Rhetorical Analysis 6 (Sales Encounter)

Goal: It sort of goes without saying that the sales representative at the Verizon wireless booth of University mall was to sell me another phone.
Argument: The associate’s argument was that I should abandon my current cell phone plan in favor of a new Verizon Wireless cell phone plan because the Verizon plan/phone had more features than my current phone. (Somehow, having more features on my phone is going to drastically improve the quality of my life I suppose.
Audience: Duh! The audience was me.
How: Since, I’m a young, dumb college student the associate assumed that he already had some sort of established “ethos” with me because we were peers and somehow he could “automatically relate to me.” (I still made him work though!). He kept calling me “bro” and “dude” which at first glance seems like an appeal to pathos because he’s playing on my emotions and sensibilities as a young-adult college student, but I honestly saw it as an ethos ploy. Why? Well because he was trying to establish his own “cred” by saying “look man, I’m not some stuffy out of touch sales-rep type. I’m a guy you can trust. I go through the same things that you do, I value the same things that you do, I am interested in the same things that you are.” This was an attempt to get me to take him seriously. He didn’t really give a whole lot of “evidence” for why the DROID was a good phone, he mostly tried to “wow” me by flattering me, talking about things completely unrelated to the phone (The Celtics, my excellent taste in shoes, etc) and essentially regurgitated a bunch of things that are already broadcast on the TV Droid commercials. I will confess that I did try to stump him a little bit (like asking if he had to pay George Lucas any royalties for stealing a word that he created) but for the most part, the sales guy expected me to kind of already know what the Droid was capable of and he wanted me to just shoot the breeze with him, and he gave me some BS bit about how he’d cut me a special deal that was strictly for me (even though I know for a fact that the “special rebate” is protocol for ANYONE who buys the phone. Nice try buddy?

Effective?: No where close to effective.

Rhetorical Analysis Assignment 5 (Speech)

Goal: Jimmy Swaggart’s ultimate goal in giving his speech is to get sympathy from the people who’ve lost respect for him. He was an esteemed televangelist who was caught sleeping with a prostitute.
Argument: His basic argument is that, as most of his followers are devout Christians, they should exude the same Christlike understanding and forgiveness that Christ would give.
Audience: His audience is mainly his “congregation” and to some degree the entire nation. He wants to save face and so he needs to convince people that he’s genuinely sorry for what he’s done, and also that he’s deserving of their forgiveness.
How: Since this is an apology statement, he needs to appeal mostly to pathos because there’s not really anything that would count as “hard facts” in convincing people to forgive him. He is most able to achieve this just by sincerely referring to the feelings of guilt and shame that he feels.
He also makes many appeals to ethos. He notes that his speech will not be made using a script or a teleprompter. This not only compliments his abilities as an orator but also gives the speech a tone of being genuine and heartfelt. He commends to media (the very media that busts him with the prostitute in a hotel) and even though he has every reason to be an enemy with them, insists that he is happy that they have done their job. Obviously with a Christian audience, he makes a few appeals to texts revered by Christians (The Bible) and recounts Christ’s examples of forgiveness and also his own religious understanding of the place of sin in the lives of man.
Effective: It’s effecting in the sense that I feel sorry for Jimmy…we all sin and screw up and it’s a total bummer that he was in such a public position that everyone was made aware of his sin. I’m sure he felt terrible and his speech proves that he does.
His evidence was sufficient for his audience. The Bible is like the ultimate “trump card” and devout Christians are going to accept its teachings in a speech. I also feel like he used enough examples from it, and also that it’s going to be perfectly relevant for his audience.
Poor guy. Maybe he’ll figure it out.

The Speech can be found here.