Chapter 3 RR
One of the most valuable things that I learned years ago when I first
attended the Colorado School of Mines was a skill I treasure and use
to this day, critical thinking. It’s
funny that we are studying this now, because just last week a co-worker and I were
lamenting about how training so frequently focuses on training specific
duties instead of teaching them how to analyze a situation and think critically. People just want you to tell them what to do, not how to figure it out for themselves.
His stance was that critical thinking is something that you
either have or you don’t. It can't be taught. When I read
chapter 3, I chuckled to myself because this book disagrees with his premise
and attempts to teach people how to think critically. I probably fall in somewhere between the two
views. To me, it’s like being a musician,
everybody can try to play an instrument, and to some extent, succeed, but some
people just have a natural knack for it and some don’t. People will have various levels of success learning and applying critical thinking skills throughout their lives.
Chapter 3 has many great lessons, but one stood out above
the rest for me. See, this is my second
time taking ENG122. I passed before with
an A, but it was 10 years ago and now that I want to transfer my credits to a 4
year university, that A expired last semester, so I have to take it again. It’s bad for me, but hopefully I can pass
along some advice about what I learned the first time around to whomever reads
this.
In "The Bedford Guide for College Writers", it describes how to make an effective
argument using something called Logos, Pathos, and Ethos (44-45). Logos is basically presenting the facts in a
logical way. Don’t just state a series of opinions, back them up with evidence and build a logical case for your argument. Pathos appeals to the reader's emotions
instead of their logic. Finally, Ethos
is about establishing yourself as someone who knows what they’re talking about.
One thing the book fails to do, and it’s a real shame, is
tell you HOW to use these three elements to build a convincing argument. The order you use them is everything!
First off, you have to start with the Ethos. You have to let the reader right up front that you know what you’re
talking about, so they will trust you when you start to present the
facts. Take this blog entry for
example. When I began my Professional
Reaction, I told you that I’ve taken this course already and have gotten an A,
so you know I’ve already learned the material we’re being presented with in
class and perhaps I know what I am talking about from experience. Now you're primed for the meat of the presentation.
The second thing you do after you’ve established yourself,
is to present the Logos, or the logical argument. This is where you build your case, guiding
the reader step-by-step, so they can follow your logic and hopefully agree with
your main point.
Finally, you hit them with the Pathos or emotional
part. You already hooked them with the
intro that told them you are worthy of listening to, reeled them in with your
(hopefully) brilliant logic, and now you just have to finish the deal through their emotions, leaving them with an emotional connection to your
logical argument. Good lawyers
understand this thoroughly and build their cases this way. The closing arguments pack an emotional punch
to give the jury something to take with them when they deliberate. Movies do it too. Think happy or sad endings. They leave us satisfied, much in the same way a good Pathos will
Forming your ideas this way when presenting them to a boss,
teacher or whomever you hope to influence is so successful, you’d be surprised
at how well it works. Try it. You’ll thank me later as you're laying on the beach, relaxing, after you presented the successful argument for why you deserve a raise and got enough to afford this vacation.
Dustan S
No comments:
Post a Comment