To Logan

Dear Logan,

I feel you have a good start to your essay, however, I feel that you left out talking about Romney's use of pathos, a very important part of his rhetoric in my opinion. I feel that if you plan on focusing on kairos as a main element, you may have a tough time writing a paper on it. I think the kairos definitely helped, but I wouldn't call it a main element in his rhetoric. I think if you are able to talk about pathos and ethos together you can make a great paper. I would try and find some articles that oppose your view point and argue against it to further strengthen your argument. Overall I feel you have a strong focus on Romney's speech, but you may need to adjust it to address the stronger points of his rhetorical elements.

Sincerely,
Bryan

Blog 3-- Response to Ryan Kiefer

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for your kind words and useful criticisms with regard to my proposal. You were quite correct in that my thesis lacked definition, and if nothing else, our dialogue and these posts are helping me achieve clarity in my writing. This letter will aspire to be as valuable as yours and hopefully be successful in that endeavor.

First of all, I learned a new word today: syllogism. It’s a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two or more propositions e.g. lions are cats and cats are mammals, therefore one concludes lions are mammals. Syllogistic arguments are handy but not compelling because the propositions are not linked. My example is a demonstration of a valid argument, but if there is nothing more to infer about lions, who really gives a crap?

Your thesis is “Romney’s use of rhetorical techniques is…sound and valid, however there are a few fallacies in both ethos and pathos that nevertheless add to the effectiveness of the speech,” and you have laid out an efficient way to prove this. Your argument follows that Romney uses ethos, Romney uses pathos, Romney’s logos is not always correct, but this does not detract from the argument; and finally Romney’s use of kairos is strong. These premises support your conclusion; however, they are not linked together logically, and therefore your argument becomes syllogistic. The best way to combat this—I feel—would be to expand your thesis.

While I do realize the assignment revolves around analysis, your paper should not be limited to Romney’s speech is effective. It should be that Romney’s speech effectively communicates a certain idea or effectively draws us to a certain conclusion. Thus, your road map would not come across as a collection of disparate ideas but a display of interwoven harmonies. Furthermore this would make your paper more interesting.

I hope this helps and best of luck.

Sincerely,

Conner Wareing

Blog 3 - Dear Bryan

Dear Bryan,

While you had done a great job making sure to touch on all forms of rhetoric, I believe that ethos should have been more heavily focused on in your topic proposal.  Obama had done a great job trying to rally Americans, while still expressing his plans if elected, but I think that he had not done a very good job of trying to reestablish his credibility as our president.  Over the last four years, many people have been unhappy with his accomplishments as president.  In my opinion, he would have been in a better position if he tried to revive the faith Americans had in him, rather than just trying to deliver an energetic speech concerning what he would do with a second term.  Although this is all just my opinion, I believe that ethos should also be elaborated on in your essay as a possible weak point of Obama’s speech.

Respectfully,

Logan Haman

Blog 3 Ryan Kiefer. Letter to Conner about topic proposal

Dear Conner,

      First, allow me say it was a pleasure reading your topic proposal. I too plan to write about Mitt Romney's speech, as I'm sure you know by now. Anyway, as I was looking over your proposal, I thought about some aspects that might be beneficial for you to adjust in order to write a more refined paper. 

At first, your paper made no sense to me at all, but after rereading it and discussing it with you, my comprehension grew and I understood. Perhaps to facilitate the conception of your topic you should create a strong thesis that clearly states your intentions for the paper. As I understood and we discussed, your thesis would be something like this: While Obama had complaints from one source, Romney successfully addressed allegations coming from many areas by his use of Kairyos and Pathos. Preceding this statement with coherent and systematic ideas and observations about both speeches would aid to the understanding of the topic as well as provide necessary background information of the speeches and perhaps increase your authority and improve ethos. 

Your audience is a good one for your thesis, but I would like to put forward the idea that you could expand your audience from opponents of Mitt Romney to both Supporters of Mitt Romney and people on the fence about him as president. As you are targeting people who are against Romney and are trying to show them that he is not what he appears from various complaints, it would not be too difficult to incorporate people who are not opponents because they would be easier to sway to your view. For supporters, your evidence could be used to reinforce their notions that Romney would be a great president. So, if you would like to try that, it would open up your audience and increase the amount of people you could have the potential to affect. 

You said you were planning on using pathos and kairos primarily, but you may want to add logos, citing the fact that he directly addressed some of the issues that he was facing (his stance on women) in his speech. It might give your essay extra depth.

I feel overall you have a good handle on this assignment and you should do well.

Sincerely, Ryan

PS, I was confused about the length, when a blog entry should be at least 300, but the paper said 150-200. I went with the blog requirements to be safe. If I was wrong, please disregard the third paragraph when determining word count. Thank you.

Blog 2- Opinion Piece: Romney and Logos

While in elementary school, I went to a weekly Bible study. There were lots of parables and Christian boys, and each week we would memorize some verses and get candy when we said them correctly. I would usually memorize my verse in the car ride there and forget it by the end of the evening. The group was called LOGOS, Love Of God Our Savior. I went there more for the dodge ball and the monthly pizza nights.

Logos in the Aristotelian sense refers to one's rhetorical conclusion and the premises that support it.  Mitt Romney's Republican National Convention acceptance speech did not emphasize this part of the rhetorical triangle. Facts were often replaced by sweeping generalizations--descriptions of the expectations and actions of "everyone", "people", and "Americans"--and the majority of the speech was about being relatable, epitomized by the iPod comment early on.  Mitt Romney was like you. He grew up in Michigan. He fell in love. He raised a family, and he learned from his parents, whose pivotal tale of loss is probably the most compelling part of the speech. There was a surplus of dodge ball and pizza, but other than the obvious, what are we the casual viewer supposed to take away?

One point I found fascinating pertains to Romney's comparison of Obama to Jimmy Carter. Every president since the Great Depression can say "'you are better off today than you were four years ago.'" except these two men. While it is dangerous to bring up Jimmy Carter in an ill light, he is widely regarded as a humanitarian, those who remember his presidency would respond to this association. With this in mind, Romney's largely factual accusations against Obama have some additional sting.  Romney says of Obama's term," Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled," all things that were also true during Jimmy Carter's. No doubt Baby Boomers and members of Generation X can still recall having to wait in line at the gas station.

Romney's pathos when coupled with these recollections point to a man of wisdom from a bygone age. He is not going to reinvent the wheel. There was a simpler time when that wheel was perfect--it was made in America by Chevrolet. There was a time when families were our greatest asset. Romney's parents were married for 64 years. Where did those nuclear families go? Romney is a man who was shaped by these values. He thinks he can bring them back. 

Blog 2: Bryan - Opinion

I believe Obama's DNC speech was a well written and persuasive speech and delivered exactly what wanted it to. I think the strongest rhetoric is his use of logos throughout. Obama is constantly discussing facts about his presidency and policies for the next four years and does not dwell too much on trying to improve his character since he already had to when he ran for office in 2008. I feel that because Romney is a relatively new person in the spotlight he had to use more story telling and pathos based claims to build his character which has already come under fire and could not focus about his plan for America while Obama made his points very clear. I feel that because Obama was able to focus on his ideas, this gives the American people a better look about not who he is, but what he wants to do for America and how he plans on doing it. I also liked how Obama admitted to some shortcomings while in office, be they his fault or not, and was able to move the conversation from the past and into the future of the U.S. I don't feel Romney focused a lot about what his party will do probably due to the fact that it is unpopular among the middle class, but was able to attack Obama about the state of the country since taking office many times. I personally believe a lot of things like the economy was not Obama's fault since by the time he was elected, the economy was doomed to crash. Obama did have his attacks on the republicans too, but they were more criticisms of their economic policy especially in times of a weak economy. I feel these attacks helped Obama's argument while Romney's did not add much to his argument why he is the better candidate, but rather why the other guy is the worse. From the point of view from a person who just wants the best candidate regardless of party, I believe Obama had the stronger argument because he focused more on the logic of his case and the accomplishments he made in office and less about his character as a down-to-earth ordinary folk which we know is something neither of these candidates are.

Blog 2 - The Power of Ethos

While both candidates used entirely different techniques of addressing their respective parties, Romney was more heavily focused on the ethos portion of his speech.  In my opinion, this was an incredibly intelligent move by the republican nominee.  Unlike Obama, who has been in the political spotlight for the last four years, Romney was a brand new presidential candidate.  A large portion of Americans, unfortunately, vote from their personal feelings towards the candidates, rather than about their views on the issues.  By allowing America to get a view into his personal life, Romney is greatly appealing to the voters that are still undecided in this upcoming election.  He knows he has secured the votes from the delegates of his party, so by presenting an ethos-based speech, he is able to target a whole new audience.  My personal belief is that his speech, while presented at the Republican National Convention, is wholly targeting voters that have yet to decide for whom to cast their vote.  He was able to do a great job of soliciting votes from people questioning Obama’s leadership, whether they supported him in 2008 or not.  Republicans are historically known for ‘having a backbone’ and, although Obama has tried to instill that quality in his campaign, I believe that Romney had shown that he is still the much tougher candidate.  He is purposely taking blatant jabs at Obama, which is only going to support people’s idea of the ‘tough republican’, and hopefully help people lean towards electing someone that can make the difficult decisions.  Overall, I think that Romney’s speech was well delivered and was able to help instill confidence in him as a leader.  Obama is very well known as an orator, but I believe that Romney did a far better job at attracting a specific target audience.