Mandatory Blog 3

Logos refers to the logical or rational proofs found within a piece. Aristotle believed there were four logical methods used to help people make their arguments clear and powerful when faced with complex issues. All four types of reasoning begin with a “premise”, or any statement assumed prior to the argument. Scientific demonstration consists or arguments beginning from premises that are true or that the “experts” accept as true, i.e., these are the facts used in one’s argument. Dialectical reasoning consists of arguments that are less sure of the truth of the argument’s premises, but nevertheless the premises are accepted by people who are generally considered to be exceptionally wise, such as if referring to the fast rise and falls that are inherent to the United States’ economy, one could quote Nathaniel Hawthorne’s infamous, “Families are always rising and falling in America,” passage. Rhetorical reasoning has premises that are drawn from widely accepted beliefs of a community. Rhetorical reasoning can often consist of commonplaces that aren’t necessarily true, such as members of the Aryan brotherhood thinking unanimously that the white man is the Earth’s dominant and most astute species. The fourth, false reasoning, is just as it sounds, starting the argument form a false premise, something that is measurably not true. The ancient rhetoricians always began their argument from the premise that is most widely accepted as true, and moved to those that were less so.
In the essay, “The Missing Story of Ourselves: Poor Women, Power and the Politics of Feminist Representation”, Vivvan C. Addair uses a logical argument that consists of both her personal experiences with poverty in the United States, as well as addressing some of the commonplaces surrounding poverty-stricken women that she has faced, to create both dialectical and rhetorical reasoning.
She talks of her decision to enter community college to receive her GED in order to win her away from poverty and create a better life for herself and her daughter. She tells us that in the year she entered college, 1987, there were 350,000 welfare recipients entered in college. But, in 1998, congress instituted the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act”. In a scientific argument in which she presents us the facts of what happened to welfare reforms, she tells us this law, “Gravely curtailed the ability of poor women to garner authority and to rewrite their own stories through education in a way that positively altered the trajectories and conditions of their lives.” The law apparently created inhibiting forces against those that accept welfare, such as highly strict work obligations that cut into peoples’ ability to receive a higher education.
In her rhetorical reasoning, she addressed the commonplaces of women on welfare. She refers to legislators and witnesses making references to “welfare queen” stereotypes, “Women who deliberately avoid both work and marriage; spend their welfare checks on liquor, drugs and fast cars; and produce large broods of children so as to qualify for even a larger government dole.” She then contrast this image with hardworking and respectable women with herself, who clearly doesn’t fall into this stereotype, and breaks down the commonplace.

`