10/7/16 -Ben Dottinger

Friday’s class was a continuation of the rhetorical analysis we have been conducting and practicing over the past week on 18th century preacher Jonathan Edwards’s speech “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. Over the past couple days, groups have been constructing thesis statements and revising them to answer two questions: what is the purpose of Jonathan Edwards’s speech, and how he accomplishes his purpose. Following the thesis statements, the group reconvened and drafted topic sentences that could fit into an essay discussing Edwards’s style and his rhetoric.
However, Friday did not just focus on Jonathan Edwards. Friday focused on practicing what we have been learning in the field of rhetorical analysis to analyze arguments being made in an episode of “The Office”. We watched an episode where the company was trying to decide what to do with a $4300 surplus. Pam Beasley believed it would be in the company’s best interest to invest in new chairs, while Oscar believed a new copier was of higher priority. As both sides gathered support, different methods were used to attempt to persuade Michael Scott (the manager) to join their side. Pam employed ethos by explaining that everyone sits, including her, and she continues this statement with logos by saying that everyone would benefit from new chairs then. She also utilized pathos by flirting with Michael. Oscar, on the other hand, used logos by explaining that although not everybody makes copies daily, the copier is very outdated, and since they’re a paper company, it would be in their best interest to ensure maximum efficiency when making copies. Michael decides to buy a fur coat instead, disappointing everyone in the office equally. In the picture below, we see a picture of Michael's new coat that he destroys literally seconds after walking out of the store.