Argumentation and Rhetoric
Argumentation allows society to reason objectively and draw sound conclusions. Rhetoric allows the speaker to persuade the listener. Identifying various forms of feelings in rhetorical contexts necessitates the reader making assumptions on given claims. Since there is no difference between emotion and logic, emotional arguments are substantially more successful. When making a case, pathos, worldview, and slogans help the speaker look believable. Informal argument is based on the idea that paying careful attention when judging and evaluating claims is important for reaching successful conclusions. Under informal argument construction, suggestions, hypotheses, demand deducing, geometric proofs, diagrams are incorporated. In this essay, there is an argument that images used in different contexts not only generate but also dispute opinions similar to arguments that are spoken or written.
Images as Arguments in Language and Advertising
In chapter 1, Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Keith suggest that language and images go hand in hand in making arguments. Similar to verbal augments, pathos, ethos and logos are part of tools for persuasion in pictures and images. Pictorial representations not only exist to pass a message but also evaluate and explain phenomena. Pictures present an argument in a rhetoric way. For instance, most advertisers are concerned about the emotions that the pictures and videos they use in various media elicit in the minds of their audiences. For advertisements directed to younger audiences, there is a lot of humor as opposed to those meant for the elderly.
Argument
In my opinion, the scholars are right when they claim that images are a form of arguments because under ordinary circumstances, pictures that are used in the press, documentaries and television advertisements trigger different types of emotions. Ideally, images in advertisements are a non-verbal way of expressing arguments. In the modern world, cartoons, pictures of architecture and scenarios such as courtrooms and, art, documentaries convey visual images. After viewing the images, the audience can derive meanings from them, which are equivalent to conclusions. In science, bars and graphs as well step-by-step demonstrations evoke judgments as evidence from which the viewer can create a conclusion. For instance, a picture that shows an emancipated or starved child can make the viewer construe that poverty is detrimental to health.
Character and Credibility in Pictorial Advertisements
Pictures have a characteristic of ethos, an attribute that ordinary arguments contain. For instance, in most cases, advertisers ascertain credibility in their pictorial advertisements by using pictures that reflect honesty (Burrows 5). They understand that false representation can be detrimental in sending messages in pictorial advertisement. More specifically, most advertisers use characters whose personalities are linked with the product being advertised. For instance, a respectable politician cannot be used in a cosmetics advertisement without raising questions the in the minds of the audience. As a matter of fact, ethos applied in advertisements seeks to command authority and enhance credibility to listeners.
Logical Reasoning in Pictorial Arguments
In logos, facts, pictures used in advertisements present conclusions to the audience with little space for opinions and emotions. Pictorial logic requires surveying questioning and critiquing. Some propositions positions are not arguable but when they are disputable, the opponents present facts to refute the original argument. Reasons are embedded in the pictorial representations of messages. Accumulation of weak premises in the mind of the viewer leads to fallacious conclusions among them, and can make the pictorial advertisement ineffective. With the approach, the authors present an idea that artistic proves must create strong premises in the mind sufficient as evidences to convince them. Sometimes it is hard to achieve an agreement with the conclusion because the truth or certainty of premises. Similarly, pictures that present vague information can hardly convince the target audience. Therefore, appeals that pictures create form a legitimate foundation for classifying them as arguments.
Informal Logic in Pictorial Messages
Pictures embrace informal logic when presenting their message. Ordinarily, viewing a picture in an advertisement leads to a case where the individual infers from a broad range of information that comes into his or her mind. The advertisers consider attributes such as potential competing definitions of the visual art and cognitive bias than can result from emotions. Other aspects examined in the advertisements are future changes in the perception of the argument presented in the pictures a result of dynamics in the social contexts that can alter the message presented in the advertisement.
Persuasion through Emotion and Character
Persuasion cannot be enhanced by argument alone but must incorporate emotion and character. The three authors argue that a speaker that is capable of stirring emotions on his or her audience is more effective in persuading the audience to agree with him or her in the social-political and moral contexts. The idea is logically sound because since time immemorial, pictures with emotional appeals such as demonstrating the effects of nuclear weapons using the illustrations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have enabled the politicians in the Western countries to rally the public in support of nuclear war. Nonetheless, politicians that can outline their accomplishments during their service term are proven to be capable of convincing the electorate that they are not only strong but also capable. Therefore, the pictures form an argument that embraces rhetoric.
The Role of Feelings, Attitudes, and Intuitions in Argumentation
Actions and emotional expressions are dependent on the background of a person. Arguments tend to rely on the speaker and the listener's attributes such as feelings, attitudes, and intuitions. Understanding argumentation requires the listener or audience to attempt to identify various argumentation points. With such attempts, the viewer or listener can categorize and characterize a variety of arguers an before coalescing their points of view. Finding the substance of each supporting argument with the aim of coalescing different audiences or listeners and speakers is essential for sound judgment. Therefore, in informal argumentation, conceiving the argument radically by testing plausibility of each of the arguments as well as the likelihood of the arguments to make probable conclusions is necessary.
Counterargument
Extrapolation of image premises and conclusions entails constructing premises and inferences inferences that are deductively valid. However, according to semiotics, images and words differ because differentiating the functional units is harder in pictures than words, The pictures present thin premises with thick descriptions as opposed to premises expressed in real words (Kjeldsen 2). Another argument against the idea is lack of preciseness and can put forward arguments for and against the speaker (Burrows 30, Kjeldsen 6). Thirdly, arguments using ordinary words are easier to evaluate on the basis of strength on the basis of ethicality and economy as opposed to the mental premises that are developed from pictorial arguments (Burrows 11).
Conclusion
Pictures have attributes of an argument because they involve understanding and assessment of mental premises to arrive at a conclusion. They adhere to informal reasoning whereby underlying evidence acts as a basis for conclusion. However, pictures do not ascertain credibility that is significantly dependent on the certainty of the premises. By gauging the strength of the argument, one can deduce whether the conclusion is favorable and vice versa but pictorial messages do not have such attribute.
Works Cited
Burrows ,Jessica.”Visually communicating ‘honesty’: A semiotic analuysis of Dorset Cerials packaging.”2013. Print.
Kjeldsen, Jens E. “Virtues of visual argumentation: How pictures make the importance and strength of an argument salient.” (2013).Print
Lunsford, Andrea A., John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters. Everything’s an Argument with Readings with 2016 MLA Update. Macmillan Higher Education, 2015.Print
