Every nation in the world is grappling with issues of insecurity ranging from local to global terrorism. Government security agencies are employing technology to seize criminals before they commit crime and to identify crime suspects. Use of biometrics and facial expressions are becoming rapidly popular because of their perceived accuracy in identifying suspects. Critics have brought to question the effectiveness of such technologies in identifying suspects. Two articles, ‘Trading Liberty for Illusions’ by Wendy Kaminer and ‘If Looks could Kill’ from The Economist put the issue of technology surveillance into perspective. The articles’ authors employ ethos, pathos, and logos with varying degree of success to put across a convincing argument. This paper will demonstrate that effective deployment of ethos, pathos, and logos distinguish a strong and persuasive argument from an average attempt to influence the audiences’ attitude towards a concept.
Proper use of ethos lends credibility to an essay. When the audience read an article from an authority they can respect, they tend to listen and if effective, the authority can sway their opinion on an issue. Wendy Kaminer is a respected lawyer and activist cum social critic. She has authored several books including Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Piety. The short profile in the article portrays Wendy as an authority in the area of civil liberties. No one would be better suited to write an article on liberties than she would. She is an authority in the area and this lends credence to her article ‘Trading Liberty for Illusions’.
On the other hand, the author of ‘If looks could kill’ is anonymous. Even if The Economist is a respected publication, failure to publish the name of the person who penned down the article diminishes credibility. One could argue that the article has salvaged the credibility by citing authorities in the area under investigation. This is correct to some extent. The mention of Charles Cohen, a technologist and authority in the area of technology surveillance, enhances the article’s believability. Furthermore, the reliance on respected scholars from reputable institutions serves to strengthen the argument. However, Wendy has also used authorities in her article. A good example is her citation of report by reputable authorities such as American Civil Liberties Union. It is therefore fair to say that the citations of authorities by the two articles lend credibility but the decision to keep the writer of the “If looks could kill’ article anonymous denigrates its believability.
The rule of the thumb in persuasive essays is to give strong and logical reasons to appeal to both the heart and the mind. Appeal to the heart, or emotions, is called pathos. Wendy’s article ‘Trading Liberty for Illusion’ is an appeal to the heart more than to the mind. She wants to elicit feelings of anger and protest at an injustice perpetuated in the name of enhancing security. The introduction exemplifies her intention; to deride those who sacrifice civil liberties for (notice she does not say security) illusions. Her choice of words is a direct appeal to the audiences’ sense of humanity. A good example is using of phrases such as ‘persecuting immigrants’, ‘criminalized opposition’, and ‘famously and shamefully’, among others. Notice also the way she chides the security surveillance technology for stalking women. Wendy wants to elicit distaste, disregard, and contempt of technological surveillance. She achieves this and makes her article persuasive because it is always easier to appeal to emotions than to logic.
Writers use logos to make their articles persuasive. Logos simply means reasoning, and an effective writer should take the reader through a mental journey that leads to a desired conclusion. The Economist ‘If looks could kill’ is an appeal to logic more than to pathos. The anonymous writer starts by giving a hypothetical situation of nondescript man milling around a train station without specific intentions.