5-1
Identifying Rhetorical Devices
The aim of this tutorial is to help
you learn to identify examples of
rhetorical devices from chapter 5.
Go To Next Slide
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-2
This process of finding and evaluating rhetorical
devices is both an art and a science; depending on
an understanding of how arguments work,
knowledge of the various rhetorical devices, as well
as an ‘eye’ for differentiating these tactics for one
another and from good arguments.
On the following slides you will see example
‘arguments’ which may contain rhetorical devices.
Though not every type of rhetorical device is
illustrated, the techniques demonstrated here apply
to all sorts of rhetorical devices.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-3
Biker:
“I refuse
to Baker,
buy a Japanese
motorcycle.
Defense
lawyer
Robert
at the O.J.
Simpson
I don’t believe in doing business with Communist
civil trial: “This isn’t a fight for justice, it is a
Countries.”
fight for money.”
Reporter: “But Japan isn’t Communist.”
Biker: “Well to me they are.”
First we need to identify the conclusion of the
argument. An argument relies on an inference
linking the truth of the premise(s) to the truth of the
conclusion. Rhetorical devices can often be spotted
by noting how the argument fails to make this
inference.
So, what is the biker’s conclusion here?
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-4
Defense
Biker:
lawyer
“I refuse
Robert
to Baker,
buy a Japanese
at the O.J.
motorcycle.
Simpson
Icivil
don’t
believe
in doing
with
Communist
trial:
“This
isn’t abusiness
fight for
justice,
it is a
Countries.”
fight for money.”
Reporter: “But Japan isn’t Communist.”
Biker: “Well to me they are.”
The biker is concluding that Japan is a communist
nation. How do we know this? Well, the only other
viable option for the conclusion is that the biker refuses
to buy Japanese motorcycles. However, he is not really
arguing for this, just stating it.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-5
Biker: “I refuse to buy a Japanese motorcycle.
I don’t believe in doing business with Communist
Countries.”
Reporter: “But Japan isn’t Communist.”
Biker: “Well to me they are.”
The next step in looking for rhetorical devices is to
inspect the way the argument tries to prove the
conclusion. A good argument will, for one thing,
have relevant premises that provide good
evidence that the conclusion is true.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-6
Biker: “I refuse to buy a Japanese motorcycle.
I don’t believe in doing business with Communist
Countries.”
Reporter: “But Japan isn’t Communist.”
Biker: “Well to me they are.”
It seems the biker is arguing that Japan is communist
simply because she says so.
Does this seem like a good argument?
This is a rhetorical device. Based on what you learned from
the text, identify the variety of rhetorical device at work
here.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-7
Biker: “I refuse to buy a Japanese motorcycle.
I don’t believe in doing business with Communist
Countries.”
Reporter: “But Japan isn’t Communist.”
Biker: “Well to me they are.”
Does the biker actually
Is communism a factual
present a reason for
matter or a subjective matter?
rejecting the reporter’s
This is an example of the
criticism?
subjectivist fallacy. Even if we grant that there
is a reasonable dispute whether Japan is communist or not
(and this is a stretch), the Biker’s retort does not serve as a
response to the reporter. He doesn’t argue at all, he just
dismisses the reporter.
Go To Next Slide
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-8
I’m a disabled Vietnam veteran. Why can I only
get a six-month license to sell pretzels from my
pushcart? You have to be a foreigner with a
green card to make a living in this country.
Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion.
Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support
this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is
and how it is tied to the conclusion.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-9
I’m a disabled Vietnam veteran. Why can I only
get a six-month license to sell pretzels from my
pushcart? You have to be a foreigner with a
green card to make a living in this country.
The conclusion here is unstated, though readily
apparent from the second sentence. If we dig a bit, we
can see that this person is concluding something like,
“I should get more than a six-month license to sell
pretzels.”
There are two types of rhetorical devices here, can you
spot them both?
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-10
This example contains two different fallacious
appeals to emotion. In the first case, the arguer
attempts to evoke a listener’s pity by referencing his
status as a disabled veteran. If his status as a disabled
veteran is relevant to his pushcart license, he does not
say why.
The second part of the example attempts to evoke
our anger at the status of immigrants in our country.
Again, this emotion is irrelevant to his conclusion. If he
wants to argue that immigrants have too many rights he
can, but that would be a different argument.
References to emotions can be relevant, but these
are not.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-11
The United States is under no obligation to pay its
debts to the United Nations. Here we are, the
biggest contributor to the UN Budget, and we
only get one vote out of 185.
So, what is the conclusion of the argument? Identify
it and then inspect the sort of proof that is supplied.
Are there good reasons to believe this conclusion? Is
this an example of a rhetorical device? If so, what
type?
Go to the next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-12
The conclusion here is that the United States is under
no obligation to pay its dues to the UN. Why? Because
we only get one vote out of 185 while our dues are more
than 1/185th of the total. Is this a good reason?
It might be wrong for the United States to shoulder
such a financial burden. However, this fact does
not mitigate our debts. We could argue that the
financial burden of the UN needs to be
redistributed, but this is a separate issue from
paying what we owe now.
This is two wrongs make a right fallacy.
Go to the next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-13
There must be life on other planets.
Imagine how lonely we’ll find the universe
if we discover that we’re the only ones here.
Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion.
Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support
this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is
and how it is tied to the conclusion.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-14
The conclusion here is that life exists on other
planets. The evidence? If life does not exist on
other planets, we’ll be too lonely.
Think about it. This claim could be argued for.
Someone might use a probability argument, citing
the huge number of galaxies and such. Or, someone
might cite recent information about Mars or data
from SETI. These would not be conclusive
arguments, but they would be arguments. This is
nothing more than wishful thinking. There is not
evidence offered at all.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-15
Judge Cunningham keeps striking down our state
gun control laws. She had better say good-bye to
any hopes for a Supreme Court appointment, as
long as we have a Democrat in the White House.
Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion. Next,
inspect the way the argument tries to support this
conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is and how it
is tied to the conclusion.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-16
This argument’s unstated conclusion is something like:
Judge Cunningham should change her position and
declare our gun control laws to be Constitutional. Why?
Well if she doesn’t then her career is in jeopardy. Is this
a good reason?
Look again at the conclusion. In order to logically
argue that the Judge should change her position,
someone would have to show that her reading of the
laws or the Constitution is wrong. What we have here
is a blatant appeal to fear. It is, really, a threat; she
either changes her views or else…. We hope that
Judges don’t base their views on career advancement.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-17
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my
proposal. You know that I trust and honor your
judgment. Even if you do not approve of my
request, I am happy just to have had the chance
to present this proposal to such qualified experts.
Thank you.
Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion.
Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support
this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is
and how it is tied to the conclusion.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-18
This argument’s unstated conclusion is something like:
“You should approve of my proposal.” Why? Well we
hope that the proposal itself contained the arguments
and justifications for why it should be approved. What
we have here doesn’t seem like an argument at all.
What is going on?
This is a clear example of apple polishing. An attempt
to engender the favor of the audience and,
importantly, to shift this favor to the conclusion the
person is arguing for.
Go to next slide.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
5-19
This tutorial has not looked at every type of
rhetorical device from the chapter. However, as you
have seen, the basic strategy for solving these types of
problems is the same in every case.
1. Find the conclusion.
2. Note the evidence cited and how it applies to the
conclusion. Is it relevant? Are there unwarranted
assumptions?
3. Realize that the specific names for types of
pseudoreasoning were created to fit common sorts of
fallacious reasoning. Even without studying logic you can
determine what is wrong, and since you have studied, you
can connect the problem with the name.
This is the end of this tutorial.
McGraw-Hill
©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.