Ethos, Pathos, & Logos

29 Jan, 2026

I want to introduce the formal terms for the very general divisions of argumentation methods here. You may have seen them before, but if not, no worries!

They are ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos

Ethos is the most complicated one to understand, so I’ll deal with it first. Ethos sounds like “ethical,” and it comes from the same root in Greek, but it isn’t exactly the same. An “ethical” argument sounds like it should be an argument about “what is right to do.” In composition studies it is, instead, an argument (sort of) that the author is the right person to make the claim.

Weird, right? It makes more sense in practice. Think of it this way: if you needed advice on fixing your car, who would you trust? A mechanic or a dentist? Likewise, if you needed advice about dental care, who would you trust? In each case, the expert in the field has “more ethos,” so to speak. They are the right person to make the argument (what you should do about a problem, in this case).

You will demonstrate ethos in your papers through your research and your writing style.

Your research shows that you have seriously and carefully looked into the issue. Good research, from reputable sources, will polish up your persona. You sort of get reflected ethos from them. Bad sources, like random web sites or facebook posts or something, undermine your ethos.

Your writing style demonstrates your ethos by being fair, readable, accessible, and knowledgeable. If you rant and rave (as some people pointed out), you don’t seem trustworthy. If you keep your cool, you do.

So basically “ethos” means “trustworthiness.”

Pathos

Pathos is simpler to understand. It just means “emotional arguments.” Now, emotional arguments are appealing. We tend to remember things that make us feel, not just that make us think. That’s why good arguments do both! Because we also know that emotional arguments without and logic at all fall apart. That’s not a formal judgment, but a practical one. Studies have demonstrated that people who listen to emotional arguments with no research or logic feel very strongly about the issue immediately afterwards, but they sort of forget about it more quickly. Emotions come and go, right? So it makes sense that an emotional argument would sort of evanesce quickly.

The best way to use an emotional argument is to “hook” your reader, so they realize what the stakes are in the problem you’re describing. Then you can move on to ethos and logos, gaining even more ground, until you really and truly convince the reader that your idea makes sense.

So in practical terms, for you, pathos should mostly be confined to the introductory paragraphs of papers. When you analyze other people’s arguments, pay attention to whether they lean too heavily on pathos or don’t include it at all. The former is sort of like a dirty trick, while the latter is dry and tasteless, if you will.

Logos

Logos is the simplest one to think about. It’s logic and argumentation. It’s making sense, basically. Fun fact: “logos” in Greek means “word.” So “logos” is the words of your argument.

Logos comes in three forms, broadly speaking. The first is logic. Your arguments must follow logically from your premises. Don’t worry too much about that right this second, but simply, your argument is a series of IF statements. If x is true, then y must be true, and so on, so forth.

Those early IF statements must rest on your research, which is the second form of logos. “If it’s true that this change will cause this good effect, then we must implement this change” begins the paper, and then you use research to demonstrate that yes, the change does lead to the effect, and yes, the effect is good, and yes, we can implement this change, it’s not impossible, and no, the counterarguments aren’t correct even though they get some things correct, and on and on, and then you have a paper!

The final form of logos (in this simplified model anyway) is the writing of the paper itself.

You’ll see that logos and ethos intersect. That’s a feature, not a bug. The “ethical” writer is the writer who makes sense, on multiple levels.