In one sentence, describe what the following article is about:

This is the type of argument that appeals to and rests on logic and reason. It tends to have facts and sources to back it up and tends also to be made up of inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive means that it takes a specific representation of a case or facts and then draws conclusions based on those facts. You have to base this type of reasoning on a fair amount of reliable and supported evidence. Deductive reasoning tends to begin with a generalization or conclusion and then applies it to a specific case. You have to base your generalization on a lot of reliable evidence, however. Twisting facts to support a hasty claim is not going to help you. This is the ethical appeal that tends to be based on character, credibility, or reliability of the source or the person. Ways to establish credibility or to check for the credibility of your sources include: Double-check and triple-check the sources with other sources to make sure that the argument is supported by multiple claims. Make sure that the author or yourself are using actual, factually-backed claims, rather than information that is backed only by non-authorities, and so on. Make sure that you understand your position and the position of your sources. These should be clear and obvious from the start. This is called "pathos" and it tends to appeal to an audience or opponent's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities. There is a place for emotion in an argument as long as that isn't what you're basing your argument on. It's particularly useful to use emotional appeals to make a persuasive argument. For example: if you're arguing about the situation in Gaza you might pair facts about the Palestinian death toll with an emotional description of an individual's story. Don't base your argument on emotional appeal and only use if it really supports the claim you're making. You don't want to use emotional appeal to distract from the actual issue of the argument or debate. If you have too many points it will be difficult for you to keep track of them all. You want to have a few points that you feel are incredibly strong and that you have sources to back them up. An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone based on their appearance or their character, rather than on their opinion. While this can anger someone to the point that they lose track of their argument, it's going to make you look bad. These types of attacks are also more likely to make your opponent less likely to hear your side of the argument. If the other person attacks you in this way, call their attention to what they're doing and let them know that your appearance or character has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If they have to resort to these types of attacks, then their argument must not be very good. This is when you draw a conclusion that is based on very little, faulty, or biased information. This is what happens when you rush to a conclusion, or into an argument, without gathering all your facts and considering all sides beforehand. If someone does this to you, probe them on it. Ask questions. Have them cite their sources, where they got their information and so on.

Summary:
Use logos in your argument. Employ ethos. Have at least some emotional appeal. Stick to only a few, strong points. Avoid ad hominem attacks in your arguments. Avoid making hasty generalizations.