Using pathos while arguing can be one the most influential and persuasive rhetorical techniques available. When a writer is able to appeal to the feelings of the reader than it is becomes much easier to have them support your point. People's actions are a reaction to their emotions. The emotional involvement of the reader out weighs the logic of the argument, making the appeal to emotion the most powerful device. Pathos are used everywhere.
Take for example, you are walking down the hygiene isle in Target searching for the right toilet paper. When you see a picture of a cute cuddly puppy plastered across the wrapper, most likely we would grab the brand that makes us feel good, opposed to the generic label. We choose without considering the actual quality of the toilet paper, walking around with a "puppy" in our carts makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside for a moment. This is just a simple example but, it goes to show , that pathos is used everyday and everywhere. Whether it be toilet paper at the grocery store or a monumental speech our president makes, appealing positively to the emotions of your listeners or readers will always be beneficial to your argument.

Pseudo Argument

People who believe pseudo arguments, reach their conclusions with no reason or logic and they are not willing to consider any other opinion. Basically it is their way or the highway. "Their claims are true because they say so, period." These people are most likely associated with a larger group or party. In most cases their ignorance leads them to believing these false arguments. They aren't willing to obtain enough knowledge of the opposing view to even debate or question the other belief, in result they end up fighting. Which evidentially never leads to a compromise or civil settlement. By arguing you are supposed to reach a conclusion or at least enlighten your self about someone else's opinion, irrelevant to the fact that you disagree. Using pseudo arguments these conclusions are never reached.
The most common example I have witnesses is in political debates between teenagers. Often, both sides are only spewing off ideas that have been fed into their minds by their parents. They never discuss the actual positions of the candidates or the global issues being debated, they are too busy bashing the other person.

The hero begins his story on a boat ride as a reward to himself for earning 100 dollars as a shoe shiner. Dick aspires to hold a more respectable job. He is improving his English and perfecting his speech to further his capabilities, so that eventually he can obtain a position as a store clerk. Coincidentally, a young boy has fallen overboard on this same boat and courageously Dick jumps in after him. Saving the boy’s life Dick instantly becomes a hero, and in return the boy’s father, a wealthy businessman, repays him with adequate clothing and a new job. Dick was naïve to the fact that this boy’s father was rich, and naïve to the idea that he would be rewarded for his good deed, but on instinct he reacted heroically and was rewarded for his actions.
The author is implicitly arguing that rewards and good happenings are given back in return of good deeds. Dick’s intentions were solely to save that little boy, he wasn’t seeking a gift in return. The circumstance brought Dick upon a better job but it was completely unexpected and ended up being much more appreciated, because it was unanticipated.
I also think that the author might be arguing, that luck and contingency is a factor. It was by coincident that Dick was the man able save the boy, it was only fortunate that the boy’s father was wealthy and willing to repay him with a job. Although Dick had been working to become eligible for a job as a store clerk that improvement was irrelevant as to how he actually became a store clerk. Luckily the father felt a everlasting debt toward Dick, and was able to reward him with what Dick had been seeking.

There is no question that we have become a visual society! Possibly, in the act of persuading one could argue which method, verbal or visual, is most effective. I think it is all relevant to the audience. When addressing a young group of second graders they are much more likely to respond to a massive bright bold picture, than a slide of written words. The youth has become much more responsive to images while maybe older people respond similarly to a speech.

ie. Friday's presentation. If the people from Invisible Children were to stand in front of us rambling on about the crisis in Uganda, sadly the attention of the audience most likely would have been dull, yet when we WATCHED teenagers a lot like ourselves suffer or we were given a face as a symbol of the issue in majority we listened attentively and the presentation reached us on a more powerful level.

Media and visual stimulation has overtaken our society. Communicating simply through face to face dialogue is quickly decreasing. With access to things like facebook, instant messaging, and picture texts the rising generation are more familiar and comfortable exchanging with visual support.

It is simply more effective to argue in a visual manner. While other methods of argument can be successful, an image is much more simple and most likely more powerful.

In general, analyzing torture is controversial, but I firmly believe the use of torture is solely situational. You must consider many factors of why it could be effective, who you are effecting, and if the torture is worth the greater result. Each circumstance requires a vast amount of examination; although many times where it could be effective the time is limited and analysis is not an option. Morality is also a major key in applying torture, you must consider whether injuring someone else is making you also in the wrong or if the greater good of the people will be helped.
Levin’s interpretation of torture is hard to disagree with. He uses dramatic situations and harsh conditions that support his opinion. When he presents his reader with circumstances such as mass amounts of babies dying and the alternative is torturing someone and the result will change it is impossible to not agree. He exaggerates his examples allowing no other option but to agree.
I believe that if torture is the ONLY option to save lives in mass amounts, then it should be enforced. Every situation requires interpretation and a long analysis of the benefits. To risk someone else’s life for another you must know and be 100% sure that the torture is worth it.

Both arguments are successful. I agree with both statements made through their arguments, contrary to the fact that they are arguing opposite opinions. On page 1 the cartoon is for GE existing in food because the person is starving and foods that contain GE don’t need as much water to grow, so this, makes it seem like the water will be going to people in need. How can you argue that someone should starve? You can’t, that makes the cartoon successful and persuasive to accept GE enhanced food. The advertisement on page 24 also is victorious in creating a strong unarguable statement for the reader. The general public should be notified and have complete access to the things that make up their food. That in my eyes is also unarguable. And argument is composed of mostly manipulation, the way you can get your reader to think, in both cases they have manipulated me into believing what they want.

Explicit- when a person takes a distinct side and demonstrates their personal opinion on the issue, using and telling facts and statements to support their stand to the audience

Implicit- when a visual, audio, or text inspires an opinion of the audience. The author or artist doesn’t lay out his perspective but creates a piece where the audience makes a judgment

The picture from example # 5 is an implicit argument. The picture is showing rather than telling the way the photographer sees the idea of war and service. The audience and people have to view the image and come up with an explanation by themselves, it is all person interpretation.
Most commonly, I think people argue the opposite way. They immediately take a stand and start to ramble off all the reasons why they are right. They begin to deny all other idea and start an explicit argument. A person creates a statement or thesis to stand by and that is the core of their paper or speech or how ever they are engaged in an argument.