Friday, September 21, 2007
visual argument
I personally believe that a visual argument is more persuasive. My reason for this is because when you are trying to prove your side of the argument is right and want to get your audience to take your side, you should have something for them to look at. For example, you want your audience to believe that most NBA basketball players are over 6’0. You would rather have them go to a NBA game to see that a lot of the players are over 6’0 than to just tell them what you believe is right. After going to an NBA game, I myself can prove that this argument is correct. If this argument were to not be proved by a visual element, it wouldn’t persuade many people that this is correct. Also, not having a visual element, would be part of people just going off of what others think and assuming that just because this person thinks that’s true then I should think its true also.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you that visual arguments are more persuasive, obviously. They back up your argument and add to your credibility. Your audience is going to trust you what you are saying more when a picture or graphic element is added.
I'm not sure if using an NBA basketball player's picture to see if they are over 6'0 is the strongest case of visual arguments. A prime example of this type of argument being used is say with poor hospitals in Iraq (which was on the news the other night). If a reporter were to just go on about how little energy power the hospital had, or that no gutters were closed off it would not of made an impact on the audience. But when she added in video clips of blood coming out onto the streets from the open gutters and the single heat source they had, it was powerful.
By having a visual argument you gain more credibility and support with your audience.
Post a Comment