The pamphlet activity was intended to create an informational piece about one of the types of logical fallacies. Through this activity, it was a very effective method for understanding one of the logical fallacies, slippery slopes in my case. The formula portion basically showed me the format of how a slippery slope looks like. Knowing where slippery slopes are present also helped me to further understand the use of slippery slope and how it can be used to one's advantage. Knowing what a slippery slope sounds like plays a huge role on being able to spot slippery slopes in advertisements or on any platforms in general. I was able to research and learn more about topic and this activity was quite enjoyable too. Overall, pamphlets are a good way for the person creating it to get more familiar with a topic and for the readers to learn  more about the topic. Regardless of the topic, it serves to inform the readers. For example, resorts for vacationing tend to have pamphlets to either display its beauty or activities one can do there. Normally, people wouldn't just choose a place, they would grab a pamphlet and see which whether the resort is convincing enough. One thing to note when looking at pamphlets is the speaker's use of logos or pathos. If the topic of a pamphlet was to answer a question or in general, inform the readers, then it would be reasonable to use logos to make the pamphlet effective. If the topic of a pamphlet was about persuading the audience for a cause, such as stopping bullying, then a more reasonable approach would be to use pathos to get the audience's support for the cause. Pamphlets generally all contains information and argues a topic.

The passage "Don't Fight Flame with Flames Social Media  Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions" made a really good point about fighting online. The speaker explained how arguments are best left to be dealt with in person, not online. The author introduces his article by establishing ethos, "A low point in my life, I did something I'm utterly ashamed of. When I tell you, please understand, I was upset at the time. Emotions were running high." By admitting that the speaker himself also dealt with the same problem, it shows the audience that the speaker is experienced with this problem and it validates his knowledge on this situation. The speaker claims that one can never win an argument because a side taken in an argument can be supported by millions out there online. The author shared his experience of how he was attacked by a mass amount of people for stating his/her views and this was effective in that it shed some light on the real consequences that can arise from digital arguments. Although I was never attacked on controversial topic online, I was on one of the people who supported someone's response to a controversial topic. Evidently, the comments and things people had to say got really heated and that just shows that it's just as intense, if not even more, than arguments in real life. The topic of controversy was more gossip than argument but people simply became very critical and it definitely did seem like a whole bunch of people online ganging up on a minority. Similarly with the heated election that has occurred, words were slurred out by individuals and eventually you find a person being heavily criticized by those who opposed their views. It's a human's desire to want to be right and it's common for people to establish it online rather than in person. The article talks about more examples involving celebrities or public figures and it always results in someone by attacked by people online much like journalists for a newspaper. To simply put it, it is advised by the speaker of this article to avoid digital arguments.

As ridiculous as it may sound, toasters have been proposed to be deadlier than nuclear power. The speaker claims that nuclear power should be the least of our concerns considering there are much more serious sources of radiation out there. Personally, I've used to be fairly light-skinned (not prejudice intended), but over the years, simply going outside in the hot blazing sun in the peak of a summer has done quite a lot on my skin. My parents have always advised me to wear sunscreen to avoid radiation cancer but I disregarded. Knowing my mistake now, I am more concerned with radiation by the sun rather than a nuclear powers. Reason being, chances of nuclear reactors malfunctioning is very slim and so I find myself no need to be concerned with that. Also, with something as deadly as nuclear power, I'm sure that the government would have safety measures suitable for the worst case scenario. With all that said, nuclear radiation is usually a crisis that occurs in movies such as "The X-Men." Movies have had an impact in the way we think towards the situation. Not to mention, with the reported cases mentioned in the passage, there has been no cases of mutated humans. "More specifically, according to a 2005 release by the World Health Organization, thirty-two were killed in the effort to put out the fires...acute radiation poisoning." Supporting what I said earlier, the speaker frequently appealed the audience's reasoning with statistics. This served to show the comparison of death tolls between toasters and nuclear power; emphasizing the over-stress placed on nuclear power. The speaker also used irony, "If you care about saving human lives, then you should like nuclear energy." Nuclear energy has taken lives and the speaker mentions that to save lives, it should be liked. The author says this in a humorously way to poke fun at those whose concerned with this situation when they really shouldn't be. Of course, he does not mean it literally but it helps the reader realize the bigger picture. Overall, the speaker did an effective job convincing me, partially because I'm concerned with radioactive effects and his use of evidence was efficient.