Are you truly giving good arguments? Or they are just a series of non-sense?

Video #1-Never Say No to Panda

I think this video fits Pathos the most. In the video, the panda threaten the customer to buy his product by destroying what every the customer has. This idea fits Pathos in the category of "Scare tactics", which is when the persuader threaten the audience by telling them the consequences for disagree with the persuader.



Video #2-Legally Blonde questioning the witness

I think the talk given by the witness fits Ethos the most. In this video, Ms. Wood questioned the witness about where was she before the murder of her dad. She used the logical process and facts to question the witness even further. When the witness started to terrified that Ms. Wood is on to something, she spilled out that "Did the woman tell you she is my age?" This statement showed Ad hominem and straw man in the Ethos category, which is when the opponent notice that they are losing the debate, then they gone personal to the other side.



Video #3-Legally Blonde defend for her friend

I think the talk that Ms.Wood gave about her friend fits the Logos the most, and it also provided a little of Ethos. In the video, she said that "exercise gives in endorphins, endorphins makes you happy, happy people don't shoot their husbands, they just don't." This statement fits the Logos' category of faulty analogy, which is using false transitive property. Also, she said how good her friend is, so that she must not be the murder. This statement fit in the Ethos, under the category of "Using Authority Instead of Evidence".