This document analyzes the rhetorical devices of ethos and pathos. It describes four types of ethos appeals that help establish a rhetor's credibility: simplicity, integrity, mirroring, and expertise. It also outlines three common pathos appeals that elicit emotional responses: yoking, descriptive detail, and vehement repetition. The document provides examples of each appeal and advises analyzing how they are used in rhetorical arguments.

1. 1
Analyzing Ethos and Pathos
Daniel Dickson-LaPrade
Aristotle and other classical rhetoricians divided argumentative appeals into three types: logos, ethos, and
pathos. Logos is the appeal to logic, data, facts, testimony, and so on. It is etymologically related to words like logic,
psychology, and biology. Ethos is etymologically related to words like ethics and ethical. Ethos is a rhetor‟s credibility. Does the
rhetor have expertise in this area? Has she done her homework? Is the rhetor honest and trustworthy? Does the rhetor
care about our needs and interests, or is she just trying to further an agenda? Pathos is related to words like empathy and
sympathy. Pathos is emotional appeal, the appeal to shared values and experiences. Rhetors use pathos to get us to feel
particular emotional responses toward particular concepts, individuals, groups, policies, and so on. In practice, of course,
logos, ethos, and pathos are always intertwined in any skillfully constructed argument. By teasing apart these three
appeals, however, we can gain insight into their interrelationships and into the rhetor‟s overarching persuasive strategy.
The ethos and pathos heuristic described in this document allows us to get at how rhetors manipulate audience
values, emotions, concerns, and perceptions in ways which don‟t necessarily relate directly to evidence or logical
structure. In this document, I will describe the four species of ethos appeal and the three species of pathos appeal. In
class, we will discuss how these appeals are used in our readings.
Ethos Appeals
Simplicity refers to straightforward, typical thinking and language use on the part of a rhetor. When a rhetor uses
common sense, reasons simply, and uses ordinary, run-of-the-mill concepts, values, and vocabulary we trust that rhetor,
since they don‟t get overly complicated in their thinking and arguing. Rhetors with simplicity therefore come across as
clear-headed and perceptive. A rhetor employing this appeal uses common sense well, reasons in straightforward and
sensible ways which are clearly spelled out for the audience, and uses language in the same kinds of ways that everyone
else uses language.
Integrity. A rhetor employing the integrity appeal seems honest, upstanding, and trustworthy. Rhetors often try to
demonstrate integrity through explicit demonstrations of fair-mindedness—e.g., spending a great deal of time discussing
and praising the wisdom of an opposing point of view before finally shooting it down. Another way to gain integrity is
to admit to past faults or mistakes in a way which could put one in a bad light—“this person certainly is being straight
with us!” Cheap shots at opposing views harm this aspect of ethos.
Mirroring. A rhetor with mirroring has the audience‟s needs, goals, and values at heart, and behaves accordingly. In
short, mirroring is the extent to which a rhetor is similar to her audience. This similarity must at least appear genuine, and
it must include important things like moral values, goals, desires, concerns, etc. Thus, praising the separation of Church
and State to an Evangelical Christian audience, or condemning “Darwinism” to a group of biologists, shows a troubling

2. 2
dissimilarity between the values and goals of the rhetor and the values and goals of the audience. This dissimilarity
breeds distrust, and eliminates ethos.
Expertise. Having a Ph.D. in a given field or having written dozens of books are likely to make you more
knowledgeable in your particular area. But though you may have real, hard-earned knowledge of an area, this ethos
appeal refers to how you deploy this experience within the confines of an argument. While name recognition and college
degrees are important, what matters in finding this appeal is how the rhetor herself deploys this expertise, and deploys it
within the argument —perhaps by referring to a research program, a past experience, etc.
Pathos Appeals
While my treatment of ethos is derived mainly from Aristotle‟s Rhetoric, my treatment of pathos is more varied
and borrows from a variety of rhetoricians, such as Chaim Perelman and Brian Vickers. For our purposes, there are
three common and effective forms of pathos appeal: yoking, anecdotal detail, and vehement repetition.
Yoking. In this pathos appeal, two concepts are shown to be either similar in their essence and attributes or related by
way of a causal connection. This pathos appeal may take up a great deal of time and space, as when Colson and Pearcey
try to connect Rousseau, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin in the minds of their readers. Alternately, this pathos appeal may be
instantiated in a single word choice, as when Colson & Pearcey use words like “Darwinist” to color our attitudes toward
important figures in the history of psychology. Thus, Freud is “a committed Darwinist,” Fechner was “another radical
Darwinist,” Pavlov was “an evolutionist and a materialist,” and so on (176-77). Such loaded word choices allow
emotional responses toward one thing to activate emotional responses toward the other. (Naturally, an audience of
biologists might not find this word choice loaded at all; they might, in fact, find Colson and Pearcey‟s attack on Freud,
Fechner, and Pavlov to be ridiculous and unpersuasive.)
Descriptive Detail. Creative writers are often given the advice “show, don‟t tell.” People respond much more strongly
to dialogue and description than they do to abstract, overarching summaries of what has happened. Thus, politicians
who want to argue against a policy will often find some ostensible victim of this policy and go into exhaustive detail
about the specific problems to which this policy led the victim.
Consider how Colson and Pearcey describe Rousseau‟s abandonment of his first child. They could simply have stated
the fact baldly. Instead, they go for descriptive detail:
Friends whispered to Rousseau that unwanted offspring were customarily sent to a „foundling asylum,‟
and a few days later, a tiny, blanketed bundle was left on the steps of the local orphanage. Four more
children were born to Thérèse and Rousseau, and each ended up on the orphanage steps. (173)
“Friends whispered,” the “tiny, blanketed bundle,” the “orphanage steps”—by going into this level of sensory detail, the
authors are able to bring their audience face-to-face with the concrete horror of Rousseau‟s actions.

3. 3
Vehement Repetition. When Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted to give a prophetic vision of a post-racial America, he
could simply have said something like this: “I have a dream that one day my descendants will not be treated badly
because of their skin color, and that someday segregation will be overcome in Alabama.” He could have done this, but
then he would not be Martin Luther King, Jr. Instead he said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his
lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama
little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters
and brothers.
Throughout this passage, and throughout the speech, King skillfully uses the repetition of particular words and phrases
to show vehemence and to drive home his points. People who are in the grip of some strong emotion tend to repeat
themselves: this means that if you want to seem in the grip of strong emotion, such repetition can do the trick.

4. 4
Handlist of Ethos & Pathos Appeals
ETHOS
Simplicity: practical wisdom, clearheaded thinking, simple vocabulary, “horse sense” (e.g. using
straightforward language to make oneself appear “down to earth”).
Integrity: trustworthiness, fair-mindedness (e.g. giving both sides of an argument, admitting to past
mistakes).
Mirroring: similarity to audience goals, values, fears, norms, and beliefs (e.g. the millionaire politician clearing
brush from his ranch).
Expertise: detailed, expert-level knowledge in a particular area (e.g. referring to previous books one has
written on the subject under discussion, or to previous job experience).
PATHOS
Yoking: using a concept with a particular emotional resonance to give another concept that same resonance
(e.g. Hitler analogies, draping oneself with the flag).
Descriptive Detail: using vivid sensory details to bring an event or situation before the reader‟s eyes, thereby
appealing to shared experience (e.g. a politician detailing the troubles of struggling families in a speech).
Vehement Repetition: repetition of words or phrases which shows that the rhetor is in the grip of some
powerful emotion (e.g. MLK‟s “I Have a Dream” speech).