Web Blog Post #1

I found each group’s use of logos and ethos the most persuasive elements in their arguments. In the Johnson Family v. McDonald’s scenerio, I felt that including the doctor visit in overview added to the argument’s credibility. The group’s use of pathos made you sympathize with the Johnson family and dislike the evil mega corporation of McDonald’s. In terms of the opposing opinion, the availability of nutritional information weakened the Johnson family’s argument. If nutritional information is readily available there is no way that the Johnson family can plead ignorance.

In the affirmative action scenario, I found the supporting facts very persuasive. The statistics about the smaller gap between SAT scores and socioeconomic level, and the higher minority college drop out rate in comparison to white male and females strengthened the opposing argument.

In the Smith & Smith v. Valley Insurance scenario, the opposing opinion’s argument’s use of reasoning was very strong. They pointed out that it would be far too costly for an insurance company to test all their clients, and it would be an invasion of privacy. They also posed the question why should all clients be tested when there is only a few clients that abuse the system, which was also a valid point.

All of the cases included both rational and emotional elements. One point When the Law Goes Pop stresses throughout the novel is that lawyers are storytellers. Their goal is to persuade the jury. Like lawyers, our class became the storytellers, whose mission was to persuade our peers. We used the same techniques lawyers use in order to persuade the class, and strengthen our arguments.