Congressman Robert H. Clancy proposes a speech to congress on April 8, 1924, about his position on the Johnson-Reed Act, and how it is racist and anti-immigrant. He backs up all of his points by his own personal experiences, from having immigrant parents. In the proposal An “Un-American Bill,” Clancy discusses racism through the Johnson-Reed Act, while establishing a poor argument with automatic, but irrelevant ethos, present though unreliable logos, and abundant yet ineffective pathos. Robert H. Clancy initiates credibility by getting automatic ethos. This automatic ethos applies to him seeing that he is a congressman. But when you think about the audience of this speech, his automatic ethos became a sort of void. Automatic ethos shows a person is credible on account of their title. Clancy was a …show more content…
It is absurdly abundant. Though he may have a great amount of it, it fails to support his argument. Clancy applies pathos to try to invoke emotion and sympathy in his audience. This fails, however, owing to the fact that his audience’s literal purpose is to be objective. He is giving this proposal to a group of congressman, whose job it is to devise objective decisions. Clancy has made the choice to persuade these congressman to his side by getting them to identify and sympathize for him as a person through the application of personal anecdotes. His anecdotes may have a sympathetic effect on the reader after the speech was published, but taking into account the original audience, this was a poor attempt at getting the audience to sympathize. Robert H. Clancy produces an extremely poor and ineffective argument by not providing any credibility for himself besides his invalid automatic credibility, not using his automatic credibility properly to display the effective utilization of facts, and not taking his audience into consideration when attempting to invoke