Breaking a time-honored code must be hard to cope with, but is it worth having a man’s life ruined? This court case took place in 1962, therefore, slavery ended, racial segregation ended not too long ago, but racism was still very strong. The only thing that made Mayella’s situation wrong, was the guilt she felt for breaking a social code. Atticus uses ethos, pathos, and logos. At the end of the argument, Atticus states “In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.”, this statement uses both pathos and ethos. For a religious person, God is the most important figure, so saying this will really change how they feel about the situation. Logos was used when Atticus mentions “Now there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led, almost exclusively, with his left [hand]. And Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken "The Oath" with the only good hand he possesses -- his right.”
In his closing argument, Atticus is claiming that the defendant, Tom Robinson, is not guilty. To support Atticus’s …show more content…
Both contains one party that stands at a higher place on the social ladder, while the other party is the one trying to overcome the social code. “She has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society” This statement reminds me of gender equality because if a woman wants to be on the football team, she will be treated different and unfair. I once asked for tryout information for football in 6th grade, and I was just laughed at. “In the name of God, do your duty.” In society, it is believed that a woman’s duty is to clean, cook, take care of the children, etc. If you’re a woman, and you are taking on a man’s role, good for you! Don’t let anyone stop you. If you’re a man, and you are taking on a woman’s role, that’s great! Don’t let anyone make you think you should be something