I chose to look at some really creepy pictures of wounds made of sweets or desserts that were created by The Diabetes Association. For me, these images made a strong argument about the potential harm of sugar for those with diabetes. While I don’t think that the text is necessary, some knowledge of diabetes and that it causes wounds to heal more slowly might be necessary in order to understand the argument that I think is being made here.

I’m not sure this would be classified as an argument under Blair’s definition because it primarily relies on the emotional reaction of the audience, which seemed to be something Blair rejected. Rather, he seemed to rely primarily on logos as necessary for argument. While this is primarily a pathos argument, some knowledge of diabetes actually would allow an audience to see the piece as being logical as well.

Visual arguments are absolutely possible, and I’m not sure I agree with the very restrictive definition that Blair has for what counts as an argument. However, stand alone visuals without any linguistic features as clues may mean that the visual reaches a more particular audience.