Visual rhetoric

In a well crafted advertisement created by the New Party, the organization employs Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in an attempt to convince the audience that euthanasia is the correct thing to do, since in doing so you alleviate suffering individuals from their pain. In the ad, the use of Ethos does not have a great impact in the argument proposed by the creator. To start of, the author is not given credit for the ad, but there is a slight mention of a supporting organization: the New Party. This party ascended in the U.S. during the early 1990’s, but quickly dissolved. According to background information it was somewhat socialistic democratic, but held different views in several topics. Given that the party was not incredibly popular, the authority and reputation do not implement towards their credibility. It would seem that since they are a political party they appeal to social matters of this type, but their expertise in the subject is not optimal due to the medical, religious, and human nature issues involved, therefore not improving their credibility once more.

Furthermore, their visual appeal to Ethos appears to be relatively the same. The organization does not look fervent to demonstrate support for their ad, given that the letters possessing their name in the piece are considerably small compared to the other visual effects in the proposed argument, which in turn may as a result engage the viewer more in the argument, but make him disregard the organization itself. Overall, the appeal to Ethos appears to be the least effective rhetorical appeal in the advertisement. Logic is evenly employed in the advertisement. There is no real evidence written in the piece, and the author does not give the viewer any clear evidence that euthanasia is the right thing to do; no facts or information back up the argument. Also, the argument presented is entirely one-sided (pro-euthanasia). This helps and hinders the claim because it reveals the premise right away to the viewer, but also makes him either agree or not, thus in a way leaving out the possibility of a compromise or of convincing the opposite side. To present their argument, the author employs different strategies.

For example, in the text, syntax and diction play a key role. First he exposes the title of the topic and then appeals to the viewer to reflect on the issue. By using terms such as “You” or “really care,” it makes the viewer reflect on the situation from his point of view. Also, by using repletion and parallelism with the word “You,” it emphasizes the importance of the viewer’s point of view on the issue. Now, even though this might seem as a strengthening strategy, it might also work as a fallacy, since the issue does not only include the bystander (to be portrayed by the viewer), but also the dying patient, and by appealing only to the bystander’s thoughts and not the patient’s, the argument might be thought of as selfish or blunt and work against the piece. In the visual point of view, the author uses a picture of an example situation predominant over the whole advertisement. This could help the viewer focus their attention and directly relate to the argument. The colors are just black and white, maybe alluding to the argument of life versus death, thus correlating the viewer to the issue even more. In general, the main weakness is the lack of supporting evidence, but the strategies used to connect the viewer helps the ad make a good concise premise.