Words and Their Effect

While looking through editorials on the New York Times website the title "Don't Blame the Deal" popped off the computer screen. This editorial was published on September 28th in the NYT page WK9 New York edition (could not find the author on the website page for some reason). Based of our reading in Everything's an Argument, this author makes a sound argument but lacks a personal connection with his audience. In any editorial an author writes words to represent an opinion of which they wish to persuade an audience to believe. The key to any argument is how those words are formulated with ethos pathos or logos.

The authors argument is that our current time of peril with the economy is not a product of the "system" failing but "the people in it". He validates his argument with logos, and gives fact after fact on why the heads of our economy and those with huge financial impact, were irresponsible with "the laws of regulation". One of his proofs is that government officials ignored many signs of the failing economy and believed "that markets know best, and problems will magically fix themselves". Even though the author strenghens his argument, he states a fact and then moves on to another, missing a chance to expand on his ideas and make distinctive connection to his argument that have a stronger affect on the audience.

A similar analogy is if someone were trying to prove the argument that Monet was a "prodigy of art," and ran their audience past 20 of his masterpieces instead of focusing on one work and pointing out the delicate brushstrokes, the mastered perspective, and intricate blending of colors. 

Throughout the editorial I never feel like the author is talking to me, maybe I am not the intended audience, but aren't I an American citizen who contributes some to our economy. Since I feel the author isn't talking to me, he misses out on a opportunity to persuade me with effective pathos. When a author relies only on one form of persuasion (logos in this case) he diminishes the strength of his argument but 2/3. A writer should try to incorporate multiple forms of argumentation because each will make the argument stronger in its ability to connect to the diverse group of readers because all people perceive and retain information in personal ways.

Another downside of relying solely logos in his argument is there is the question of the validity and trustworthiness of his factual evidence.  This argument could be effective by bombarding me with proof that I am bound to believe it, but a smart reader would question a authors facts. Then the TRUTH of the argument is questioned and the basis for which the argument is made. 

Assessing this article after earlier in the week learning about the Red Scare and McCarthyism I am cautious on what I believe without researching myself, because many people during that time period made accusations which were believed by the way they were presented confidently and not by the validity of their evidence.  Any author could write an editorial and throw in random facts and falsies and seek to interest their reader, but in an opinion section the author tries to report issues truthfully to keep a creditable ethos so they can  make an effective presentation of his or her opinions. So does this mean I can trust this author, becuase they write for the New York Times? What do you think?