Logical and Emotional Manipulation

Throughout Inherit the Wind, the audience observes many uses of emotional and logical arguments made by the participants of Bertrand Cate’s trial. Every character utilizes these appeals to sway their audience’s opinions to be biased towards themselves. As the novel continues, the effects of these arguments become progressively more explicit, with the audience falling victim to these appeals and having their point of view modified. Both logical and emotional arguments are proven to be effective in their own ways, but many noticeable differences are present. During the trial, the audience witnesses the defense use pure logic to argue in favor for Bertrand Cates and Darwinism, while the prosecution mainly wields the ability of psychological manipulation to seek victory. It is also evident that while the defendant makes rational arguments, the audience is still biased towards the prosecution and the catholic faith. There are also explicit reasons why each side chooses to use one appeal instead of the other.

            An emotional argument is used to form bonds and connections with the speaker and the audience, while logical arguments present facts and information, luring the audience to the allied side with pure logic. Henry Drummond wields both these appeals during the trial, using his client’s predicament and endeavors to make it relatable, saying that “I understand what Bert’s going through. It’s the loneliest feeling in the world-to find yourself standing up when everyone else is sitting down” (Lawrence & Lee 51). Drummond uses pathos to form connections between Cates and the jury, extracting sympathy from his audience and attracting them to his side. Bertrand Cates also used logic to defend himself in court, pointing out how “people look at me as if I was a murderer, worse than a murderer! That fella from Minnesota who killed his wife was looked at as if he was a curiousity!” (Lawrence & Lee 50). Cates uses logic to expose the injustice that was brought upon himself, reminding the audience of how they treated a murderer with more respect than someone who read a science book. Even with Drummond and Cate’s intricate use of the two appeals, the court is still prejudiced towards the prosecution.

            When Drummond calls scientists up to the witness stands, the judge denies his request claiming that zoology has no revelation to the court case. The judge allows for the “read your bible” banner to be kept up, allows for Reverend Brown to give a sermon, and allows for many of Brady’s irrational objections to be sustained, yet they still prevent scientists from sharing their opinion. This is caused by the prosecution’s abuse of the judge and jury’s religious roots to manipulate their opinions, claiming that Cates should “feel the terror of thy sword! For all eternity let his soul writhe in anguish and damnation” (Lawrence & Lee 66). Reverend Brown uses emotional appeals to remind the audience of their roots, forming even more durable connections between the town and their faith. This incredible use of psychological manipulation sways his audience’s opinions to be biased towards Darwinism. This emotional appeal is evidently more effective than the logical appeals the defendants continue to wield, but there are explicit reasons as to why they choose to use this appeal.

            The prosecution is in favor of religion, while the defendants are biased towards science. The audience’s roots are grown from faith, so by using emotional connections, the prosecution can sway the jury and judge’s opinions. Drummond, on the other hand, has a contradicting opinion, so he cannot relate to the jury and judge in any way. This restriction causes his inability to use emotional connections to form bonds, and therefore could only use pure logic. When a storekeeper is asked whether he prefers science or religion, the storekeeper replies, “Don’t have any opinions. They’re bad for business” (Lawrence & Lee 17). When the storekeeper claims that opinions are bad for business, he is suggesting that society has the ability to plague any life form with an unpopular opinion. In this trial, the defendants are the one with the unpopular opinion. Their beliefs completely contradict the prosecutions’, and cannot relate to the audience in any way, and therefore could only use logical appeals.

            During the progression of the trial, many examples of both emotional and logical arguments are presented. Both are effective in their own ways, but there are also many apparent differences between the two appeals. The prosecution abuses their audiences’ roots and uses pathos to form stronger bonds and manipulate their opinions, while the defendants can only use logic. Although the defendants make very good points, it is evident that the jury and judge are prejudiced against them. Because of the defendants’ beliefs being contradictory compared to the prosecutions’, they cannot relate to their audience, making it severely more difficult to form bonds between them. Regardless of which arguments the prosecution or defendants make, the effectiveness of an appeal is ultimately determined by the talents and wits of the participants.