Question

which statement primarily appeals to pathos to support the position that celebrities should stay out of politics?. we do not ask celebrities for legal advice or medical advice because we know that they dont have the training or experience of lawyers or doctors. by the same logic, we should not expect celebrities to have the expertise of professional politicians. as an elected official who has spent her entire career studying the issues, i am disconcerted by the fact that celebrities can garner support for their political beliefs merely because of their name recognition. as very few celebrities have any political experience at all, their involvement in politics can be a narcissistic farce, turning the focus on their public personas rather than the real issues at hand.

Explanation:

To determine which statement appeals to pathos (emotional appeal), we analyze each option:

• First option: Uses logical comparison (logos, appealing to reason) by comparing celebrity expertise in politics to other fields.
• Second option: Focuses on the speaker's professional identity and a factual concern, more logos/ethos.
• Third option: Uses emotionally charged language like "narcissistic farce" and implies negative feelings about celebrity political involvement, aiming to evoke emotions (pathos) about the issue.

Answer:

The statement "As very few celebrities have any political experience at all, their involvement in politics can be a narcissistic farce, turning the focus on their public personas rather than the real issues at hand." (the third option) primarily appeals to pathos.