Exam 2

Identify the nature of proof in Frank's monologue, siting evidence he used in Charlie's defense. 15 Points

Logos, Pathos and Ethos are all represented in Frank's monologue. I will illustrate that below.

Logos applies to reason. It is factual information as well as logic. Frank "warms up" by stating that it is wrong for the boy that decided to stay and face the consequences to be in such trouble, and for the boys who ran like cowards to not suffer any consequence. This is a logical statement and the direction of the court’s ruling seems unfair to the viewer after Frank points this out. Next he uses pathos which applies to emotions. Often times creating a "sympathy" effect. He does this by stating to the audience that someone offered to buy Charlie’s soul.  Lastly ethos is used. Ethos is appeal to ethics. Frank shows his audience that he is creditable and has a good character by talking about himself, who he once used to be, and referring to the things he has seen.

Of the four styles of dramatic or vicarious proof, which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes around about Charlie? How did this style function in terms of reason? 25 Points

Frank gave his testimony of Charlie by saying he has, "seen boys like these...their legs ripped off"...and then he says there is nothing like the sight of an amputated spirit. This statement in his testimony is very powerful and has the ability to sway the decisions of the court because it appeals to their emotions.

What cultural myths or images were employed to increase the appeal of Frank's argument? How did this influence his attempted shift of opinion? 20 Points

The cultural myth that best fits this situation for me was the value of a challenge. I appreciated the way Frank illustrated Charlie having the bravery to stay and face the consequences of what they had done as opposed to running like his piers did. This was very powerful for me. It showed that there should be a reward for people who are willing to stick out a challenge and not just take the easy way out.

Which of Reich's parables apply or applies to Frank's reasoning? 5 Points

The triumphant Individual best fits for Franks Reasoning because Charlie took a risk and did the honorable thing. He believed in himself and did the right thing, though he knew it would be the tougher route. In the end, I am sure Charlie comes out triumphant.

What was Frank's reasoning in terms of logical appeal? 10 Points

Frank argues from authority. In his monologue he states, "Do you know who you are talking to?" and then he continues on as mentioned in one of the above questions to state all he has seen and done. He establishes dominance and then states his opinion. Parallel reasoning is also used as he compares Charlie’s noble decision to stay and face the consequences to his friend’s decisions to run. He parallels the two different types of people by contrasting their different belief systems.

How did Frank's paralinguistic impact his expression and the meaning of his words? Please specific examples – three will do. 25 Points

Frank was very powerful in his presentation of his speech for many reasons. I will list the three that affected me the most below.

1. Frank uses questions to make his point. For example, "and what are you doing? You are going to reward George and destroy Charlie." Questions like these make very strong points and accuse the judge of being wrong in a subtle, yet more effective way.

2. Frank uses a lot of symbolism and analogies. An example of this is when he refers to the boys and "Minos". This creates good imagery and helps the viewers to better understand the weight of the situation. He does such with pauses in his speech that add to the effectiveness of his statements by giving the viewer time to process.

3. Often times at the end of Franks sentences he raises his voice or draws out the word longer than it needs to be, this adds emphasis to the points he is making.