and he isn’t facing any consequences. He then alludes to a case of nepotism – the mayor isn’t receiving overdue fines because he appointed the head librarian. And, knowing Dwight’s character, we can probably also infer that Dwight thinks he would be a better mayor.
However, this claim includes a logical deadly sin – false comparison. More specifically, the fallacy of antecedent. “The fallacy of antecedent makes a false comparison in time: this moment is identical to past moments. I’ve never had an accident, so I can’t have one now” (Heinrichs 153). In Dwight’s mind, because he suspected Kelly of mutiny and was correct, he must also be correct about the mayor’s nepotism (and consequential inadequacy). This is a fallacy because every situation is unique, and the results of one issue do not dictate the results of another.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I love the depth and engagement of this answer. And I love the Office, so a double win.
DeleteI am currently sitting at Bent Paddle Brewing Company because of my husband's use of logos. When I got back from class, he was waiting for me with a question: "Do you want to go to Bent Paddle to see a band tonight with Matt?" I replied that I didn't think I should, I have some schoolwork to catch up on. It was then that the logos was employed.
ReplyDeleteHe began with Heinrichs' "appeal to popularity", which "legitimizes your choice by claiming that others have chosen it" (Heinrichs 141). He stated that our friend Matt is very cool, and don't I want to be cool like Matt? This implied that I could be just as cool as Matt if I were to agree to come with, which is a false comparison because I am not Matt and therefore do not have the capacity to be cool in the way that he is. When I explained this to my husband, he truly used logos to its full abilities.
In fact, this portion could be quoted directly from Heinrichs' book, where he suggests using the logical argument style on page 132 on your significant other before a night out. My husband used rhetorical deduction and enthymeme, described by Heinrichs as "premise, therefore conclusion. You believe this, so you should do that" (130). First, he told me that I was the one who suggested we see more live music, which is true. "Therefore," he claimed, "we should go to see this band." When he added that entry was free, of course I couldn't refuse.
Little does he know that next time I'm in the position of the persuader, I'll truly put this use of logos to the test. Updates to come.
I am loving the soap opera element of this post.
DeleteHeinrichs has written other books that are more relevant to relationships and personal growth, if you are interested.
I teach ballet at a local studio in Duluth, and I have to use logos all the time in order to achieve certain goals with my students. Ballet is a complicated form of art, and each step or move requires understanding the why behind the execution. I use logos to explain the mechanics and structure of each move, otherwise the students have trouble understanding why a certain movement will help or hinder their performance.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I often have to explain how to correctly execute a step called a releve, which literally means “to rise” (it’s the step where you raise onto your toes and balance). Dancers, especially at a basic level, shift their weight onto their pinky toes, which results in an incredibly unstable position. Frequently, I use deductive reasoning to convince them to shift the execution of the step. On page 127 of Thank You For Arguing, Jay Heinrichs states, “Deductive logic starts with a general premise and works toward the specific, applying a fact or commonplace (all politicians are alike) to a situation (the election). The premise is the proof. The choice you want your audience to make is the conclusion. Every logical argument has a proof and a conclusion”. I create a general premise my students likely already know: a dancer wants to be as strong and stable as they can be to be successful. The fact: distributing your weight on the middle two toes will strengthen your position. I hope that with that fact and many more, the dancers will choose to make the conclusion that they should shift their execution of the step in order to improve as dancers.
In a similar fashion, much of teaching ballet comes with “if-then” statements. For example, “If you hold your core muscles and spot (sorry about specific dance terms) while doing a pirouette, then you will successfully execute the step.” Heinrichs states, “Rhetorical deduction goes like this: premise, therefore conclusion. You believe this, so you should do that.” (Heinrichs, pg. 130). Deductive reasoning plays a huge role in teaching ballet, allowing the students to hear logic and reasoning and decide to make a choice or come to a conclusion supposedly on their own, listening to what I have to say and going from there.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I am thrilled to see this, and I wonder -- I tend to use a lot of pathos, I think, as a teacher -- I wonder if I should take a lesson from you about logos.
DeleteJust yesterday I had probably the dumbest argument I’ve had with my friend in a while. I honestly don’t even remember how this topic came up, but here it is:
ReplyDeleteMy Friend: Ice is actually a mineral
Me: What? No it isn’t. That is the dumbest bleep I’ve ever heard.
My Friend: Well, geologically speaking, ice is a solid inorganic substance of natural occurrence so it is actually a mineral.
Me: Nah, that’s stupid. Ice is water, it’s not a mineral.
My Friend: Ice was water. Is ice in a solid state?
Me: Yeah.
My Friend: Is ice naturally occurring?
Me: Yeah well I guess…
My Friend: So in fact ice is a mineral, isn’t it.
Me: “brief pause,” Nah you're wrong, that’s dumb.
Evidently I did not win the argument, but I of course would never tell him that. Regardless, my friend used a couple key elements of logos during his persuasion.
First off, my friend immediately identifies one of my points as a false comparison. Heinrichs states that a false comparison insinuates that “two things are similar, so they must be the same” (Heinrichs, 153). When I said ice isn’t a mineral because ice is water it obviously made no sense. My friend therefore corrected the statement by saying “ice was water,” disproving my false comparison.
Additionally, my friend used a couple good examples of deductive logic during the argument. Heinrichs states that deductive logic “starts with a premise—a fact or commonplace—and applies it to a specific case to reach a conclusion” (Heinrichs, 125). After defining what a mineral was, my friend related ice to that definition by saying that it is both naturally occurring and solid substance. If a mineral is of natural occurrence and in a solid state, and ice is a natural substance in a solid state, then ice must be a mineral.
College roommates are where dumb arguments incubate, flourish, and then vanish in a pot of ramen. I love this story.
DeleteMy boyfriend and I have frequent arguments over whether or not a sequel can be better than the original movie in a film. I believe that they can, while he believes that because a sequel is building upon the original IP and ideas of the first film, it cannot be claimed to be better because it is not entirely original. The question always hits a philosophical wall of failing to define quality, but I find logos used in the way he argues his position.
ReplyDeleteHe uses the deductive logic of, "Originality creates quality, and therefore sequels, which lack the originality of worldbuilding and narrative of the first film, cannot have the same quality."
On deductive logic, Heinreichs claims, "Deductive logic starts with a general premise and works toward the specific, applying a fact or commonplace (all politicians are alike) to a situation (the election)." (Heinreichs, 127) In this case, the commonplace is that originality is necessary for a film to be good, and if sequels lack originality, then therefore the sequels are not good, or not as good as the original.
However, because I wholly disagree, I believe this to be bad logic, and an example of wrong ending, which is that "The proof fails to lead to the conclusion" (Heinreichs, 154) Because I believe that originality has little to do with quality, to me it logically stands that a work with less originality than the first installment will not be influenced qualitywise, and therefore the argument is not pursuasive to me.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I love this, especially because I am so tired of people who pretend that logic gets you only one possible answer.
DeleteI recently watched the movie 12 Angry Men with my boyfriend and saw clear use of logos. In the jury room, Juror #8 calmly questions the evidence against the accused boy. Rather than appealing to sympathy or authority, he reconstructs timelines, analyzes witness testimony, and demonstrates how the knife could have been purchased elsewhere. By carefully pointing out inconsistencies, he introduces reasonable doubt. His step by step reasoning slowly persuades the other jurors to reconsider what initially seemed like an open and shut case.
ReplyDeleteIn Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs explains that logos is argument by logic and proof. He writes that logic depends on “clear definitions and careful distinctions” (Heinrichs 171), showing that persuasion requires precise reasoning. He also explains that a logical argument often uses deduction or induction, moving from premise to conclusion in a way the audience can follow (Heinrichs 177). Heinrichs further notes that effective logos anticipates counterarguments and refutes them before opponents can (Heinrichs 182). Together, definition, structured reasoning, and refutation form the foundation of logical persuasion.
Logos works in this scene because Juror #8 does not claim the boy is innocent, he argues that the evidence does not logically prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He reenacts the old man’s walk to test the timeline and questions the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Each point builds logically on the previous one, weakening certainty step by step. His calm presentation allows the reasoning to stand on its own. I found his use of logos highly effective because it shifts the jurors decision from emotional certainty to analytical doubt, ultimately changing the verdict.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 2013.
So cool. Were you watching the really old one, the black and white movie?
DeleteOne part of Logo that I feel is often not regarded is it's use in the justice system, specifically in detective work. This shows up in a Unique way in my favorite TV show The Wire. In the 4th season, there is a plot that focuses on Marlow, a up and coming drug kingpin and his use of killings to eliminate his competition and to incite fear in the community. Marlow's accomplices would take those who threatened his status to abandoned row houses in an almost abandoned Baltimore neighborhood and kill them within the houses. They would then used a nail gun to board up the abandoned house to make it look foreclosed, while also pouring lye on the body to start decomposition early and to mask the smell.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main detective characters, Lester Freamon, starts to pick up on these clues for these missing individuals. He eventually finds a body, and using his use of logo's he determines that any rowhouse using modern nails instead of the standard used 15 years ago would contain dead bodies. It is important he added the distinction between the nails, otherwise he would fall into the trap Heinrichs warns us about. “two things are similar, so they must be the same” (Heinrichs, 153) is the trap that people often fall into when they don't make a clear distinction in their argument. This is one that in the show, The Baltimore police force hopes for. Logically and ethically you would expect finding those bodies would be a good thing, but as we learn throughout the show, the incredibly underfunded and understaffed BPD does not want any more unsolved murders. The Lieutenant Jay Landsman is furious about this discovery as it means his department is stuck with more bodies than leads, so he try's to stop the look for these bodies by stating that Lester's theory is full of logical holes. They eventually find 28 bodies in the row houses, and all because Lester made that clear distinction.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 2013.
" A new day", The Wire. David Simon, Ed Burns, Season 4 HBO
I love this. My sweetheart loves police procedurals for exactly this reason.
Delete