Upon reading Barack Obama's Inaugural Address, I was impressed with how he spoke in several ways.

First, I noticed that he infused some use of alliteration into the speech. For example, "Farms flourish" (par. 51), and "magnificent malls" (par. 64). I suspect that he used alliteration as a way to make his speech much easier listening.

I also was able to catch on to the ongoing imagery of water. For instance, near the beginning of his address, he says:

"The words have been spoken during the rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents" (par. 4)

Then, at the end of the address, he refers to the theme again: "Let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come..." (par. 70). This continuous metaphor seems to hold the whole speech together rhetorically.

What Do You Say to Millions of Men With the Power of God?

I was able to attend this General Conference's Priesthood session in the Tabernacle, which is right across the street from the Conference Center. I think my favorite talk was that of President Eyering, called "Be Ready." One aspect of his talk that stuck out to me was the way he wrote with consideration to his audience.

He begins by mostly addressing young men. For instance, he mentions things that would likely keep a young man listening: "It may be so small a thing as to keep careful minutes in a deacons or a teachers quorum" (par. 18) Later on, he says "In recent months I have heard deacons, teachers, and priests give talks which are clearly as inspired and powerful as you will hear in this general conference..." (par. 20).

However, President Eyering does not focus on young men throughout his whole speech. In paragraphs 30 and 31, he begins to address older men with the priesthood by teaching them ways to remain Christ-like and still be disciplinary: by doing it "in the Lord's way" (par. 30).

All in all, I was impressed with how he could reach out to all of his listeners individually. It means a lot to an audience if one can manage that.

A Story Etched into Memory -- the Power of Pathos

Recently, I was drawn to a specific address given by President Henry B. Eyring. He - very strongly - fortified the importance of preparation to my mind through the use of pathos. To get the full message, I encourage you to watch the video if you haven't, the text doesn’t do it justice. For the moment, I will analyze the text, and refer to the expression of speech if necessary.

To begin his talk, President Eyring decided to tell a story – a story so full of emotion that anyone paying attention will remember both the account and its moral. He spoke of a little girl that was thrown fifty feet by an oncoming car, and the call to give a blessing to this girl in the hospital. They were met with opposition, however, as he says,

"The doctors and the nurses only reluctantly let us reach through a plastic barrier to place a drop of oil on the one opening in the heavy bandages which covered her head. A doctor said to me, with irritation in his voice, 'Hurry with whatever you are going to do. She is dying.'” (par. 3)

President Eyring then summarized his feelings of the doctor in three, very powerful words. "He was wrong." After a slight pause (to let the emotional impact sink into the listeners), President Eyring began his address for the importance of preparing long before the time the priesthood is needed.

The details of his address, his vocal emphasis, and overall storyline appealed to the pathos of his talk. The reader/listener could comprehend the importance of his message simply by listening to the feelings they felt as they heard President Eyring speak. Readers can get a sense of the doctors' impatience and frustration, the faith and confidence of the child's parents, the determination of President Eyring and his partner, etc. He used the emotion of his story to leave a lasting impression and memory in those listening -- a prime example of tremendous pathos.

Throughout the rest of his address, President Henry B. Eyring covered two main ways for us to become prepared enough to exercise the priesthood: faith and confidence. He continued to use pathos, but in the context with strong logos and audience appeal.

While he spoke of faith, he gave the example of Nephi (Par. 10-15), showing his faith. Nephi himself had unshakable faith, and President Eyring quotes admirable attributes. Qualities -- confidence, determination, endurance, long-suffering, unshakable faith -- are some of the same that the audience is striving to perfect, and by bringing up Nephi's attributes, President Eyring connects with the thoughts, feelings, and goals of his listeners.

The pathos presented with President Eyring's second point, confidence, is achieved in a similar manner. He recognizes that his listeners at some point in time have felt regret, remorse, and felt "[dragged] down to doubt the existence of God." (par. 22) This phrasing is very important, because President Eyring could have written it much differently. Listeners could feel remorse over breaking the Word of Wisdom, watching a rated-R movie, but doubting the existence of God is out of the question for any person of faith. Thus, listeners are more willing and receptive to the direction of President Eyring. By using hyperboles to exaggerate his point, he can deliver his proposal for all priesthood holders to always be prepared.

Along those lines, we are instructed us to love, support, and show confidence in others, brings those around us up -- and ourselves in the process -- to believe more completely in God. As with faith, President Eyring knows the feelings and desires of his listeners, and gives positive response in the form of pathos with them.

President Eyring's address was both emotionally powerful and emotionally sound in message. The immense impact of a story of pathos and the personal effects of subtle feelings shows the extent of President Eyring's ability to use pathos to support his message. Even outside of the story, he shows us the strength and convincing power of pathos in the company of logos and audience appeal as shown in the use of hyperboles and desirable traits. All of these components lay the foundation for a lasting memory in the minds of the audience.

Prophet Avoids Repetitive Nature

The whole university rushed to the Marriott Center Tuesday morning - some as early as 8 a.m. for the 11 a.m. devotional by the prophet. The heavily concentrated Mormon population would take any chance they get to listen to the most credible man on the Earth. They wanted to hear the message which the voice of the Lord was about to announce.

What interested me was that this man, who could choose any of the popularly spoken topics of the church such as the importance of scripture study, keeping an eternal perspective, and maintaining your testimony, chose to talk about prophets he had known in his lifetime. I assume that he understood we already knew these vital spiritual messages - they have been ingrained in our minds so that they may become second-nature. Undoubtedly, they are still important because they are always commented about in General Conference to the general Mormon public.

Yet President Monson takes into account that the students at BYU are strong members (hence their choice of BYU as their education for the next four years). He assumes that we are aware of scripture study, keeping eternal perspective and maintaining our testimony. Hence, President Monson appeals to the well-informed, orthodox Latter-Day Saints by teaching them unfamiliar topics. Who out of the audience would have been able to supply such specific details of the prophets' personalities and attributes before hand? I conclude that not very many. By including specific details, students develop a stronger faith in the men who have run the church in the past and who built up the principles we are learning about today. President Monson pointed out the credibility of these men so their messages may become more applicable. He took a step further than lecturing a repetitive spiritual message. Instead, he gave meaning to the origin of these spiritual lectures we always hear. Because of this, students establish a foundation for future spiritual talks and greater depth of their application to their lives.

Clearly emphasizing a learning atmosphere, Monson discusses the lives of prophets that he knew. We typically look at the prophets as the most righteous men, and we look at the messages they have delivered in the past. However, President Monson includes real details such as their favorite foods and funny things they had said. In this way, the prophets of his time truly became real to us as students of a separate generation. We become familiar with the kind of people they truly were. These prophets were no longer so distant - they didn't appear as powerful, influential prodigies but instead, friendly and real people.

For instance, President Kimball exemplified a prophet who portrayed an average human being. In preparation for a meeting, he proceeded to stuff papers in his refrigerator in order to get his room clean. By using such an example, we came to love prophets we did not personally know - they became "real" to us. He also described the humility of President Kimball. He would wear the same shoes, no matter how worn out they were or if they had holes in them. Before we had President Kimball as a prophet of God and after we discovered he was a humble man, who had trouble with cleaning.

Monson exemplifies an excellent sense of audience awareness because he surprised everyone with his discussion of the prophets. By doing this, we all walked out of the Marriott Center with more confidence of the leaders of a church, and a deeper love for the men who they really were. I feel that because President Monson avoided repetition of lessons we hear in General Conference, we were able to learn more about the men who truly impacted our religion on a more personal level. President Monson helped us build a foundation of understanding for the prophets that built the principles of the church.

When writing goes wrong

So we have this article that we have been analyzing about Global Warming. Well, it's not quite as good as it looks. You see, the first time I read it, i didn't see much wrong with it. However, upon reading it more thoroughly, I found several logical fallacies hidden in his arguments.

First of all, we read paragraph 5, when he mentions an unusually hot summer that occurred last year to support his argument that the earth is warming up. However, how do we know what caused that hot spell? This is a good example of a cum hoc logical fallacy, because the writer is automatically assuming something that nobody knows for sure. Sure, it might be that the earth is getting hotter. But weather is not as predictable as people act like it is. This hot weather could be the consequence of sunspots, or altered ocean currents, or some other odd weather pattern that we will discover sometime in the next decade. Who knows?

Several times throughout the article, Lovelock mentions dramatic events that would occur if the earth warms up a relatively large amount. I find these arguments not as relevant as he thinks they are. There is no reason for the reader to believe that such events like "a four-degree rise in temperature" (par 4) or "a two-metre rise [in ocean levels]" (par 2) are even possible in the next century. The average global temperature rose only half of a Celsius degree between the years of 1900 and 1999 (see table 11.6. note: this website gets its statistics from NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy). At that rate, we have 800 years to worry. So really we don't have to worry, given that the average temperature will likely not simply continue in the same pattern--there are too many factors to take into account.

Humanity Walks Guiltless As Earth Rapidly Melts Away

There is no fence-sitting in Lovelock’s view of the Earth’s fate. As Blake said, Lovelock will attempt to say anything (even if I may not politically be correct) to show his readers we are headed for catastrophe. According to his uncited research, we are in imminent danger if the complacency of the world continues to be naïve of the clear and upfront issue of global warming. Not only does Lovelock, consistently throw startling statistics at the reader, he is also able to find the reader’s vulnerabilities and take a stab at them. Of course, the end of the world should be a vulnerability for all, but apparently, it is not. By describing the danger we are headed for, Lovelock announces that nuclear energy is the only plausible solution at this stage in the Earth's downfall. At the same time, readers need to be skeptical of all Lovelock's dramatic imagery and facts - he leaves no room for debate.

An Earth of six billion people, continues to rotate despite the carefree image we have created. He explains the urgency and danger if we do not act fast and if we proceed to act as if all is well. To emphasis its severity, he uses the ultimate symbol of fear, and danger – fire. “Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act” (par. 6). Using this simile, Lovelock is able to put a scary face on the consequences of global warming. We view a fire as uncontrollable and scary. A fire’s effects can leave agony and despair – just the message Lovelock is trying to convey.

Lovelock is so effective with his rhetoric because he also uses the language tool of overstatements in his article. He uses an exaggeration of imminent danger to prove a point. A typical interpretation of imminent danger would refer to a plausible threat within 24 to 48 hours. It seems unreasonable that global warming could even harm us, however Lovelock presents facts demonstrating how global warming has already harmed the Earth’s population. He states that 20,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave last summer. At first his exaggeration of imminent danger seems irrational. Yet when diving into the facts and logos Lovelock has presented, it is shocking that global warming has become a reality.

I have found that rhetorical questions can also prove to be very valuable as an author. It gives time for the reader to discuss the issue in their head before reading the author’s opinion. It also, allows for the reader to answer, more often than not, in the author’s favor of the issue. For example, Lovelock devotes the first half of his persuasive article to startling statistics and familiarizing readers to the issue with a bias spin to it. After all of this, he poses the question, “So what should we do?” (par.7). Clearly, the reader is going to be sensitive and announce in their minds a proactive solution – which is exactly what Lovelock aims for. He is attempting to win over supporters.

Finally, as a student aware of global warming, Lovelock was successful in breaking down my defensive wall to sympathize and realize the seriousness of the issue. Without a doubt, he uses imagery to describe the major cities of the world we see as landmarks, business capitals and places were destruction would not be found, as uninhabitable as the water levels continue to rise. He uses the symbol of unconquerable world capitals to show that even well-developed, protected and industrialized cities such as London, Tokyo, New York and Venice, are in danger. Any sort of protection and security that these cities are associated with, was destroyed in Lovelock’s article.

Essentially, Lovelock was effective as a writer and successfully advocated his opinion, yet reader's must realize the drama of his piece. Lovelock uses excessive exaggeration in addition to his language tools. Most importantly, he leaves no room for debate as he proposes nuclear energy as the only possible solution. One must be skeptical because the author gives no room for readers to think otherwise. In addition, readers must put up their guard because the author does not include any sources - who knows if all his facts are correct?

Overall, Lovelock used the language tools of similes, overstatements, rhetorical questions and imagery in order to promote the use of nuclear energy. He establishes his rhetoric as he suggests to his audience that the population needs to be informed and concerned with the imminent danger of global warming. By realizing this possible reality of this theory, readers will be more likely to accept nuclear energy as a solution, however they must not be misguided by his faulty points - we must be skeptical!

Nuclear energy has been accepted as a solution, but it has not put into action. The end of the world is dramatically being declared by Lovelock – and apparently it is not far away. Lovelock presented such an irony: we have led this Earth to its death by man’s way of self-destruction, yet none seem to care enough to change bad habits or adapt a solution.

When Apocalyptical Logic Backfires

This is the second of my two posts dealing with James Lovelock's article about global warming, the former concerning his logos. When I began reading his article, I followed his facts and agreed with his points, but in about the span of a paragraph, he lost all my trust as a reader and interest in his article -- the results of terrible logical fallacies.

The main two that I noticed involved Hasty Generalizations and Post Hocs. The generalization hit home the hardest when Lovelock said:

"[Nuclear energy] fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway..." (Par. 14)

The argument was valid up until the last sentence. Purely from a logic standpoint, the claim that one-in-three die of cancer is quite eye-catching, but there is no source to acknowledge where these statistics came from. Also, the way Lovelock’s voice comes across is that he is quickly generalizing facts he's heard and just putting a number onto paper. This is not conducive to his persuasion.

This quote also has unsound pathos. No matter what side of the fence you're on, no one wants to hear that comment put so blatantly. Lovelock's comment on cancer is emotionally unsound, and is distracting to the reader to say the least. For me, all I remember is the cancer comment -- I don't even remember the logic that lead up to that.

Another fallacy I noticed involved a Post Hoc: whatever happens second is a result of whatever happened first. On multiple occasions, Lovelock suggests that the reason politicians aren't behind stunting global warming and nuclear energy is because it isn't what the lobbyists/Greens want. This is a premature statement, because we don't incorporate all the inner-workings of the political world. True, these are viable reasons, but until we look more in-depth, it is just merely an assumption put into the minds of the readers.

Between these last two posts, James Lovelock presents a very solid defense for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, even the strongest fortress can be broken if it is built on fallacies.

The Logic Behind Apocalypse

My next two posts have to deal with the Global Warming article Lars had analyzed earlier. This first post will deal with the logical strengths and advantages of this article written by James Lovelock of the United Kingdom.

It is pretty safe to assume that most, if not all, educated people have heard of the issue of global warming. It usually carries a negative connotation, and Lovelock's writing is no exception. Compared to most arguments, however, Lovelock has strong factual backing, but sadly fails to refer to their sources.

Right off the bat, Lovelock refers to a prominent figure Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist, predicting the gravity of global warming on the world. At that time, he remarks that King's prediction did not draw a large amount of attention, but Lovelock continues to show evidence of a worsening climate. One such involved a heat spell in Europe during the summer of 2003. Nearly 20,000 people died of heat-related incidents. Some claimed this just a "deviation from the norm" (Par. 5), although Lovelock points out that climatologists of the time predicted this degree of deviation had a 1-out-of-300,000 chance of occurring.

To support his claim even more, Lovelock reports predictions that by 2100 A.D., the global temperature will rise 6 degrees-Celsius. In order to identify the magnitude of this change of temperature, the author shows that it would raise the sea level by seven meters -- enough to sink cities such as Venice, London, New York, Tokyo, and half of southern Florida.

As you can see, Lovelock’s article leans heavily on facts, because without them, no one would see reason to change. The data presented is very convincing, but at some times, the numbers make the reader think whether or not they are exaggerated. In a normal situation, a curious reader would follow the author’s references to read for themselves what exactly the data represents. Unfortunately, Lovelock has no references. For all we know, he could be making up the values just to scare us. Without citations, all of Lovelock’s argument is just convincing facts and not necessarily true facts.

James Lovelock's article contains an immense amount of support from recent research, studies, and other scientific reports – none of which we can verify. According to the stated information, awareness and action on global warming has increased over the years, but Lovelock does not think this will be enough to save the planet. By Lovelock's article, it is easy to understand why he thinks that nuclear power is the only way to save the world. He suggests that we don't have time to experiment with alternative energies, and that we already have a good, clean, and green solution to global warming -- nuclear energy.

Logical Fallacy of the Common American Citizen

Further analyzing Steve Duin's article, I believe there is a general logical fallacy he addresses that the nation has built up - that we as a country are becoming "socialist." Obama was elected as the democratic candidate. He certainly has begun to alter the administration so that the central government has gained much power through several of his programs such as Health Care. But ideas are thrown out that because of Obama's actions, our nation is becoming socialist. As Duin says, we have developed a sense of skeptism towards the way our governemnt is run and we have turned a simple word such as community into a much scarier princple of socialism: "in the movement to turn "community" into a shameful code word for socialism, you feel the desperation of those who believe their political fortunes are best served by a forlorn and prolonged skepticism" (par. 13). Despite the fact that Obama is centralizing the federal government, it is virtually impossible for the United States to become socialist like its mother country, Great Britain. When people use this argument against Obama, they are just demonstrating their lack of knowledge.

Many people may refer to this notion (that the country is becoming communist) because they fear. The are unsure of the transition of one president to the next and they fear change from their complacent state. Citizens refer to this logical fallacy and their lack of knowledge becomes transparent.

The point is that Duin recognizes that citizens need this sense of community. Duin says we live in "an ear-plugged society in which everything we need -- including intimacy -- arrives via the iPhone" (par. 10). Overtime we have been separated by the influences and advances of technology. We need to revive a sense of unity, a sense of oneness over the individualism that has driven or economy to rock bottom. Because Obama is choosing to strengthen certain government programs, does not mean he is redefining the American ideals that this country was founded on! We must overlook the childish remarks people make when they do not fully understand the politics of Obama, especially when they talk out of fear. It is unethical and clearly a lack of persuasive rhetoric when the general public relies on manipulation to portray their view.

Society needs to be charitable about our opponent's intentions and we must establish trust. Although I may not agree with the political ideology of the author, I do understand his frustrations. I can see how polarization of the political parties is occurring in the United States. We can "agree to disagree" and establish intellectual humility but we cannot become accustomed to mistrusting citizens of the other political party. On this basis, politics will become more of a mess. The goal is the pursuit of truth and by discovering the truth, we can arrive at the best way to govern our country.