Which statement demonstrates logos in a policy context?

Which statement demonstrates logos in a policy context?

• A. A claim about empathy for families
• B. A claim about a historical precedent
• C. A factual statement about potential consequences if a policy is not implemented
• D. A call to moral duty

Answer: (C)

Logos in policy work means using logical reasoning and evidence to persuade. When a statement spells out what could happen if a policy isn’t adopted—for example, projected costs, risks, or negative outcomes—you’re presenting a cause-and-effect argument that can be evaluated on rational grounds. This kind of factual, outcome-based reasoning is the hallmark of logos, because it relies on logic and measurable consequences rather than emotions or authority. By contrast, talking about empathy for families appeals to feelings (pathos), a historical precedent might support an argument but doesn’t by itself present the direct logical consequences of inaction, and a call to moral duty appeals to values or ethics (ethos/pathos) rather than to logical analysis. So the statement about potential consequences is the clearest example of logos in a policy context.

Logos in policy work means using logical reasoning and evidence to persuade. When a statement spells out what could happen if a policy isn’t adopted—for example, projected costs, risks, or negative outcomes—you’re presenting a cause-and-effect argument that can be evaluated on rational grounds. This kind of factual, outcome-based reasoning is the hallmark of logos, because it relies on logic and measurable consequences rather than emotions or authority.

By contrast, talking about empathy for families appeals to feelings (pathos), a historical precedent might support an argument but doesn’t by itself present the direct logical consequences of inaction, and a call to moral duty appeals to values or ethics (ethos/pathos) rather than to logical analysis. So the statement about potential consequences is the clearest example of logos in a policy context.