The Idea of an Essay, Volume 3

Analysis & Response 101 the different time periods. Of course, he is using these names as logos in his argument, but by repeating the style that he says the names, he uses pathos to drive the point home. I can now picture and link the different parts of the article by the repetition, and thus, I can understand and relate to the argument as well. Deresiewicz does establish his ethos generally pretty well. He continual listing of names as examples adds to his ethos demonstrating his knowledge. His constant references back to history help us think that he knows what he is talking about. Also, his personal examples, first found in the first two paragraphs, and later found in his analogy with the television in his generation help establish his ethos by describing his personal experience on this subject. However, he destroys some of his ethos when he does not cite his sources, or demonstrate where he got his information from. He seems to have strong ethos from the sheer weight of the names that he throws at the reader, but he still makes many claims that do not seem to have any backing to them. Generally, Deresiewicz argues without strong fallacies. He uses his literary tools well. The greatest fallacy that he does commit is hasty generalization, or over-exaggeration. He implies that every person in my generation has this avoidance of solitude. In the last few paragraphs, he says that those who want to pursue solitude will stand alone. This may be true in a general sense, but there are people who do seek out solitude. I also think that Deresiewicz does not take into account the different personalities of people, because in our culture we have come to put people in the categories of introvert or extrovert, and those who are introverts are expected to seek solitude at times. This is hasty generalization. Overall, the author argues in a persuasive way through his strong use of pathos. And I found myself wanting to believe his argument from my own personal experience. However, as a critical thinker, his use of logos is so weak that his argument has no strong backing. I find myself having to take his word for it when it comes to his arguments, so in that sense his argument has a weak foundation. Thus, I do not find his argument convincing from a critical thinking perspective because of his weak backing, and not giving me a good reason to believe that he knows what he is talking about.