It didn't make sense to me when Aristotle says:

"The man...must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically...and (3) to understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited."

In the same train of thought those ideas don't make sense to me, espeically in the vein which Aristotle was using them - it seemed like he was in favor of using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Sure, something might be "persuasive" - but emotional appeals aren't "logical".