In Maya Walker’s “To Meme or Not to Meme”, she explores the possibility that memes are more damaging than they are helpful. She presents her argument that memes seem to normalize bad behaviors and as a result people suffer in silence because they are under the impression that their depression is a regular thing. She builds this argument effectively by appealing to the audience’s emotions with the discussion of sensitive subjects as well as urging them to fix their behavior with backup from an authority figure.
As a result of using authority figures such as Ryan M. Milnerand Loughborough University, Walker she builds a trust between the audience and her. This trust will impact how the audience will interpret her message when they finish with her work. They will be more likely to trust Walker’s argument and side with her.
Her argument however, is not only strengthened by her use of ethos but goes deeper to pathos. She creates a significant emotional connection to her audience when she discusses her personal story of how she came to find memes damaging her mental health. By doing this, Walker is able to gain sympathy from others and makes them more likely to believe.
Despite using both ethos and pathos, her work lacks proper evidence that memes are linked to poor mental health. She presents basic blanket statements but no logical data or patterns.
However, her urgency to fix the situation allows the audience to bypass the idea of whether or not this is logical. They have already been drawn in by professionals and emotion that they feel they are able to act quick.
Walker effectively uses appeals to build trust, therefore writing an effective argument, as an argument is only as good as the audience interprets it to be.