Humans tend to respect facts or opinions from a person who works in a field they know nothing about.
Many would agree that the students in the English 1310 class at some university in the far off land of Colorado would have absolutely no idea who these people are or what they are really talking about, but they would comply anyway and accept the “fact” that although these people are unknown, they must know what they are talking about.
She does not just make the reader feel emotions through pathos, but through man logical examples and statistics as well.
From the start, she mentions the 50% divorce rate shortly after the example of the man in the group.
The pathos in this essay mostly stirs the inner desire for a happy marriage; she simply makes the male or female reader feel like they too have misinterpreted the opposite sex.
Suddenly, the reader might feel guilty, but then relieved when Tannen displays the solution.Tannen says, “He gestured toward his wife and said, ‘She’s the talker in our family.’ The room burt into laughter; the man looked puzzled and hurt. This example subliminally questions the audience into wondering if the same case might be applicable in their lives.She goes on to say, “This episode crystallizes the irony that although American men tend to talk more than women in public situations, they often talk less and home.The once beautiful joining of two people in marriage over time decays into nothing but a bitter carcass of what they used to call happiness.Nobody will necessarily agree that America’s 50% divorce rate is a good statistic.Tannen deems quite successful in making the audience feel how she wants them to feel–relieved.Tannen successfully uses various pathos and logos techniques to stir up the reader’s emotions in the essay, “Sex, Lies, and Conversation.”Divorce is a truly harsh thing.Andrew Hacker is a political scientist of whom none of us know.Yet Tannen uses his studies as a prime example and the audience is almost forced to believe it through the appeal to authority.The name “political scientist Andrew Hacker” sounds official and business-like, as if the man must know what he is talking about.In the sentence immediately thereafter, a not-so-famous “sociologist Catherine Kohler” gets thrown on the table.