Blog Entry #7

The essay that I read for critique was by Scott Cooper. In this essay, I do agree with what he is arguing for. Scott argues that Obama’s speech is on point with the connecting ethos, pathos and logos in order to make an even more convincing speech. One of the main things that Scott could work on in his writing, however, is he use of quotes. He uses his quotes as chunks of his paragraph instead of successfully weaving in his quotes to make the paragraph flow.  However, I like the fact that Scott tells the reader exactly what the speech is about, instead of inferring that the reader has already read Barack Obama’s speech. Furthermore, I believe that Scott does appeal to his audience emotionally by bringing Obama’s childhood into his argument and how Barack Obama found his faith.  In the original speech, Barack Obama is speaking to a religious crowd about the connection of faith and politics.  In addition, on a scale from one to ten I would rate Scott Cooper’s use of ethos at a seven. I does explain to the reader what exactly the rhetorical use of ethos is, and he gives examples of Barack Obama’s use of ethos, however, the quote that Scott uses for his example takes up the majority of his paragraph. Also, I believe that Scott could use more commentary after his examples to also help the paragraph flow better. Scott Cooper’s essay is a good role model for this assignment because it has a clearly stated thesis, and his paragraphs back up what he is trying to prove. Although I do believe that Scott could fix up a few things on his paper, the overall essay is good quality.  As the essay stands, I think that Scott included a great amount of research in attempts of perfecting his essay. In the introduction paragraph, Scott mentions the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to introduce the first amendment, which is freedom of speech and religion. Scott also incorporates Barack Obama’s original speech to a religious crowd, although he does not state where the speech was originally held.  In addition, other than using the speech as a direct source, I believe that Scott could have gone outside of the speech and researched other factors of the connection of faith and politics. Since Barack Obama’s speech is the only credible source, it makes the reader feel as if it is only Barack Obama’s view on the subject that is being accounted for.  Finally, in Scott’s conclusion he simply restates the meaning of logos, ethos, and pathos, without giving any further insight about the speech. Even though Scott Cooper has flaws in his rough draft of the critique, I believe that he successfully makes his point throughout the paper.