Hello, everyone.

I've recently started on my bachelor's degree in philosophy, and this is my first year at a university. Academia is therefore new to me, and I am trying to wrap my head around an article on how emotions are arguable in argumentation theory. We will be writing an analysis of this article, and it will be submitted part by part throughout the semester, and we will be starting with a summary.
Now, whether or not you agree with the author, I would love to hear your inputs on how his arguments may / may not be fallacious, true or incorrect, because as this is an analysis, I am to point out the structure of arguments, and how / if they are relevant, but if you could, let your arguments / counterarguments be in their own paragraph and just try to highlight what the author is trying to articulate.

Because firstly I am going to write a summary of the whole thing, before diving into the analysis of the author's arguments. This comes later, because I need to understand if I have myself grasped the author's thesis in the first place; being a beginner at this actually have troubles understanding what he is saying. And quite honestly, I think the same can be said for my lecturer, as when I asked him he really didn't address my question, (he is an older man and our native language isn't English, yet I do not at all doubt his competence as he is a good lecturer) he was pointing out the structure of my text, which I appreciate, but I will fix that later - first I need to understand if what I am writing is even true or not. My whole class is having a hard time with this one, and there seems to be many interpretations.

So I have therefore decided to come to this sub for some inputs. I will be posting the link to the article and below I have pasted what I have written thus far. It is not near finished yet, and there are probably grammatical errors or spellings which I would appreciate corrected. (As I've said, English is not my native language). If you could keep it as comprehensible as possible that would be great - as said, I am new to academic jargon and terminologies. Thank you all in advance, I want you to know that I truly appreciate this forum and the people who are active here.

TL;DR: What point is the author trying to make, and have I understood it?
Link to article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TSAvlGFHUg7ys2V9D9KnEnDK0jp9qju-/view?usp=sharing

This is what I have written thus far;

"In this analysis, we will consider Raphaël Micheli’s hypothesis that by drawing parallels with modern psychology and other philosophical theories, we can understand emotions to be at the basis of an argument’s core by deciphering how we cognitively process a statement depending on the listener’s evaluative mental state. This supports the proposition that emotional appeals serve not only to enhance the persuasiveness of an argument, but that a speaker may present propositions or claims with the intention of legitimizing an emotion and the reasons of why they should or should not be felt; the emotion itself is rendered to be arguable and something to be considered in argumentation theory.
The author presents an alternate perspective that stands in contrast with the conventional view that emotions are not only objects of appeal that strengthen the validity of an argument, but rather that the emotion itself functions as a cognitive antecedent in which both of the rhetorical modes of persuasion, pathos and logos, are ultimately intertwined, or reduced to one another.

When one presents an argument, for example why something is “dangerous” we ultimately use pathos as a means of appealing to the audience’s emotions as to argue why the argument has merit. In this case, pathos is reduced to logos because reason and logic is the cognitive antecedent which results in the audience having a particular emotion triggered. The listener's emotions and opinions alike can be altered with argumentation. One can thusly view rhetorical means of persuasion as integrated in the premises to support the argument’s conclusion, rendering emotions themselves to be, as described by the author, objects of argumentative constructions. If this is the case, then emotions themselves are arguable in their own sense............ *tbc* "