Ortega Emily Team #4 Assignment #1

Thesis: Both articles “Comment is King” and “Why Our Memory Fails Us” use logos to present facts, pathos to challenge assumptions, and ethos for credibility.

“Comment is King” is a critique to online commentary written by Virginia Heffernan.

In the article, ethos and logos are used in the beginning to explain Anne Applebaum’s background as a writer, also mentioning some of the prizes and honors she has received for it. This creates a feeling of trustworthiness and credibility which is ethos, but because the author is stating facts, it is also logos. Pathos is used numerous times when the author is explaining that the comment section of Applebaum’s articles is mostly people who don’t analyze the content, but instead reiterate information. Logos is used to point out examples of some comments to further prove her point. All three modes of persuasion are used to convince the audience.

“Why Our Memory Fails Us” explains how our own experiences or biases can blind us, and it was written by Christopher F. Chabris and Daniel J. Simons.

The authors use logos, pathos and ethos all over the article. All three are used when the authors name Neil Degrasse Tyson, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush to give specific examples on how their memory failed them at a specific time. By doing this, the authors give the audience not only an example they can rely on because they are public figures (logos and ethos), but it also creates a personal connection that will make the reader think “if it happened to them, it can happen to me” which will help the authors to further prove their point (pathos).

Logos and Pathos are simultaneously used numerous times. For example, when the authors write “We recall events easily and often, at least if they are important to us, but only rarely do we find our memories contradicted by evidence, much less take the initiative to check if they are right.” They are almost forcing the reader to make an emotional connection with the topic.

The first comment on the “Reader Picks” section is by Neil Degrasse Tyson, who posted a series of links that will further explain his point of view about the subject. Keith Dow wrote the second one, and instead of discussing what the article is really about, he decided to just focus on George W. Bush and post quotes from various website that try to prove the author is wrong about him. The third comment was written by Jacob Sommer who tries to make a connection between the subject and his personal experiences. All comments are an example of pathos. The first one being the personal side of a public mistake, the second one is clearly a personal issue of the writer with Bush (I can also say because he looked up specific quotes, it can be logos), and the third one is the writer talking about his personal life.

None of the comments discussed what the article was about, so I would say that The New York Times should prioritize comments that can further explain things to readers, or at least add something relevant to the discussion. excellent first assignment with all readings and class concepts addressed and analyzed in an organized way.

Why Our Memory Fails Us

Thesis – Chabris and Simons keep an open mind about how our memories fails us but still strongly remain on facts. do you mean rely on facts?
Dr. Tyson pointed out a false observation about what president Bush had stated during his speech about 9/11. The argument was based on how Dr. Tyson memory about how the speech came about. Either Dr. Tyson tweaked what he remembers overtime or whether he relied on the confidence as a signal of accuracy. What people seems to forget is that, people memory is really based on evidence that can be remembered. Not based off what your eyes and signal of accuracy is forcing you to remember. please separate paragraphs in wordpress.
The eyewitness argument is meet by confidence. Basically, the more confidence you have about any certain situation may lead to a higher percentage on how correct and fluent you can remember things. Henry L. Roediger and K. Andrew Soto experience indicated that for false memories, higher confidence was associated with lower accuracy. Logic of this goes with the hand to hand statistics they had for it. These weren’t what these scientists think that may happen, there were reasoning behind what they put out to the world. Psychologist Sir Frederic Charles argument were basically saying over time your memory will eventually change. The argument and logic he makes behind his statement were pretty simple. I bet if you can record yourself telling a story in 2018, by 2030 the same story you’ve been tell all these years will be a little bit different. This is how Frederic Charles argued his point. The more time the more the details change, That’s how I would restate what Mr. Charles said.
One is confident and the other is accuracy. People tend to mix these two which creates a huge conflict. Most of these examples was too broad and others was on point and gave just enough details to satisfy its audience.
The Arguments Chabris and Simons presented varies. They throw out different situations and different conflicts out there. The way they built their cases is by providing Rhetoric sequences. Logos came in when data was collected by more than 30 separate research labs. Pathos was expressed when Dr. Tyson apologies for the misconception about what he encounters and misunderstood about President bush’s speech due to his lack of memory. Ethos was brought out in numerous of ways. Brought out when Dr. Tyson credibility was crush because of misconception. Also, the way they can built their cases is by doing and providing more and more experience and statistic charts. Furthermore, when research labs show collective data, which can prove reliability. Chabris and Simons rely more facts and studies. Why? Because of you take information from whoever, it might or might not be accurate. So to prevent all of this, it’s better to get the facts and not opinions or what people think. Their tone as authors were open minded. They weren’t leaning in one direction but they were willing to provide different scenarios on about how memories can sometimes mislead you.  strong grasp of the readings and rhetoric. there are structural and grammatical errors, so please proofread your work and be sure all sentences are correct.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Work Cited
Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. “Why Our Memory Fails Us.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/opinion/why-our-memory-fails-us.html.

Rhetorical Analysis

 The argument presented in the article, “Why Our Memory Fails Us” by Christopher F. Chabris and Daniel J. Simons, clearly shows that both Chabris and Simons built their case in what they see as the problems of relying on one’s memory, by conveying the sense of a rational approach, as well as ethical and emotional approach regarding memory. good thesis but try to use concise language

 The article begins with the primary example of Neil Degrasse Tyson. Including Dr. Tyson in this article, gives a sense of ethos. Having the title as a doctor shows credibility and reliability, since most of the people trust doctors, even blindly. People take the doctors word on anything. When Dr. Tyson spoke about Mr. Bush’s “failed” memory, it was in fact, his that had failed. He was fooled by his faith in the accuracy of his own memory.  ethos

In this article, the approach of rational appeal is presented heavily. Simons took part in a panel which research shows the relationship between the accuracy of a witness’s memory and his confidence in it. This, in fact, teaches the audience about how critical our memory can get. Especially when we find our memories contradicted by evidence as the example of Dr. Tyson. Dr. Tyson relied on his “explicit memory” as proof of what Mr. Bush said. But that proof is not enough to show what the facts are. He made notes, so-called quoting the president, and then to help himself out, responded philosophically about the “absence of evidence.” Indeed, Dr. Tyson neglected all this and responded emotionally, acting as though he must be right and everyone else must be wrong.

 Throughout the article, the appeal of pathos was also pointed out. Chabris and Simons spoke more thoroughly about memory failures, conveying a poignant feel. Whose memories we believe or disbelieve, influence how we interpret controversial public events. And these mistakenly beliefs have led to false convictions and death sentences. Even those leaders we look up to have a case of mistaken or loss memory, and it should be forgiven, in the sense that we are all humans and we all make mistakes. pathos

In this article, Chabris and Simons rely more heavily on facts and studies, rather than playing on the emotions of their audience. The tone to convey this is an informational tone.

The editors of the NYT were convinced with the top three editor’s picks comments because the commenters used rhetorical techniques such as logos and pathos, which helped them made their point so effectively towards the argument about our memory and how it tends to fail us in ways we think that we are right, but we are mistakenly wrong.

I think the Times approach to ranking comments is effective because it helps the people interested in this to gain a better understanding, listen to other views and become more aware since it can affect us.

In my opinion, there is nothing lacking in ranking the reader’s comments. The reader’s comments are a way for others to express their opinions, and gain thought of what others have to say on the same topic.  good first assignment demonstrating a grasp of rhetoric and readings and organized writing.