<p>On the ap lang test, for the analysis, i used appeal to ethos, appeal to logos, and a disapproving tone as the rhetoric used by JFK. I then remembered that my teacher said not to do those. I feel like i did good otherwise, am i screwed for that one essay? I explained them really well</p>
<p>I also used an appeal to logos, as well as an appeal to pathos. As long as you used them properly and were able to organize a coherent essay, you’re good to go. I never heard graders taking off because of choosing a specific rhetorical strategy, so I’m not sure what your teacher was talking about.</p>
<p>You should be fine as long as you explained them. The reason she doesn’t want you to use them like that is that it is easy to use them improperly, and College Board dislikes the “name-dropping” of rhetorical terms. But it shouldn’t harm you as long as the rest of your essay, and how you tied it all together, is good.</p>
<p>@angelofspeed @virjog </p>
<p>so i shouldnt worry about it? It couldn’t effect my score at all? Thanks for the reply btw</p>
<p>@virjog @angelofspeed </p>
<p>how do you guys think you did on the test?</p>
<p>from you’re description, your probably, most-likly scrued in that partikular english exam</p>
<p>@nickbond haha your so gay</p>
<p>I don’t think you should worry about it, although it does depend how you pulled it off, so I can’t say for sure. </p>
<p>I think I did pretty well on my essays 7/7/7 at least, and hopefully I didn’t miss too much on the MC =)</p>
<p>The second essay was really easy. JFK structured his essay using pathos as his basis, repeating words such as “we” and “us” to establish that he is on the side of the people. He essentially set that standard within the first paragraph. He goes onto assert a flurry of ad hominem attacks onto the companies, using phrases such as “utter contempt”, basically, extremely negative connotation. He then appeals to logos by citing the possibilities of a chain reaction, which he theorized from causal reasoning. But the majority of his speech is pathos, but more importantly, he uses that pathos to establish his ethos as one with the people, for the people. He doesn’t use logos too often, just in a few select scenarios, but he remains charismatic. </p>
<p>An underlining factor would be his use of red herring and strawman; he pins the blame solely onto the companies; he misdirects the bulk of the negative energies to the companies, rather than to the government, which really wasn’t doing well. As APUSH dictates, JFK raised the military budget substantially, and he alludes to that by referencing his secretary of state; by doing that, he essentially remained “honest” to the people, while doing “dishonest” things, such as misdirecting the blame. </p>
<p>Basically, his speech showed that in an argument, you don’t need to be right. You just need the overwhelming support from the audience, or the crowd in this case. By establishing his ethos initially as president, and later on as a speaker for the people, rather than the government, he doesn’t have much visible opposition. Once he established his ethos through pathos, he fed the audience faulty logos, while “numbing” any dissent by referencing controversial topics such as dead soldiers, and the siphoned pensions of the elderly. </p>
<p>Overall, ridiculously easy essay. First one was a pain though.</p>
<p>He didn’t misdirect any blame. The steel executives got together and conspired to fix and raise prices at a time when the nation was facing many problems while the steel industry was doing well.</p>
<p>Perhaps misdirect was an ambiguous word; he essentially brought up a new topic of conversation, a red herring. He assigns the sole blame of everything onto the steel companies, rather than the inherent possibility that the government may be partially responsible for the economy.</p>