Ethos: Good Reasons appeals because of the trustworthiness of its authors"His character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses."1. The authors' qualifications. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer are disinguished rhetoricians. Perhaps less well-known, but still impressive and revealing, is the early work of both in technical writing, for instance, Faigley's survey in the 1970's of employers, or Selzer's 1983 essay on "What Constitutes a Readable Technical Style?" Such a tech writing background is an asset for the writer of any textbook, which is after all a kind of instruction manual. 2. Their invocation of Aristotle. "[T]o make effective arguments, you need to appear credible, to demonstrate that you understand the needs and values of your audience, and to present good reasons" (Instructor's Manual, p. vi). This is reassuring; Faigley and Selzer are not faddists. 3. Their invocation of John Stuart Mill on causation. Students have more trouble writing causal arguments than any others. Faigley and Selzer helfully demystify this process by providing Mill's four methods for identifying causes (common factor, single difference, concomitant variation, process of elimination). As with Aristotle, this theoretical affiliation implies dependability. 4. Their style. The personae projected in Good Reasons are earnest but not priggish, informal but not presumptuous, good-humored but not ironic, and, above all, collegially helpful. They are instructors' spokesmen, and they have high expectations of students; all is possible; nothing is dumbed-down. For instance, their choice of the word, "behemoth" (p. 207), could provide a mini-lesson on diction all on its own. Their grammatical explanation of "appositive" (p. 88) is not only astute, but implies their confidence in students' ability to understand and use this literary construction. This high-minded impression of tolerance and respect obviously models good argumentative writing, and also derives from the authors' choice of readings, for instance, two editorials on condom distribution in public high schools, one from the New York Times, the other from Commonweal. |
||