1. Identify
the nature of proof in Frank's
monologue, siting evidence he used in Charlie's defense.
Through Franks Slade’s defense for Charlie he illustrates
logos, pathos and ethos. Logos can be clearly seen as Frank uses it to convince
the committee that everyone at that court hearing has Charlie’s future in there
hands. During this time what ever is decided for this young boy will be the
path to his uncertain future. He also addresses the fact that because Charlie
had stayed and did the honest thing rather then running away like the other
boys did, it is wrong that Charlie will have to face the consequences from what
was also committed by other boys. Pathos can be clearly seen in the strength
and the emotional appeal through his voice and how determined he is on making
sure Charlie was fairly punished due to what other people weren’t being
convicted for. Lastly, ethos can be seen through his word choice, how well he
delivered his information and how he delivered his personal experiences that
related to what Charlie had experienced.
2. Of the four styles
of dramatic or vicarious proof,
which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes around about Charlie? How did this
style function in terms of reason?
Franks personal
experience of witnessing young boys losing limbs allows the audience to
visualize what he had seen which then creates an emotional appeal because of how
that mental picture was created.
3.
What cultural myths or images were
employed to increase the appeal of Frank's argument? How did this influence his
attempted shift of opinion?
Convincing an audience that has
already made a discussion on what should be done to Charlie and persuading them
to change their minds is a challenging thing to do and it is also challenging
to make the right decision. I feel that the value of challenge was used to
increase the appeal of Frank’s argument because Frank used his personal life to
express that what Charlie did is something that most people have a hard time
doing. This ties back to emotional appeal because most people can relate to a
similar situation when they were once young and reckless.
4.
Which of Reich’s parables apply or applies to Frank’s reasoning.
Reich’s
parable the triumphant individual applies to Frank’s reasoning because of the
honorable decision that Charlie made while in the situation that he was in.
Charlie stayed when everyone else left because there future would have been at
risk. Not only did Charlie took responsibility for his actions but he was able
to be an example of integrity.
5.
What was Frank’s reasoning in terms of logical appeal?
Through
Frank’s speech the reasoning that I was able to understand falls under arguing
from authority. Frank is a respected man and a respected lawyer and through
this authority he is able to persuade his audience.
6.
How did Frank’s paralinguistic impact his expression and the meaning of his
words?
1. Frank is able to draw
out emotions from his audience by the volume of his speech to make it clear
that this situation should not be taken lightly being that Charlie is the only
one being punished for what others have also been apart of.
2. Frank is also able to
create clear imagery for the young boys and adults sitting in on this trial. He
guides the audience’s imagination through details and helps the audience look
back at a time when they were young and reckless by using personal experiences.
3. Lastly, Frank was
aware of how the timing played a significant role with how effective his emotional
appeals would work.
