Logos

Logos 

(Persuasion Using Logic)

Definition: An appeal to logic. Meaning "reason" or "logic" in Greek, logos represents the persuasive element that relies on logical thinking, rational reasoning, & sound arguments as the context of persuasive communication.

Elements of Logos

• Logical Reasoning: Employs rationality and logical argumentation to sway an audience. Its effectiveness lies in using evidence, facts, statistics, syllogisms, and logical frameworks to bolster one's arguments.

• Logical Organization & Flow: Arranging concepts in an orderly fashion while providing evidence and structures that flow coherently with the argument's logical structure. 

Aspects of Logos

• In order to strengthen the element of logos, it is essential to present reliable evidence, real-life examples, authoritative opinions, and logical reasoning to back up the claims being made. By incorporating such evidence, the argument becomes more convincing and persuasive.

• Clarity and coherence are essential elements of effective logos. It is imperative to use language that is clear and understandable, ensuring that the argument can be followed by the audience without any confusion.

Role in Persuasion

• Logos is a significant component among Aristotle's trio of persuasion techniques, consisting of ethos and pathos. It plays a vital role in swaying an informed audience through the presentation of logical reasoning and substantiated facts. Logos functions in collaboration with ethos, which pertains to credibility, and pathos, which involves emotional appeal, to construct a holistic approach for persuasion.

Application in Discourse

• In the realm of academia, public speaking, debates, and scholarly discussions, the utilization of logos is of utmost importance. Writers employ logical reasoning, references, data, and analysis to construct compelling and persuasive arguments.

Ethical Considerations

• Logos plays a crucial role in ethical communication as it highlights the significance of being truthful, accurate, and maintaining integrity when conveying information and presenting arguments.

Adaptation & Context

• The concept of logos is contingent upon the audience, context, and topic involved. The versatility of logos lies in its capacity to conform to diverse audiences and circumstances.

Types of Logic

(Inductive vs. Deductive)

There are two basic types of logical reasoning: Inductive & Deductive. 

1. Deductive logic involves starting with general premises and reasoning to specific, logically certain conclusions, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

2. Inductive logic involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations or examples, often leading to probable but not certain conclusions. 

Inductive Reasoning

Logic that moves from specific observations to a general rule. Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific observations or cases that imply a general conclusion. 

• Example #1

  1. 1. Observation 1: The sun has risen in the east every morning for the past year. 

     2. Observation 2: The sun rose in the east this morning.

     3. Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

• Example #2

  1. 1. Observation 1: Every time I have seen a swan, it has been white. 

     2. Observation 2: I have seen numerous swans in various countries and different environments.

     3. Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are probably white.

Inductive reasoning allows for conclusions that are probable but not necessarily certain. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusion in inductive reasoning may be false even if all the premises are true, as it relies on the degree and representativeness of the observations. 

Example: The conclusion about all swans being white was widely held until the discovery of black swans in Australia.

Analyzing Logos

Evaluate the types, processes, and effectiveness of the reasoning used. Assess the overall strength of the logical evidence and structures supporting the communicator's primary and secondary claims.

• 1. 1. Audience Appropriateness: Is the author's logic suitable for the intended audience? Explain why or why not.

     2. Reliability of Arguments: Determine if each logical argument is sound, balanced, relevant, valid, credible, effective, and clearly presented. Provide reasons for your assessment.

• Credibility: An argument is credible if it is logically sound and backed by strong reasoning and ample, compelling, and unimpeachable evidence. The credibility of an argument hinges on the accuracy, truth, morality, and rational durability of its logical reasoning.

• Effectiveness: An argument is effective if it successfully convinces the intended audience that its claims are true. While effective arguments can be credible, they may also derive power from misleading logic, false claims, deceptive ethos, and appeals to base emotions like envy, fear, jealousy, and greed. Effective arguments are not necessarily dependent on the accuracy, truth, morality, or logical durability of their claims.

• Reasoning: Identify the type of reasoning the communicator employs, whether inductive or deductive. Explain why this type of logic is effective or not for the intended audience.

Fallacies of Logos (Logic)

1. Hasty Generalization: jumping to conclusions based upon an unrepresentative sample or insufficient evidence.

Example: “Ten of the last fourteen National Spelling Bee Champions have been Indian American. Indian Americans must all be great spellers!”

2. Appeal to Ignorance (True Believer’s form): arguing along the lines that if an opponent can’t prove something isn’t the case, then it is reasonable to believe that it is the case; transfers the burden of proof away from the person making the claim (the proponent).

Example:  “You can’t prove that extraterrestrials haven’t visited Earth, so it is reasonable to believe that they have visited Earth.”

3. Appeal to Ignorance (Skeptics’ form): Confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence; assumes that if you cannot now prove something exists, then it is shown that it doesn’t exist.

Example: “There’s no proof that starting classes later in the day will improve the performance of our high school students; therefore, this change in schedule will not work.”

4. Begging the Question: Circular argument because the premise is the same as the claim that you are trying to prove.

Example: “This legislation is sinful because it is the wrong thing to do.”

5. False Dilemma: misuse of the either/or argument; presenting only two options when other choices exist

Example: “Either we pass this ordinance or there will be rioting in the streets.”

6. False Cause: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” Confuses correlation with causation by concluding that an event preceding a second event must be the cause of that second event. In other words, since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.

Example: “My child was diagnosed with autism after receiving vaccinations. That is proof that vaccines cause autism.”

7. Non-Sequitur: Latin for “does not follow.” The conclusion cannot be inferred from the premises because there is a break in the logical connection between a claim and the premises that are meant to support it, either because a premise is untrue (or missing) or because the relationship between premises does not support the deduction stated in the claim.

Example (Untrue Premise): “If she is a Radford student, she is a member of a sorority. She is a Radford student. Therefore, she is a member of a sorority.”

8. Red Herring: Avoiding the real issue or a tough question by introducing an unrelated topic as a distraction.

Example: “My opponent says I am weak on crime, but I have been one of the most reliable participants in city council meetings.”

9. Straw Man: Mischaracterizing an opponent’s position by making it simpler or more extreme and, therefore, easier to refute.

Example: “Senator Smith says we should cut back the Defense budget. His position is that we should let down our defenses and just trust our enemies not to attack us!”