In the article I read, "Why we need to keep talking about rape culture," by Jessica Valenti, the author uses logos, ethos and pathos to relay he argument. Her main statement is that we, as a country, need to continue discussing the issue of rape. She uses prime examples, quotations, and her own expertise to convince the reader of her point. The appeal that I believe she uses most effectively is logos. However, she uses all of these appeals to fully convince the reader that rape is an issue that we still need to discuss. Her article starts by describing rape culture and then points out that a main activist against domestic violence has made some inappropriate comments about rape culture. She then continues to use examples from court room cases, politicians, and activists against rape. In these ways she is able to create an effective rhetorical essay. 

Valenti begins her article with a staggering statistic, someone is raped every two minutes (Valenti, 2014). This statistic appeals to logos and pathos. When she states this statistic it appeals to logos because the reader knows that the statistic is proof that rape is still a problem in the United States that needs to be addressed. In addition it appeals to pathos because the reader will be shocked and upset about this knowledge. She then uses an example from an anti-violence organization, RAINN, in which a representative infers hat rape is not the community's problem (Valenti, 2014). In this quote a prominent organization downplays the countries epidemic of rape. This is an appeal to logos because a recognizable organization for women's domestic rights made ignorant comments about rape. One can recognize that if a prominent organization is not aware about rape culture then it should be addressed. If even these big corporations are unaware of the seriousness of rape, then it is a relevant problem that needs to be addressed. Next she uses quotes from an activist. I believe that this is supposed to be an appeal to logos, however the activist is not a well-known person. This detracts from her argument because the reader is not convinced of the author's ethos. I think that the author should have either quoted a more reputable source or used another statistic at this point to make her argument stronger. The activist still augments Valenti's point, by proving that multiple people are fixed on this issue but that is not enough for right now. Finally she uses quotations from multiple politicians. In these quote the politicians make obviously incorrect comments about rape. One states that after rape a woman cannot become pregnant (Valenti, 2014). This is medically incorrect, and easily displays the issue with rape culture in our society today. It proves that people, mostly men, are still misinformed when it comes to the topic of rape. In addition the reader is more likely to agree with this argument because the quote came from a politician, who is supposed to be credible, making an incorrect statement. This then calls to question the decisions the politicians are making on behalf of women.

The author also prominently appeals to the reader's pathos. She does this by using real life examples that pull at the reader's empathy. She first uses the statistic stated previously, which pulls at the readers' pathos by its sheer number, and at the readers' ethos, because it is a statistic which doesn't allow deniability. She then uses an example from a courtroom of a rape cases. She refers to when a defense lawyer calls a girl a "spider", referring to her "luring men in" (Valenti, 2014). This appeals to the reader's pathos because the girl is 11 years old. She is an innocent child who most definitely did not lure men in for her gang rape. This convinces the reader of the author's argument because the girl is now being accused of her own gang rape even though she is an innocent child. I think that this is a great use of pathos, because it really induces empathy from the reader after displaying the ridiculousness of this charge. In addition it make the reader want to create change so that they can help this poor girl. Next, the author quotes an activist. I think this goes against ethos because the reader is unconvinced by this person who fights for women's rights. They are a good witness, but this doesn't help to convince he authors point. She next uses a witness quote in which a young man watched a girl being raped (Valenti, 2014). From his statement he reveals that he didn't believe that an unconscious girl was being raped because it "wasn't violent" (Valenti, 2014). His remarks truly conveys the authors point. The witness draws upon ethos because he was a bystander of the crime, and the reader can see that this is a prime example of why rape still needs to be discussed. I think that this examples is beneficial to Valenti's argument. She then uses quotes from politicians. This draws upon ethos because politicians are people that the general audience know of, and they have authority. These politicians make obviously incorrect comments on rape and the female's anatomy. This again proves that a lot of people are misinformed on the topic at hand. Two of her final appeals are most important to her argument. She shows the change in the FBI's definition of rape, who is a major source of authority in the U.S. (Valenti, 2014). This shows the benefits of discussing rape, that change can occur. Finally quotes the RAINN organization again. She then refutes their quote and plays upon pathos by stating that not talking about rape will hurt the victims. This is a final appeal to pathos, if the reader does talk about this problem then there can be change and help for the innocent. This leaves the reader with a note of change, and they wish to go out and help that change.

Valenti resourcefully uses logos, pathos, and ethos to thoroughly convey her argument to the reader. She begins with a quotes that uses logos and pathos, and draws the reader in. She ends with a quote and refutation, to push the reader to make their own change, which is the point of this article. Valenti effectively uses logos and pathos throughout her article. If she wished to improve she would remove the comments from the activist, who is not authoritative. By adding more statistics she could be more convincing to the reader, as one cannot argue with facts. Overall, the author is very creative in using all of these appeals and her rhetoric is effective.

