I understand the importance of logos; however, I feel that people often allow pathos and ethos get in the way. Therefore, I believe that these three types of arguments definitely intertwine together. A rhetor could use a logical method as a way to work through an issue, but for many people, personality and emotion are often difficult to separate from logic. As I was reading this chapter I kept thinking about a current event that is causing quite a debate. The issue is whether or not a mosque should be built near Ground Zero. This is causing various protests with strong supporters on both sides. A rhetorician could create an enthymematic argument that could really go in either direction. One of the statements could be: The terrorists are responsible for the September 11th tragedy. On page 170, the authors state that the rhetorician may omit part of the argument because the audience will “fill in” the blanks. Prior to this, the authors mention that “Enthymemes are powerful because they are based in community beliefs. Because of this, whether the reasoning in an enthymeme is sound or whether the statements it contains are true or not, sadly enough, often makes little difference to the community’s acceptance of the argument” (170). I believe that this is true with the mosque debate. Most of these protestors are not open to hear the other side. Those who support the mosque are arguing that they have the right to worship their own God. They are also arguing that there is a difference between Islam and terrorists and grouping the two together is close-minded bigotry. The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg argues that all Americans have an equal right to pray and worship where they choose. On the other had, those protesting against the mosque have their reasons as to why they do not feel that it should be built as well. Those who lost loved ones argue that Ground Zero is the closest thing that they have to a cemetery to mourn their loss. Others say that building monuments to commemorate great victories is an Islamic tradition. Therefore, this mosque would represent a victory. Some protestors also say that there are other mosques throughout the city; they just do not want a mosque built at that location. Within this debate, rhetorical examples are quite persuasive because they recall specific memories. Both sides are definitely using this to their advantage. “A rhetor can give as many vivid details as possible to evoke the audience’s memory of the incident and thus to induce their sympathy with his argument” (172). Many articles and news reports use the senses to create sympathy. The particular parts of the interview that they may choose to include touch the viewer or reader. Ultimately this debate will most likely continue whether or not the mosque is built. The authors summarize it best on page 191 when they state, “Distinct groups of persons also hold differing sets of values. The boundaries between virtue and vice are also notoriously hard to define; acceptable behavior in one setting may be utterly unacceptable in another.”