What is the author arguing?
The author, which in this case is Dwight Eisenhower, giving his farewell address. Eisenhower's farewell address included the warning of the misusage power of the miltary. He starts his speech off by stating the biggest goal of the country, which was "keeping the peace," preventing wars. Eisenhower goes on to say that if we fail to spot out any arrogance, the whole purpose of keeping the peace will be ruined. He had two main concerns that could possibly disturb the peace, maintaining the peace of our miltary and maintaining the balance, which also involves the element of time. While mentioning the military, he states, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Through that quote, he is stating that if the military was to get ahold of the wrong kind of power, all peace will be threatened. Eisenhower mentions the maintaining balance of time, he states that we, America, should try to avoid just living for today but live also for the "precious resources of tomorrow."
How does the authur appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
Eisenhower uses a significant amount of pathos, the way that he worded his speech makes whomever reading or hearing the speech truly believe in his words. The way that he describes the "peace," he makes readers and listeners to believe that through the wars, America truly kept the peace. How he addresses the audience as his fellow "countrymen," it's as if he is trying to make the audience believe that he speaking to them as friends, or aquaintances. He also seems to be upset to having to step down from his position as he states that he was very happy to be able to accomplish so much with the congress. Eisenhower also uses ethos, he was warning us through his own character, what he thought could and would happen.
What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document is that first of all, it is Eisenhower's farewell address, but it was also his last warning to the country that if the miltary was to get in the wrong hands of power, all peace would be destroyed.
Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find the author's argument convincing mostly because the large amount of pathos that he uses. The words in his speech would truly make you believe that you are his fellow American, and that you are his friend. The way he describes everything in his address truly makes you believe that he cares about the wellbeing of the country even if he is stepping down as president.
