The premise of Superpowers! is a common enough topic of discussion among my friends and I. I’ve spent plenty of time debating which superpowers are the best and what heroes (or villains) would win in a fight and have found it hilarious when some people get too serious about the topic and become legitimately angry.
Superpowers!’s rhetoric hits all the notes of the ethos/pathos/logos aspect. To establish ethos, Ira Glass gives credibility to the man who ran the unscientific(anecdotal) study of his peers based on their preferential superpower but introducing him as such to give his listeners an uninflated view of the man, so if we decided to source him, we wouldn’t be disappointed.
That man also speaks from his own experience and calls it as such, in a bid to develop pathos in the listener. The show also has many other people share their own preference of superpower, including those same people sharing their own ideas of what sort of person would choose which power. The reluctance a few people have in sharing their choice, after analyzing the mindset of the two, to choose one or the other gives an opportunity for the reluctant listener to relate more to one of the guests.
They also emphasize logos by discussing the “stages” of the decision, starting with the initial and immediate decision, and going through the stages step by step.
Which appeal drew you in the most? Was it logos, pathos, or ethos?