Philadelphia Comments

I think the scene that stands out to me the most in the movie Philadelphia is the on when one of the partners of the company was on the stand.  Miller asks him whether it was true if Beckett won their case or not.  The partner says that he did in fact win the case, but the work that was done was merely "satisfactory." Then Miller compares Beckett's work to cavier and a bologna sandwich.  I think Miller's argument incorporate both logos and pathos.  The fact the Beckett won the case for the company should logically be a great success for the company.  All the partners should logically feel good about the win.  But, I think the appeal to pathos comes in when he makes fun of the partner by saying "oh that must have been a 'satisfactory' win."  Or something along those lines... I think that this is an appeal to emotions because it's poking fun at the boss of the company, which would definitely make the jury laugh or think of how ridiculous the partner's story is.