“Argumentation, however, is not always about winning and losing…

Sometimes you argue to explore… Exploration enables you to make decisions.”

These are several statements made on page four of our To the Point textbook. I was

never convinced that Hochswender was trying to win us over. It was almost like he

was exploring the idea himself of whether or not driving an SUV had some sort of

bearing on his value of good or bad as a human being.

This argument was not about winning or losing, it was about exploring. In an

argument in which the defendant is seeking to win, he will boldly state his case. On

this subject, Hoschswender would have stated something along the lines of, “Driving

an SUV does not make me a bad person.” Instead, when it pertains to him driving a

four-wheel vehicle he explores the question, “Does that mean I’m a bad person?”

Even after stating his case, he concludes, “Maybe I’m not such a bad person after all.”

It is as if to suggest he will continue exploring the idea. There’s something beautiful

about that, but it’s also not convincing, and neither is it persuasive.

If there was a strength in his argument that did have the potential to

persuade is was certainly his pathos. There were a couple of things he hit on that

had the potential to take people to a relatable place. First off, he mentions 9/11.

There is no single person to point the finger to for that tragic day, but that doesn’t

mean people aren’t searching for someone or some thing to blame. He cautions the

reader to not be the person who is blaming the Americans who use a lot of gas. He

almost creates this guilt by implicating that the one who does blame the American

that uses the amount of gas required by an SUV is like someone practically

“validating the terrorists as essentially right.” There’s a tension created here; a

“who’s side are you on” vibe.

The second thing Hoschswender hits on is his nine-year old son. This has the

ability to grip any parent’s emotions. Here lies in the idea that one who doesn’t drive

a vehicle as protective as an SUV doesn’t care as much about their children’s safety.

This also concerns ethos, as it targets a persons morals. If you have a nine-year old

son, it is morally correct to do what you can to protect them. If you do not do this,

you lack morals.

Logos was effective in his statements regarding how much oil is used to heat

a large home. The very woman linking SUV’s to Mideast terrorism has a home of

9,000 square feet. This is very expensive to heat. How can you justify heating that

and be against buying the amount of gas an SUV requires. It is not logically

justifiable.

Hoschswender has pathos, ethos, and logos in his argument, but having these

three elements does not equal persuasion. I am thankful for his insight, but I am left

with thoughts more than I am left convinced.