What are rhetorical appeals in Heck Tate's testimony to Mr.Gilmer in chapter 17 of To Kill A Mockingbird

To understand Heck Tate's rhetorical appeals in chapter 17 of To Kill A Mockingbird, one must first understand what rhetorical appeals are. Three different types of rhetorical appeals exist. These strategies are used in arguments or presentations, such as a witness talking to a jury, to persuade listeners by using techniques to both support the argument, and counter questions asked by an opposing party. The first type of appeal is Logos. In this type of appeal the person talking attempts to use logic to explain their position. The second type is ethos, an appeal which uses an ethical basis for its argument or position, and relies heavily on the reputation and credibility of the person who is making the argument at the time. The third and final type of appeal is known as pathos, or an appeal to the emotion of those listening (More information on each can be found here).

In chapter 17 of To Kill A Mockingbird, Heck Tate uses both logos, and pathos in his testimony to Mr. Gilmer and the jury. Specifically, Tate is suggested to use a pathos appeal by Mr. Gilmer when he asks him "Can you say it to the jury, Mr. Tate?" on the bottom of the first page in chapter 17, to which he complies. This technique used by Mr. Gilmer on Tate is an example of trying to appeal to the jury in an emotional and personal way that will lead them to understand and empathize with what he went though in questioning Mayella Ewell and determining Tom Robinson's fate. 

He then goes on to use a logos appeal to explain what happened when he showed up to the scene at Bob Ewell's house. He used logical reasoning to explain that through questioning of Mayella Ewell on the evening of the incident he was able to determine how Tom Robinson was involved. As seen on page two of chapter 17, he asked Mayella who hurt her and she responded by saying "It was Tom Robinson" he then followed up by saying "asked her if he beat her like that, she said yes he did" to give his justification to the jury for why Tom Robinson was then arrested and charged with the crime. Later in the chapter, this logical explanation is scrutinized and picked apart by Atticus for inaccuracies that suggest Tom Robinson's innocents. Hope this helps!