There was no evident inclination toward a rhetorical of ethos, pathos, or logos. His entire perspective about the Election of 1800 was more or less a tangent of how he believed the event to unfold. We see ethos being describes as credible argument. Pathos is an emotional appeal, while Logos takes writing in a logical direction. Neither of these were present in the second video. Bullock et al. say that “If you feel strongly about your topic…persuade your audience to feel the same way…” (66). It is clear that his stance is how the election of 1800 led to conflict between friends. In saying this, he did have a purpose. He wanted to interpret the conflict between Adams and Jefferson with a plastered tale of farfetched statements. The narrator misses the idea of persuasion in his story. Instead of wanting to persuade the viewer, he is merely telling a
There was no evident inclination toward a rhetorical of ethos, pathos, or logos. His entire perspective about the Election of 1800 was more or less a tangent of how he believed the event to unfold. We see ethos being describes as credible argument. Pathos is an emotional appeal, while Logos takes writing in a logical direction. Neither of these were present in the second video. Bullock et al. say that “If you feel strongly about your topic…persuade your audience to feel the same way…” (66). It is clear that his stance is how the election of 1800 led to conflict between friends. In saying this, he did have a purpose. He wanted to interpret the conflict between Adams and Jefferson with a plastered tale of farfetched statements. The narrator misses the idea of persuasion in his story. Instead of wanting to persuade the viewer, he is merely telling a