Watch Zach’s testimony again: (Or here is the transcript). Then, in groups of 3, analyze it across Aristotle’s three artistic proofs: ethos, pathos, logos.

  1. Discern the logical appeals in this speech. Spend some time on this and be very specific: be able to point us to specific logical appeals. Inductive or deductive? Example or analogy? Any inartistic logical appeals (any stats or figures or expert testimony/facts that he tosses in and makes use of)?
  2. Identify Zach’s ethical appeals, both situated and invented. What sort of ethos does he walk in with? What does he do in the speech to confirm that he is intelligent, of good moral character, and has good intentions? Be specific.
  3. Describe the pathetic appeals in this speech. Again: be very specific. What emotions and identifications might the speech stir up in the target audience? How are they evoked? Narrative? Imagery? Vivid description? Passionate delivery or language? What effect might these pathetic appeals have on the youtube audience?
  4. Given the presumed goal of moving the committee to vote a specific way, how effective are Zach’s use of these proofs? Beyond the immediate goal of persuading the committee, how effective do you think these proofs were on the broader youtube audience?

Be prepared to share your responses.