Mazari 1

Jaber Mazari

Professor Beadle

English 115

4 December 2019

The Art of the Argument

The art of argumentation is as subjective as any other form of art. Balancing logic,

emotion, and authority to convince one’s audience is no easy task. This difficulty becomes

evident when analyzing the following articles: “How Happy Are You and Why?” by Sonja

Lyubomirsky, “What Suffering Does” by David Brooks, and “Living With Less. A Lot Less.”

By Graham Hill. Each article focuses on a different subject but deal with the overall topic of

happiness and human emotion. Sonja Lyubomirsky’s article, presents the most effective

argument based on ethos, pathos and logos. She utilizes these rhetorical principles through her

use of statistical data, anecdotes and personal experiences, as well as her authority and history

with the subject of her work.

In her article, Lyubomirsky argues how our happiness is directly proportional to how we

view happiness. She supports her claim by using data and statistics she amassed over her career

researching, “the development of ‘sustainable’ happiness” (Lyubomirsky 179). The purpose for

her writing is to inform her audience of people looking for their happiness on how their outlook

of happiness itself is a key contributor as to how happy they are. Separately, Brooks argues that

suffering can have both negative and positive consequences. He supports his claim by using

logical reasoning and his emotional understanding. The audience he writes for is those who find

themselves suffering and cannot seem to see how they might learn from their experiences. He
 Mazari 2

uses an informal to give himself subtle credibility. In his essay, Hill argues that having smaller

and less material objects can lead to a person becoming happier. He supports his claim by using

credible statistics and his personal experience to further his argument. His audience is composed

of those who seek to find their happiness even when they have wealth and material objects. With

this being said, Lyubomirsky already has a better argument than that of Brooks and Hill. She has

an entire career of research on the subject of her article while the other two just use the studies

and statistics of others. The pre-text bio reads, “Sonja Lyubomirsky is professor of psychology at

the University of California, Riverside” (Lyubomirsky 1). Her professional career gives

Lyubomirsky’s argument the upper hand before even delving deeper into the rhetorical strategies

used in the articles.

Lyubomirsky begins her article with recalling experiences that readers find themselves

being able to relate to, asking, “Can we ever be as happy as they are?” (Lyubomirsky 179). This

start sparks interest in her audience and appeals to them personally. It demonstrates that the

author is also capable of the emotions. Hill introduces his article by stating his living situation

(Hill 311). It’s a solid introduction but lacks the audience engagement that Lyubomirsky

establishes. Brook’s article begins similarly to that of Lyubomirsky’s but has an informal tone.

This tone makes his effect on his audience weaker than it could be. Lyubomirsky’s introduction

makes both appeals to ethos and pathos. Lyubomirsky continues to build a strong foundation to

advance her argument in a more emotion driven approach.

The way Lyubomirsky builds her pathos is much more interactive in its approach. She

writes, “Have you ever known someone who is deeply and genuinely happy?” (Lyubomirsky

179). Lyubomirsky is actively engaging her audience at every step. She uses her experience and

the experiences of others to make her audience really think about themselves. This, in turn,
 Mazari 3

internalizes Lyubomirsky’s article, making the audience more personally and emotionally

invested in her argument. Both the title and the subjective happiness scale add to this effect

Brook’s appeal to pathos is less evident. His few, emotionally driven words are, “Well, I’m

feeling a lot of pain over the loss of my child. I should try to balance my hedonic account by

going to a lot of parties and whooping it up” (Brooks 286). Here Brooks is referring to the pain

experienced by a parent after the loss of a child and how one simply cannot find it within

themselves to go out to try and be happier. His appeal to pathos here is strong but is the only

evident attempt to captivate his audience’s emotions. Hill’s appeal to pathos is more evident than

that of Brooks but is much weaker than the other two articles. His main appeal is his story about

him traveling the world his girlfriend at the time (Hill 311-312). This anecdote of his appeals to

his audience’s romantic side but does little in support of his argument. Though emotion is a

pertinent to a successful argument, the best arguments rely on a concise evidence-based

foundation.

Lyubomirsky’s appeal to logos is much more technical than that of both Brooks and Hill.

She cites multiple statistics that support her argument and uses easy to understand visual

representations of the data to make it easier to digest. She clearly defines her terms, for example,

“I use the term happiness to refer to the experience joy, contentment, or positive self being”

(Lyubomirsky 184). Similarly she explains, “Human happiness, like height or IQ, lies on a

continuum…” (Lyubomirsky 182). This clarification is then followed by her Subjective

Happiness Scale which engages the reader and allows them to place themselves on her happiness

continuum. Lyubomirsky makes sure her audience knows the reasoning behind her argument and

that they are all on the same page. Brooks’ appeal to logos is just as strong as Lyubomirsky’s.
 Mazari 4

His argument follows a very logical process, leading from conclusion to conclusion. He cites

many credible individuals but is lacking when it comes to actual statistics.

Hill’s appeal to logos relies on statistics such as a study from UCLA (Hill 310). His logos is

strong but still weaker than that of Brooks and Lyubomirsky. His evidence does support his

argument but lacks the connection from his data to his argument. Comparatively, Lyubomirsky

has both Brooks’ conclusion to conclusion reasoning and Hill’s strong citations, making her

appeal to logos the most effective.

Lyubomirsky’s appeal to ethos is effective but is more similar that of Brooks and Hill.

Despite having no clear evident demonstration of ethos, other than the bio pre-article, she builds

her ethos through her use of pathos and logos along with her history with the subject. The pre-

article bio reads, “Her research focuses on the development of ‘sustainable’ and cultural

influences on the pursuit of happiness” (Lyubomirsky 179). She can relate with her audience’s

prior experiences which sets the foundation for her credibility. She then expands on this

foundation through her use of logos. Brooks’ appeal to logos is established through his informal

tone and his citation of prominent philosophers and theologians. His diction also helps build his

ethos by proving he truly understands what he is speaking of. Hill argument is built around his

ethos. He uses his life experience to enforce his argument. In comparison, Lyubomirsky’s appeal

to ethos is overall more effective because of its subtlety and her ability to rely on her own

research and data. Lyubomirsky’s career gives her argument a principal edge over the Hill’s and

Brook’s articles.

The reason Lyubomirsky’s argument is much effective than that of Hill or Brooks is that

her argument is a much better amalgamation of ethos, pathos, and logos. Hill’s use of ethos and

Brooks’ use of logos could be argued to be better than Lyubomirsky’s use of the two but, even
 Mazari 5

then, her argue has solid use of all three rhetorical appeals. Brooks’ argument lacks in emotional

appeal and Hill’s argument is weak in its use of logos. This is not due to Hill’s use of his

statistics but his overall his analysis of his statistics is pretty weak, leaving out how it supports

his argument. Brooks’ argument uses logos effectively but is missing a more personal aspect to

his article. Toward the end of his argument his audience finds itself convinced intellectually but

not emotionally, making the effect of his argument much weaker than it other was could have

been. Lyubomirsky’s argument uses all three appeals in an effective manner. Even though

Lyubomirsky’s argument is superb, it does not take away from the arguments of both Brooks and

Hill. Just because one argument may be better than others, those other arguments are still worth

reading and taking into consideration.

 Mazari 6

Works Cited

Brooks, David. “What Suffering Does”, Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew Parfitt and

Dawn Skorcewski, Bedford St Martin’s, 2016, pp 284-287

Hill. Graham. “Living With Less. A Lot Less” Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew Parfitt

and Dawn Skorcewski, Bedford St Martin’s, 2016, pp 308-313

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. “How Happy Are You and Why?” Pursuing Happiness, edited by Matthew

Parfitt and Dawn Skorcewski, Bedford St Martin’s, 2016, pp 179-197