Saturday, November 20, 2010


Here's a link to it.

Here's my RA.


1. ARGUMENT - The Prime Minister is not competent and is not handling the economic crisis well for Britain.

2. AUDIENCE - A body of the European Parliament, already familiar with much of what he's talking about.

3. GOAL - To convince the rest of the body of politicians (and voters) of the flaws in the PM's policy for dealing with the crisis.

4. HOW -
Ethos: His manner of address was strikingly different than that of politicians here in the United States. I must confess that his concise and almost brutal manner rather shocked me. However, with that shock came a sense of respect for someone who would speak out and openly say what he thinks in a professional manner, if not a kind one. He also had his facts; he had a very polished, upright, and direct manner; and he performed his speech confidently.
Pathos: There was definite audience response at a couple of points in his speech, and his honest, direct manner definitely affected my emotions. Though it was also a factor in his ethos, its effect was emotional, too--an honest politician (or one who seems honest, at any rate) is a happy thing to behold. His analogy about ships was full of imagery and in that sense appealed to the emotions.
Logos: He had some numbers like the rate of debt and deficit for each child and the percentage of GDP that was equivalent to their debt. He also compared this to other countries, which made for a logical standpoint. Finally, one thing I noticed was his analogy about ships--though it had some emotional ties, it made a very logical point.

5. EFFECTIVE? I actually settled on this, namely because I know nothing about the subject, but some of his audience seemed to agree with his speech, judging from the audible response. I would also say that even though in some sense I don't know what he's saying he is a powerful speaker and a persuasive one, and he made an impact on me. Effective? Yes.

No comments:

Post a Comment