Rhetorical Analysis: Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and Logical Fallacies
Rhetorical Analysis: Definition, Roles, and Foundations
Rhetorical analysis is an essay that breaks a work of nonfiction into parts and explains how those parts work together to create a specific effect (persuade, entertain, or inform).
You evaluate how the rhetor makes their argument and assess whether the approach is successful for convincing the intended audience.
You do not state whether you agree with the argument; you focus on the effectiveness of the rhetoric.
The analysis evaluates the piece in terms of classical rhetoric and its logical appeals.
Roles and the Observer Perspective
Two parties to be concerned with:
The rhetor (the party attempting to persuade)
The audience (the target of persuasion)
Our role in a rhetorical analysis is the observer, a silent third party, not being persuaded or persuading.
Mistakes to avoid:
Do not participate in what’s happening between rhetor and audience.
Do not decide if you are persuaded by the rhetoric; decide if the audience would be persuaded.
Recognize that audience understanding of who is the audience can vary (specific or general).
Aristotle’s Three Appeals (Ethos, Pathos, Logos)
Ethos: the rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible or not.
Pathos: the rhetor attempts to persuade by arousing emotions in the audience.
Logos: the rhetor attempts to persuade by presenting logical arguments the audience finds credible.
These are called the three elements of rhetorical appeals.
The three appeals map to:
Ethos ↔ the character or credibility of the speaker
Pathos ↔ the disposition or emotions of the listener
Logos ↔ the use of arguments and reasoning
Modes and Nature of Ethos
The modes of persuasion (how ethos, pathos, logos manifest) include:
The character of the speaker (ethos)
Disposing the listener in some way (pathos)
The argument itself (logos)
Ethos: how credible the rhetor appears to the audience.
Ethos definitions:
Extrinsic ethos: the character, expertise, education, and experience of the rhetor.
Intrinsic ethos: how the rhetor writes or speaks and presents the information.
Extrinsic ethos examples (sports context):
A successful professional basketball player (e.g., Michael Jordan) often has strong extrinsic ethos with other pro athletes because of subject-matter experience.
A baseball player discussing basketball has weaker extrinsic ethos in that domain.
A college English professor discussing sports may have weak extrinsic ethos with a sports audience.
Audience affects ethos: an audience of preschool kids would have weaker extrinsic ethos for a famous athlete than an audience of pro athletes.
Intrinsic ethos examples:
A confident, articulate, technically accurate presentation increases intrinsic ethos for the same rhetor.
The way the rhetor speaks or writes can strengthen or weaken intrinsic ethos.
How to speak about ethos in analysis:
You may refer to the overall ethos as strong or weak, e.g., "his extrinsic ethos is strong" or "his intrinsic ethos is strong/weak".
Complex relationship:
Ethos is not static; it changes with audience, context, and delivery.
When citing someone else as an authority, you’re invoking logos (testimony/authority) rather than strengthening extrinsic ethos about the speaker's own expertise in that subtopic.
Pathos: Emotional Appeals
Pathos is distinct from the everyday meaning of "pathetic." A rhetoric can use emotional appeal to create a sense of identity with the audience.
Pathos examples:
Politicians often open with phrases like "my fellow Americans" as a form of pathetic appeal.
Emotion lists: love, pity, sorrow, affection, anger, fear, greed, lust, hatred (and more).
If the rhetor can make the audience feel these emotions in response to the rhetoric, pathos is at work.
Example: hurricane relief fundraising
The rhetor might evoke love, pity, fear, or anger to motivate donations.
Important distinctions:
The emotions targeted are those of the audience, not the rhetor.
A clearly angry rhetor can still be manipulating pathos; anger is not inherently a pathetic appeal.
Effectiveness varies by audience; pathos can be weak or strong depending on context and execution.
Logos: Logical Appeals
Logos involves the use of logic and reasoning to persuade.
A statement is a logical appeal if it uses reasonable claims and proofs to support a conclusion.
Important nuance:
A statement can be a logos appeal even if the audience doesn’t find it convincing; the classification is about the type of appeal, not its effectiveness.
Logos basics:
Root concept from the Greek word logos, meaning the study of reasoning, valid inference, and demonstration.
Logic can refer to word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle.
Role in analysis:
Your job is to identify that an appeal is logos, not to judge whether the argument is sound.
Common logical fallacies (case studies and structure to recognize):
Cause or consequence: claims about one thing causing another (e.g., "Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases"; "the economic crisis was caused by deregulation").
Analogy: claim about qualities of one thing based on a comparison with another (e.g., "Atmosphere is like the outer layer of skin"; "Going to class is as exciting as watching paint dry").
Testimony and authority: citing someone else’s opinion as support (e.g., "4 of 5 dentists would recommend sugarless gum"; advertising examples).
Definition: claims about the meaning or nature of something.
Syllogism: deductive structure with major premise, minor premise, and conclusion (general-to-specific):
Major Premise: ext{Nuclear power plants generate dangerous nuclear waste}
Minor Premise: ext{The new power plant being built in our community is a nuclear power plant}
Conclusion: ext{Therefore, the new power plant will be dangerous}
Inductive generalization (supporting a generalization with examples): a general statement backed by specific instances (e.g., Obama’s argument about using military resources with a Darfur example).
Examples given in the material:
Analogy: atmosphere vs. skin; paint-drying analogy for class excitement.
Testimony and authority: "4 of 5 dentists" (trading on perceived expertise); Greenspan quip about a financial crisis (noting it’s outdated and would need updating).
Syllogism example with nuclear plants as shown above.
Inductive example: Obama’s debate argument with Darfur illustration.
Practical advice when analyzing logos:
Focus on whether the argument structure is present and how the audience might perceive its validity, not on whether you personally find it convincing.
Note that most arguments combine more than one appeal; seldom is any statement solely a single appeal.
Combined Appeals and Academic Context
In most rhetorical analyses, writers use a combination of all three appeals; seldom is any single statement exclusively one appeal.
In academic writing, ethos and logos tend to be valued more highly than pathos.
When considering sources:
If the rhetor is clearly an expert on the topic, the extrinsic ethos is strong.
If the rhetor cites an external expert or testimony, this is an element of logos (testimony/authority) rather than strengthening the speaker’s own ethos.
The role of the observer:
You assess how the audience is likely to be persuaded, not whether the argument is personally agreeable to you.
The observer notes the interaction between rhetor and audience and judges what would be believable or persuasive to that audience.
Rhetor, Audience, and Observer: Recap of Key Terms
Rhetor: the party attempting to persuade (author or speaker).
Audience: the target of persuasion.
Observer: the analyst who studies the interaction without trying to persuade or be persuaded.
Rhetorical analysis: an essay that breaks down a nonfiction work and explains how the parts create a specific effect.
Ethos: perceived credibility or authority of the rhetor.
Pathos: emotional appeal to the audience.
Logos: logical appeal through reasoning and evidence.
Extrinsic ethos: credibility based on the rhetor’s background, experience, and achievements.
Intrinsic ethos: credibility built through presentation, language, and delivery.
Common logical fallacies to recognize: cause/consequence, analogy, testimony and authority, definition, syllogism, inductive generalization.
Practical Takeaways for Analyzing Rhetoric
Always identify the audience and consider how the rhetor’s choices would affect that audience.
Determine which of the three appeals are used and to what extent; note that blending all three is common.
Distinguish between the rhetoric’s persuasive goals and the observer’s task of evaluating believability and effectiveness.
Be mindful of ethical considerations: in academic contexts, ethos and logos are often given more weight than pathos.
When you encounter fallacies, analyze the structure (major/minor premises, cause/effect, analogy) rather than making judgments about truth alone.
Quick Checklists for a Rhetorical Analysis
Identify the rhetor and audience.
State the intended effect (persuade, inform, entertain) and evaluate how the parts contribute to that effect.
Classify each major claim as ethos, pathos, or logos;
Note whether it relies on credibility, emotion, or logic.
Describe the audience’s likely perception of credibility (extrinsic and intrinsic ethos).
Provide at least one example of each appeal from the text.
Detect any logical fallacies and describe the argument’s structure (such as a syllogism or analogy).
Assess overall effectiveness for the target audience; explain why or why not the rhetoric would be persuasive.
Additional Resources
Refer to weekly lesson folders for more on logical fallacies and additional examples.
Consider how Aristotle’s framework applies to modern political and media rhetoric.