It is often the case that people remain unpersuaded by a given set of statements. Observations of multiple debates have led to the following conclusion: Logic is not enough for the average person. Introductory college English courses give some instruction on the techniques of persuasive essay writing, though not enough of the psychology and relationship between each form of persuasion. It is the intent of this essay to present a hypothesis on how decisions are made based on these forms of writing. To reiterate what is taught in the classes I have analyzed, three branches are supposed to produce the most persuasive works. It may be helpful to refer to these three branches by the terms most will understand them by: emotive, ethical, and logical. Hopefully some meaning is already beginning to surface. It is important to explain the mechanics of each branch before relating them to each other. Again, hopefully the reason for this will become clear momentarily.

For the purpose of this essay, logical persuasion will be accepted to the mean the abstract tools from which we deduce knowledge before observing its properties as well as the tool by which all knowledge is judged as it pertains to convincing others of its validity. It will be left up to the reader to discover how it is that logic is essential to knowing. The definition for ethical persuasion will be assumed to refer to those conclusions which encourage a certain moral standpoint. Emotive persuasion will be referred to as meaning those conclusions which produce a sense of empathy toward a given statement. Logical, ethical, and emotive perception shall be used to refer to the similar processes through which the reader's decisions to mentally associate with the text are made.

 As social beings, the ultimate goal of any persuasive text should be to draw the reader in somehow. Presented critical to the reader's own beliefs, the reader may then try to rationalize their beliefs in such a fashion as to avoid any discrepancy with their peers. As a social animal, the reader must accept and reject conclusions based on their much out of date evolutionary equipment. In a vain effort to remain true to their own mind, they are compelled to accept those claims most acceptable to their immediate group. Indeed, dissociating someone from their clique of origin is a common trait of brainwashing methods. This makes sense in an environment where differing beliefs put one in mortal danger, something which must be curbed on a societal level if the human species is ever to evolve beyond group-think into consistent individuals.

 It seems the personal integration of each persuasive branch is a set of checks and balances. Using the United State's form of government as a metaphor: logic becomes the judicial system, ethics become the legislative system, and emotion becomes the executive system. Any two perceptions override the third, though not completely. Here are a few examples of people's reasoning in terms of the abstraction:

Logic, without regard to consequences, may be wielded to dictate that society harvests the organs of the unproductive to serve productive members of society. However, most of us emotively feel that this is not the correct course of action. Ethically, it would not serve society to use people for spare parts as they would rise up against their murderers.

 Ethically, space is too dangerous to explore by sending people there. Logically, the human species must eventually migrate off of this planet if it is to survive. Emotionally, space is too fascinating and beautiful not to invade.

Emotionally, it makes sense to die for what you believe in; it's very romantic. Logically, we only know for sure that we have this one life. Ethically, the suffering and imitation caused by such an act greatly outweighs most benefits to those who live on.

These examples represent mere cursory glances at different issues, with logic and ethics mistaken for each other. This represents much of the misunderstanding regarding the seperation between logic and ethics. The two are more closely related to either than to emotion. Emotion takes us into and out of danger faster than anything else. Without it, much of history would be very different. It seems to play a massive part in its metaphorical analogue, the executive branch of government.

Testing this hypothesis may be made very discrete. It is only necessary to ask questions like these: Is an essay more persuasive if it incorporates all three branches, two, or is it more persuasive if only one is focused on intensly? Does the length of the text have any effects relative to the number of branches incorporated (e.g. is a long essay using all three more effective than a short essay using just one)? Are people from different backgrounds more or less likely to be persuaded by different configurations of these variables depending on that background? What effects does the reading environment have on the persuasiveness of the different branches use in text? Pending the answer to these questions, and more, it seems like the best course of action is to take a "shotgun approach." Varied writing styles, some incorporating different branches into one essay. Writing style itself is likely a factor, and since everyone's is different each writer should try out different combinations. Sticking to any one method is far more likely to fail to persuade given the number of factors shown in the questions.

Also, it's fun to try new things, right?