This is how King addresses the minor premise that the clergy brought forth. On the other hand, in response to the argument that it is unacceptable for outsiders to lead local protests, he brings forth two aspects; that all the communities of the world are interrelated and also mentioned that old testaments prophets as well as Apostle Paul of the new testament were sent by God where there was need. These propositions appeals to logos since they have a strong basis of Christianity and social concern for the society. The use of logos in King’s letter has been enriched by the use of a variety of examples.
He develops his examples from all perspectives. He has not skipped the use of logical fallacies that makes the reader understand the point that he is trying to put across, for example, he uses Thomas Jefferson to demonstrate that all men are made equal hence there should be no discrimination whatsoever. The facts that he links with an authority is a fallacious way of getting his audience to get what he is driving at. King presents himself as an individual that is very aware of the needs in the community and working to ensure that some of them are resolved.
He explains very well why direct action is the preferable alternative according to his opinion. In so doing, he puts on balance the proposition made by the clergy that negotiation was their preferable mode of solving the dispute. He tells them, “You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. ” The clergy faced with this logical argument will definitely rethink about their propositions. In his continued appeal to logos, King uses enthymeme to do so.
The clergy also points out that King broken the law by leading protests against the law. This indeed was a justified argument. However, using enthymeme King is articulate and logical in expressing the reason for breaking the law. He is cognizant of the fact that he broke the law, but he drives the point that it is not always wrong to break the law.
He clearly brings out an unstated principle; he says that there are just and unjust laws. He tells the clergy that they have a legal and moral responsibility to obey the laws that are just and to disobey the unjust ones. He also helps draw a clear line between just and unjust laws; “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples