Response to: Paper A

I'd say my paper was focused mainly on pathos and logos, with little help from the ethos side of things, as my rather lame sources showed. I used a lot of my own opinions, but I never really gave any reasons for why people should respect my views, so I didn't really count as an authoritative figure or an expert. Even the sources I used were not so much used for their authoritative role, but for the logic they demonstrate.

In the first paragraph and elsewhere in the paper where I described the feelings of being in love I was making an appeal to pathos. My goal was to get people thinking about times when they've said "I love you" or heard it from someone else, because my paper was aimed towards people who had been in love before. I thought that if people could agree with how I was describing the feelings of saying "I love you" then they would be more willing to believe what I said throughout the rest of the paper.

The rest of the paper relies heavily on logos. The course of logical argument used is: The topic of love is confusing, and people have different ideas of what it means to say "I love you". Because guys and girls are so different, it's no surprise that they have different views. Also, there is the danger that people say it without meaning it. These problems pull away from the fact that the focus should be on the work required to make a relationship work.

The research I used is, I admit, not very sufficient to properly make the claims that I make. I don't use too many sources, and many of the ones I do use are not respectable sources by any means. The points made are, I believe, typical of what many believe, and they are accurately represented.

For some people this paper may have been effective. I'd say definitely for the people who often read opinion articles from relationship magazines and things like that. For those in my audience who are more accustomed to extensive research and more solidly built rhetoric it probably would not be too effective.