Does Gandhi use elements of logos, pathos, or ethos in this speech?
Yes, he does. These three rhetorical devices (logos, pathos, and ethos) are persuasive devices. Mahatma Gandhi uses these elements in order to call Indian's attention. The use of 'ethos' is to generate credibility in his audience. So he puts himself at the same level of Indians. The use of 'pathos' is to create an emotional atmosphere and the use of 'logos' is a tactic to develop a plan of action.
Cite evidence of one or more of these elements of rhetoric from the speech:
“We have resolved to utilize all our resources in the pursuit of an exclusively non-violent struggle. Let no one commit a wrong in anger.” Dandi March Speech (11 March 1930)
In this excerpt, you have the use of ethos: We (Gandhi includes himself), the use of logos because he wants Indians not to fight but resist against the British government. And finally, the use of pathos because Gandhi persuades Indians with 'Satyagraha' causing the Indian independence movement, which will be the basis in the Civil Rights Movement.
1. Gandhi uses pathos in his speech when he discusses the fifth of Indian cities:
This city mostly is a stinking den... It is not comforting to think that people walk about The streets of Indian Bombay under the perpetual fear of dwellers in this storeyed building spitting up on them. I do a great deal of railway traveling... we split anywhere on the carriage floor, irrespective of the thoughts that is often used as a sleeping space.
2. Gandhi uses ethos when he discusses his personal experiences with the topics in his speech.
3. Gandhi makes an appeal to logos when he side statistics on the farmers in the country: “ over 75% of the population is agriculturists”. He then sets up the logical argument that the country cannot grow if the government takes the bulk of the profits from such a substantial group :
But there cannot be much spirit of self government about us, if we take away or allow others to take away from them almost the whole of the results of their labor.
He had eighteen thousand francs inherited from his father. He would have to borrow eighteen thousand more, but he had committed himself to paying "ruinous" interest on a large part of the borrowed money--possibly something like twenty percent per annum. So by the time the Loisels finally got the necklace paid off,