[Tyr Zalo Hawk]: 712.Essays.A Perfectly Bad Example

Pathos, Logos, and Ethos: the three points of the rhetorical triangle. Each has its own set of values and guidelines which make it a valuable member of any writer’s repertoire. While it can be said that many people fail to grasp all the concepts involved in the rhetorical triangle or even to use them effectively, none truly exemplify this lack - thus far - more than Rod Smith in article “Cloning has world of benefits.”
When it comes right down to it, Smith’s best aspect of the triangle is his dip into that of Logos, the logical aspect of the triangle. He spouts numbers left and right, makes bold claims that we trust have been researched thoroughly, and references many people and organizations which seem to be reliable sources. However, in doing so he ends up contradicting himself, and presenting us with weak, or inconclusive data such as his reference to “The Center for Food Safety… formed a coalition… and submitted more than 130,000 comments opposed to the FDA’s rule [on the safety of cloned meat and milk].” Which is then supposedly refuted when “… more than 200 scientists signed a letter… in support of the rule…” When the opinion of 200 is supposed to overrule the opinion of 130,000, one begins to question the logic of the written work in front of them. Another such example is found in his reference to how cloning “… will be less intrusive on sensitive ecosystems…” even though he fails to mention what it will be less intrusive than, or even how it will be less intrusive. His logic is simply too full of holes to follow or consider rational.
After this, his attempt at Pathos, a more emotion oriented point to the triangle, is practically nonexistent. Smith’s only visible attempts at Pathos are small references to how it would benefit people in developing nations, and potentially help make people and animals healthier. While this is all fine and dandy, there is no real feeling detectable behind his words, and therefore the reader doesn’t have the opportunity to connect in that fashion.
The lack of Pathos, combined with the inconsistent Logos, only makes the shoddy performance of Smith’s attempt at Ethos, believability or competence, seem so much worse. His grammar, punctuation, and capitalization all need work, not to mention the random sentence fragments like “Third in a series” which appears four paragraphs into the article with no explanation as to what it means, and not even a period to make it a real sentence, as incomplete as it would still be. The lack of emotional sympathy and his apparent belief that 200 > 130,000 makes us question whether or not we can even consider his words as informed, much less trustworthy. He quotes the company he works for, and the company who runs the website he posted his article on, thus making his entire article seem like it is made to benefit the company more than people, even if he might mention the “…benefits for people around the world…” which are “…becoming clear.”
It takes little studying of the rhetorical triangle to realize just how little Rod Smith appears to grasp the concepts involved with it. From a lack of emotional appeal, to Swiss cheese-like logic, and finally to his complete lack of believability, it would seem that Smith has only received a world of criticism, which he might hopefully benefit from.

© Tyr Hawkaluk (2004-Present)