Both of these readings argued the definition of rhetoric and its purpose in society, but did so in differing forms. The Alexander and Losh reading was in the format of a graphic novel, while the Covino and Joliffe reading was in a classic essay format. The Alexander and Losh reading used an illustrated example to show how rhetoric works in the forms of pathos, ethos, and logos, while What is Rhetoric provided various definitions of rhetoric and explained how the various elements of rhetoric factor into ethos, pathos, and logos. I believe the Alexander and Losh reading was written for a younger audience such as a high school English class, or possible a freshman college course. The Covino and Joliffe reading is much more dry and concrete, so I believe it was written for and older audience such as an English Professor. What does Aristotle have to do with Me probably appeared in a college newspaper or an online blog, while What is Rhetoric most likely taken out of a text that deals with the history of rhetoric. Personally I better understood the Alexander and Losh text because it gave an illustrated example and created a short and fun story for me to understand a seemingly dry topic like rhetoric. The example of a college student emailing his professor about missing class is also a relatable story that most college students have experienced, and it also provided a bit of humor that made it more enjoyable to read as opposed to the Covino and Joliffe reading. The Alexander and Losh reading appealed to the pathos of the reader, by utilizing humor and a relatable example to explain the function of rhetoric. This made me more interested in the text, because I was more emotionally invested. The What is Rhetoric appealed to the ethos and logos of the reader, which made the text seem dry and harder to read.