DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethos, Pathos, Logos Resource and Definition Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

March 23-27 Distance Learning 8th Grade English: Persuasive Speech Ethos, Pathos, Logos Resource and Definition Guide The goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else’s. The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three categories–Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect. Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader’s emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience’s emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument. Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle’s favorite. We’ll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We’ll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing. In short, Ethos, Pathos and Logos each have a different meaning: ● Ethos is an appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. ● Pathos is an appeal to emotion, and is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response. ● Logos is an appeal to logic, and is a way of persuading an audience by reason. Ethos: the source’s credibility, the speaker’s/author’s authority Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument. Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details. Ethos or the ethical appeal, means to convince an audience of the author’s credibility or character. An author would use ethos to show to his audience that he is a credible source and is worth listening to. Ethos is the Greek word for “character.” The word “ethic” is derived from ethos. Ethos can be developed by choosing language that is appropriate for the audience and topic (also means choosing proper level of vocabulary), making yourself sound fair or unbiased, introducing your expertise or pedigree, and by using correct grammar and syntax. Pathos or the emotional appeal, means to persuade an audience by appealing to their emotions. Authors use pathos to invoke sympathy from an audience; to make the audience feel what the author wants them to feel. A common use of pathos would be to draw pity from an audience. Another use of pathos would be to inspire anger from an audience; perhaps in order to prompt action. Pathos is the Greek word for both “suffering” and “experience.” The words empathy and pathetic are derived from pathos. Pathos can be developed by using meaningful language, emotional tone, emotion evoking examples, stories of emotional events, and implied meanings. Logos or the appeal to logic, means to convince an audience by use of logic or reason. To use logos would be to cite facts and statistics, historical and literal analogies, and citing certain authorities on a subject. Logos is the Greek word for “word,” however the true definition goes beyond that, and can be most closely described as “the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio; and, the inward thought itself, Lat. Ratio. The word “logic” is derived from logos. Logos can be developed by using advanced, theoretical or abstract language, citing facts (very important), using historical and literal analogies, and by constructing logical arguments. In order to persuade your audience, proper use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos is necessary. REFERENCE Tools of Persuasion ® THE LANGUAGE ARTS MAGAZINE Ethos, Pathos, Logos: What to Know Ethos, pathos, and logos are different methods for persuading an audience—approaches to convincing people to adopt a certain point of view or take a particular action. Ethos, pathos, and logos are called appeals. They are used in speeches, writing, and advertising. tries to convince you through the trustworthiness and believability of the author. It is an Ethos appeal to ethics. Writers and speakers who use ethos . ✔ introduce their expertise. ✔ are fair and unbiased. ✔ use reliable sources. ✔ seem like authorities and come across as people worth listening to. tries to persuade you by creating an emotional connection between you and the topic. It Pathos is an appeal to your emotions. Writers and speakers who use pathos . ✔ use powerful language to evoke sympathy. ✔ send a message that touches your values or beliefs. ✔ include compelling stories, examples, or visuals that evoke the feelings they want you to feel. tries to persuade you by using evidence such as facts and figures. It is an appeal to logic Logos and reason. Writers and speakers who use logos . ✔ rely on facts and information rather than personal opinions. ✔ use data and statistics properly. ✔ construct well-reasoned arguments that make sense. ✔ present relevant claims and evidence . ©2019 BY SCHOLASTIC INC. PERMISSION GRANTED TO TEACHERS AND SUBSCRIBERS TO PROJECT OR MAKE COPIES OF THIS PAGE TO DISTRIBUTE TO STUDENTS. Persuasive Language introduction to ethos, pathos & logos ARISTOTLE was a Greek philosopher who lived in the 4th century BCE. He was an influential thinker and wrote on many subjects – from logic and ethics, to biology and metaphysics. One area, in which Aristotle was particularly interested, was rhetoric. That is, the art of persuasive speaking or writing. He even wrote a whole book entitled ‘On Rhetoric’ in which he explains his theories of persuasive language and speech. Most significantly, in this work he expounds on the concepts of ethos, logos and pathos, as tools for persuasive language. A lot can be learned about the art of persuasion from these three concepts, and once understood, they can be easily applied to our own persuasive speaking and writing. ethos Ethos is a Greek word meaning ‘character’. In terms of persuasive language, it is an appeal to authority and credibility. Ethos is a means of convincing an audience of the reliable character or credibility of the speaker/writer, or the credibility of the argument. It is an important tool of persuasion because if you can get your audience to see you (or your argument) as credible and trustworthy, it will be much easier to persuade them. pathos Pathos is a Greek word meaning ‘suffering’ or ‘experience’, and it is used in persuasive speech as an appeal to the emotions of the audience. Pathos is the way of creating a persuasive argument by evoking an emotional response in the audience/reader. You can use pathos when trying to persuade, by appealing to an audience’s hopes and dreams, playing on their fears or worries, or appealing to their particular beliefs or ideals. logos Logos is a Greek word meaning ‘a word’ or ‘reason’. In rhetoric, it is an appeal to logic and reason. It is used to persuade an audience by logical thought, fact and rationality. Logos can be a useful tool of persuasion because if you can ‘prove’ an argument through logical and sound reasoning, your audience is more likely to be persuaded. If you can include a combination of these three elements in your persuasive speaking and writing, you will appeal to your audience’s emotions, sense of reasoning and belief in you, and therefore your writing will be more convincing. Try to subtly weave ethos, pathos and logos into your persuasive writing and speaking. © Stacey Lloyd 2014 PERSUASIVE LANGUAGE For each of the following extracts from advertisements, identify how ethos, in advertising pathos or logos is being used. _________________________________________________________________ 1 _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 2 MACARONNI CHEESE _________________________________________________________________ Just the way mom makes it _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 3 _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 4 _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 5 _________________________________________________________________
Recommended publications
  • Social Norms and Social Influence Mcdonald and Crandall 149

    Social Norms and Social Influence Mcdonald and Crandall 149

    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Social norms and social influence Rachel I McDonald and Christian S Crandall Psychology has a long history of demonstrating the power and and their imitation is not enough to implicate social reach of social norms; they can hardly be overestimated. To norms. Imitation is common enough in many forms of demonstrate their enduring influence on a broad range of social life — what creates the foundation for culture and society phenomena, we describe two fields where research continues is not the imitation, but the expectation of others for when to highlight the power of social norms: prejudice and energy imitation is appropriate, and when it is not. use. The prejudices that people report map almost perfectly onto what is socially appropriate, likewise, people adjust their A social norm is an expectation about appropriate behav- energy use to be more in line with their neighbors. We review ior that occurs in a group context. Sherif and Sherif [8] say new approaches examining the effects of norms stemming that social norms are ‘formed in group situations and from multiple groups, and utilizing normative referents to shift subsequently serve as standards for the individual’s per- behaviors in social networks. Though the focus of less research ception and judgment when he [sic] is not in the group in recent years, our review highlights the fundamental influence situation. The individual’s major social attitudes are of social norms on social behavior. formed in relation to group norms (pp. 202–203).’ Social norms, or group norms, are ‘regularities in attitudes and Address behavior that characterize a social group and differentiate Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, it from other social groups’ [9 ] (p.
  • Does It Hold Water?

    Does It Hold Water?

    Does it Hold Water? Summary Investigate logical fallacies to see the flaws in arguments and learn to read between the lines and discern obscure and misleading statements from the truth. Workplace Readiness Skills Primary: Information Literacy Secondary: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Secondary: Reading and Writing Secondary: Integrity Workplace Readiness Definition: Information Literacy • defining information literacy • locating and evaluating credible and relevant sources of information • using information effectively to accomplish work-related tasks. Vocabulary • Critical Thinking • Trustworthy • Aristotle, Plato, • Inductive Reasoning • Logic Socrates • Deductive Reasoning • Logical fallacy • Systems thinking • Cause-Effect • Process • Argument • Analysis • Propaganda • Rhetorical • Credible/non- • Infer vs. Imply credible Context Questions • How can information literacy set you apart from your peers or coworkers? • How can you demonstrate your ability with information literacy skills in a job interview? • How does information literacy and critical thinking interrelate? How do they differ? • How is good citizenship tied in with being a critical thinker? • How have you used information literacy skills in the past? • What are some common ways that information literacy skills are used in the workplace? • What news and information sources do you trust? What makes them trustworthy? • What is the difference between news shows and hard news? • Why is it important to be able to discern fact from opinion? • Why is it important to determine a credible from a non-credible source? • What are the characteristics of a credible/non-credible source? • What is a primary, secondary, and tertiary source? • What is a website domain, and what can it tell you about a site's potential credibility? Objective: To teach you how to determine whether media messages are factual and provable or whether those messages are misleading or somehow flawed.
  • The Meaning of Language

    The Meaning of Language

    01:615:201 Introduction to Linguistic Theory Adam Szczegielniak The Meaning of Language Copyright in part: Cengage learning The Meaning of Language • When you know a language you know: • When a word is meaningful or meaningless, when a word has two meanings, when two words have the same meaning, and what words refer to (in the real world or imagination) • When a sentence is meaningful or meaningless, when a sentence has two meanings, when two sentences have the same meaning, and whether a sentence is true or false (the truth conditions of the sentence) • Semantics is the study of the meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences – Lexical semantics: the meaning of words and the relationships among words – Phrasal or sentential semantics: the meaning of syntactic units larger than one word Truth • Compositional semantics: formulating semantic rules that build the meaning of a sentence based on the meaning of the words and how they combine – Also known as truth-conditional semantics because the speaker’ s knowledge of truth conditions is central Truth • If you know the meaning of a sentence, you can determine under what conditions it is true or false – You don’ t need to know whether or not a sentence is true or false to understand it, so knowing the meaning of a sentence means knowing under what circumstances it would be true or false • Most sentences are true or false depending on the situation – But some sentences are always true (tautologies) – And some are always false (contradictions) Entailment and Related Notions • Entailment: one sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one must be true also Jack swims beautifully.
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center

    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center

    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
  • David Lewis on Convention

    David Lewis on Convention

    David Lewis on Convention Ernie Lepore and Matthew Stone Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University David Lewis’s landmark Convention starts its exploration of the notion of a convention with a brilliant insight: we need a distinctive social competence to solve coordination problems. Convention, for Lewis, is the canonical form that this social competence takes when it is grounded in agents’ knowledge and experience of one another’s self-consciously flexible behavior. Lewis meant for his theory to describe a wide range of cultural devices we use to act together effectively; but he was particularly concerned in applying this notion to make sense of our knowledge of meaning. In this chapter, we give an overview of Lewis’s theory of convention, and explore its implications for linguistic theory, and especially for problems at the interface of the semantics and pragmatics of natural language. In §1, we discuss Lewis’s understanding of coordination problems, emphasizing how coordination allows for a uniform characterization of practical activity and of signaling in communication. In §2, we introduce Lewis’s account of convention and show how he uses it to make sense of the idea that a linguistic expression can come to be associated with its meaning by a convention. Lewis’s account has come in for a lot of criticism, and we close in §3 by addressing some of the key difficulties in thinking of meaning as conventional in Lewis’s sense. The critical literature on Lewis’s account of convention is much wider than we can fully survey in this chapter, and so we recommend for a discussion of convention as a more general phenomenon Rescorla (2011).
  • Conservatism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics and Ethics

    Conservatism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics and Ethics

    TOWARDS PRAGMATIC CONSERVATISM: A REVIEW OF SETH VANNATTA’S CONSERVATISM AND PRAGMATISM IN LAW, POLITICS, AND ETHICS Allen Mendenhall* At some point all writers come across a book they wish they had written. Several such books line my bookcases; the latest of which is Seth Vannatta’s Conservativism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics, and Ethics.1 The two words conservatism and pragmatism circulate widely and with apparent ease, as if their import were immediately clear and uncontroversial. But if you press strangers for concise definitions, you will likely find that the signification of these words differs from person to person.2 Maybe it’s not just that people are unwilling to update their understanding of conservatism and pragmatism—maybe it’s that they cling passionately to their understanding (or misunderstanding), fearing that their operative paradigms and working notions of 20th century history and philosophy will collapse if conservatism and pragmatism differ from some developed expectation or ingrained supposition. I began to immerse myself in pragmatism in graduate school when I discovered that its central tenets aligned rather cleanly with those of Edmund Burke, David Hume, F. A. Hayek, Michael Oakeshott, and Russell Kirk, men widely considered to be on the right end of the political spectrum even if their ideas diverge in key areas.3 In fact, I came to believe that pragmatism reconciled these thinkers, that whatever their marked intellectual differences, these men believed certain things that could be synthesized and organized in terms of pragmatism.4 I reached this conclusion from the same premise adopted by Vannatta: “Conservatism and pragmatism[] .
  • Bias and Critical Thinking

    Bias and Critical Thinking

    BIAS AND CRITICAL THINKING Point: there is an alternative to • being “biased” (one-sided, closed-minded, etc.) • simply having an “opinion” (by which I mean a viewpoint that has subjective value only: “everyone has their own opinions”) • being neutral and not taking a position In thinking about bias, it is important to distinguish between four things: 1. a particular position taken on an issue 2. the source of that position (its support and basis) 3. the resistance or openness to other positions 4. the impact that position has on other positions and viewpoints taken by the person Too often, people confuse these four. One result is that people sometimes assume that taking any position on an issue (#1) is an indication of bias. If this were true, then the only way to avoid bias would be to not take a position but rather simply present what are considered to be facts. In this way one is supposedly “objective” and “neutral.” However, it is highly debatable whether one can really be objective and neutral or whether one can present objective facts in a completely neutral way. More importantly, there are two troublesome implications of such a viewpoint on bias: • the ideal would seem to be not taking a position (but to really deal with issues we have to take a position) • all positions are biased and therefore it is difficult if not impossible to judge one position superior to another. It is far better to reject the idea that taking any position always implies bias. Rather, bias is a function either of the source of that position, or the resistance one has to other positions, or the impact that position has on other positions and viewpoints taken.
  • Against Logical Form

    Against Logical Form

    Against logical form Zolta´n Gendler Szabo´ Conceptions of logical form are stranded between extremes. On one side are those who think the logical form of a sentence has little to do with logic; on the other, those who think it has little to do with the sentence. Most of us would prefer a conception that strikes a balance: logical form that is an objective feature of a sentence and captures its logical character. I will argue that we cannot get what we want. What are these extreme conceptions? In linguistics, logical form is typically con- ceived of as a level of representation where ambiguities have been resolved. According to one highly developed view—Chomsky’s minimalism—logical form is one of the outputs of the derivation of a sentence. The derivation begins with a set of lexical items and after initial mergers it splits into two: on one branch phonological operations are applied without semantic effect; on the other are semantic operations without phono- logical realization. At the end of the first branch is phonological form, the input to the articulatory–perceptual system; and at the end of the second is logical form, the input to the conceptual–intentional system.1 Thus conceived, logical form encompasses all and only information required for interpretation. But semantic and logical information do not fully overlap. The connectives “and” and “but” are surely not synonyms, but the difference in meaning probably does not concern logic. On the other hand, it is of utmost logical importance whether “finitely many” or “equinumerous” are logical constants even though it is hard to see how this information could be essential for their interpretation.
  • Truth-Bearers and Truth Value*

    Truth-Bearers and Truth Value*

    Truth-Bearers and Truth Value* I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to explain the following concepts and the relationships between them: statements, propositions, and truth value. In what follows each of these will be discussed in turn. II. Language and Truth-Bearers A. Statements 1. Introduction For present purposes, we will define the term “statement” as follows. Statement: A meaningful declarative sentence.1 It is useful to make sure that the definition of “statement” is clearly understood. 2. Sentences in General To begin with, a statement is a kind of sentence. Obviously, not every string of words is a sentence. Consider: “John store.” Here we have two nouns with a period after them—there is no verb. Grammatically, this is not a sentence—it is just a collection of words with a dot after them. Consider: “If I went to the store.” This isn’t a sentence either. “I went to the store.” is a sentence. However, using the word “if” transforms this string of words into a mere clause that requires another clause to complete it. For example, the following is a sentence: “If I went to the store, I would buy milk.” This issue is not merely one of conforming to arbitrary rules. Remember, a grammatically correct sentence expresses a complete thought.2 The construction “If I went to the store.” does not do this. One wants to By Dr. Robert Tierney. This document is being used by Dr. Tierney for teaching purposes and is not intended for use or publication in any other manner. 1 More precisely, a statement is a meaningful declarative sentence-type.
  • Impossible Grief:· Motivation and Intention in 1Macheth

    Impossible Grief:· Motivation and Intention in 1Macheth

    IMPOSSIBLE GRIEF:· MOTIVATION AND INTENTION IN 1MACHETH KER WELLS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE~UIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FINE ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN THEATRE YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO SEPTEMBER 2013 ©KER WELLS, 2013 ii Abstract This paper considers the issues of identification and motivation in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Proceeding from the proposal that the play allows for a remarkable level of audience identification for the characters of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, considering their heinous acts, reasons for this level of identification are explored. Two events referred to in the text of Macbeth, but preceding the time of the play, are identified as potentially significant motivating factors in the couple's actions: Macbeth's recent experience of intense battle, and the couple's apparent past loss of a child. Supporting textual evidence is presented in addition to third party research into the effects of close combat and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the psychological effects on parents of losing a child. Various staging and design implications, opportunities, and ideas that result from these proposals are explored with direct reference to the author's production of Macbeth in Toronto's High Park. iii Dedicated to Marilyn Wells, to L.L.M, and to all the others who have taught me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................. ii Introduction ..........................................................................
  • Pathos & Ethos: Emotions and Willingness to Pay for Tobacco

    Pathos & Ethos: Emotions and Willingness to Pay for Tobacco

    Francesco Bogliacino, Cristiano Codagnone, Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri, Amitav Chakravarti, Pietro Ortoleva, George Gaskell, Andriy Ivchenko, Francisco Lupiáñez- Villanueva, Francesco Mureddu, Caroline Rudisill Pathos & ethos: emotions and willingness to pay for tobacco products Article (Published version) (Refereed) Original citation: Bogliacino, Francesco, Codagnone, Cristiano, Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro, Chakravarti, Amitav, Ortoleva, Pietro, Gaskell, George, Ivchenko, Andriy, Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Francisco, Mureddu, Francesco and Rudisill, Caroline (2015) Pathos & ethos: emotions and willingness to pay for tobacco products. PLOS One, 10 (10). e0139542. ISSN 1932-6203 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139542 Reuse of this item is permitted through licensing under the Creative Commons: © 2015 The Authors CC-BY This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64127/ Available in LSE Research Online: November 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. RESEARCH ARTICLE Pathos & Ethos: Emotions and Willingness to Pay for Tobacco Products Francesco Bogliacino1☯*, Cristiano Codagnone2☯, Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri3☯, Amitav Chakravarti4,5‡, Pietro Ortoleva6‡, George Gaskell4, Andriy Ivchenko7, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva8, Francesco Mureddu8,9, Caroline Rudisill4 1 Universidad
  • Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath

    Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath

    Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath Some of the most important questions we face in public health include what policies we should follow, which programs and research should we fund, how and where we should intervene, and what our priorities should be in the face of overwhelming needs and scarce resources. These questions, like many others, are best decided on the basis of arguments, a word that has its roots in the Latin arguere, to make clear. Yet arguments themselves vary greatly in terms of their strength, accuracy, and validity. Furthermore, public health experts often disagree on matters of research, policy and practice, citing conflicting evidence and arriving at conflicting conclusions. As a result, critical readers, such as researchers, policymakers, journal editors and reviewers, approach arguments with considerable skepticism. After all, they are not going to change their programs, priorities, practices, research agendas or budgets without very solid evidence that it is necessary, feasible, and beneficial. This raises an important challenge for public health writers: How can you best make your case, in the face of so much conflicting evidence? To illustrate, let’s assume that you’ve been researching mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in a sub-Saharan African country and have concluded that (claim) the country’s maternal programs for HIV counseling and infant nutrition should be integrated because (reasons) this would be more efficient in decreasing MTCT, improving child nutrition, and using scant resources efficiently. The evidence to back up your claim might consist of original research you have conducted that included program assessments and interviews with health workers in the field, your assessment of the other relevant research, the experiences of programs in other countries, and new WHO guidelines.