Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Rogerian Argument
Logos - Appeal to Reason
Pathos - Appeal to Emotion
Ethos - Appeal to Ethics
All of these must be used in every paper you write in order to make a well-rounded paper; however, you will focus on one or
two more at times than the others
...
You backed up your argument
and you bashed all of your opponent's viewpoints with your strict logical look at your topic
...
In this paper, rather than use such strict appeals to logic and your reader's sense of
reason, you will be required to appeal to their emotional and ethical side also and avoid refutations
...
You are not trying to start an argument here or to convince
someone that you are the only one who is right, but to look objectively at the problem and possible solutions to the problem and
choose the best compromise
...
Because it focuses on
building bridges between the writer and audience, and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs and opinions the two
share, a Rogerian argument doesn't emphasize an "I win - you lose" outcome as much as classical or Toulmin arguments do
...
Thus, it is particularly useful in psychological and emotional arguments where pathos and ethos rather
than logos and strict logic predominate
...
If no one were willing to compromise, then nothing would ever be accomplished
...
"
To accomplish this compromise, we must strive for a non-confrontational, understanding tone that views the opposition as a
person of goodwill who is just trying to change the world for the better in a different way from your own
...
They believe that they are right just as you believe you are right
...
For example, both smokers and non-smokers want to preserve
rights in some way
...
When writing your paper, you want to step into the shoes of the
opposition and try to understand where they are coming from and what value you can see in their argument
...
Do they have a point
from their point of view? Can you concede that in some way not allowing smoker's to smoke would violate some of their

rights? Can you see that smoking close to a non-smoker may violate his or her rights in some way? Ask yourself these
questions and you will begin to see the first areas where compromise could develop

---