RHETORIC I
• Rhetoric = df. 1. (M&P) Language used primarily to
persuade or influence beliefs or attitudes rather than
to prove something logically. 2. The art of speaking
or writing effectively.
• Rhetoric usually works through the emotive, or
rhetorical force of words and phrases – the emotional
associations they express and elicit.
– For instance, saying that someone did not play a part
in a play very well is not nearly as strong as saying
that he butchered the role.
• Rhetoric relies on an additional or alternative
meaning in a statement [given by a particular word or
phrase in the statement] to give the statement a
certain spin.
RHETORIC II
• Rhetoric is a device by which a speaker or a writer
can influence the beliefs or attitudes we have
about something.
• For critical thinking, rhetoric is not a substitute
for argument. Thus substituting rhetoric for
argument is a mistake in critical thinking.
– Saying that someone ‘butchered’ a role is not an
explanation of what made the performance a bad
one, or calling abortion ‘baby murder’ is not in itself
an argument against the morality of abortion.
• People are sometimes more persuaded by rhetoric
than reasoning, but they shouldn’t be.
RHETORIC III
• Rhetoric may be psychologically powerful, but by itself it
establishes nothing.
• To be persuaded by rhetoric alone is not to think critically.
• Rhetoric is sometimes used in place of argument, and sometimes
used in argument, as in many political speeches.
• It is important to understand that the logical force or correctness
of an argument is one thing, and its rhetorical force or power to
persuade is another.
• Rhetoric does not in itself have anything to do with the logical
correctness of an argument.
• However, this does not mean that the use of rhetoric in an
argument makes the argument weaker, just that it does not make
it stronger logically, but perhaps only more persuasive
psychologically.
RHETORICAL DEVICES
• A rhetorical device =df. Something used to influence
belief or attitude through the associations,
connotations, or implications of words, sentences, or
paragraphs.
• A rhetorical device can make an argument more
persuasive psychologically, but does nothing to add to
or detract from the logical worth of an argument.
• Rhetorical devices are not necessarily bad, it is just
that, in themselves, they give us neither a reason to
accept nor a reason to reject an argument. (See the
example in the box on page 126.)
• Rhetorical devices can be called ‘slanters,’ since they
are designed to give a claim a positive or negative slant
regarding a subject.
EUPHEMISMS AND DSYPHEMISMS
I
• A euphemism =df. A word or expression which is
neutral or positive and which is used in place of a
negative word or expression. (‘Euphemism’
literally means ‘sounding good.’)
– ‘Bathroom’ is a euphemism for ‘place containing a
plumbing receptacle for urination,’ and ‘passed
away’ is a euphemism for ‘died.’
• Euphemisms play an important role in affecting
our attitudes.
– ‘Capital punishment’ sounds better than ‘killing by
the state,’ and ‘voluntary termination of pregnancy’
sounds better than ‘baby murder,’ or perhaps even
‘abortion.’
EUPHEMISMS AND DSYPHEMISMS
II
• A dysphemism =df. A word or expression which either
produces a negative effect on the attitude of a reader or
listener regarding something, or lessens positive
associations concerning that thing. (‘Dysphemism’
literally means ‘sounding bad.’)
– ‘Croaked’ is a dysphemism for ‘died,’ and ‘baby
murder’ is a dysphemism for ‘abortion.’
• The use of euphemisms and dysphemisms can be
deceptive, and are so when they are designed to lead in
one way or another apart from the logic of the
argument.
– Thus both the use of ‘right to choose’ and ‘killing of
the innocent’ tend to slant argument about abortion
in one way or another, when attention should be
paid to the logical force of any argument on this
issue.
EUPHEMISMS AND DSYPHEMISMS
III
• Even though euphemisms and dysphemisms can
interfere with argument, they can at times be useful and
appropriate.
– A euphemism can enable us to treat a sensitive subject like
death appropriately for someone whose spouse has just died.
– Note, however, that calling genocide ‘ethnic cleansing’ seems
inappropriate for the egregiousness of the crime.
• In addition, some facts of life are “repellent, and for
that reason neutral reports of them sound horrible.”
– For instance, trying to report what happened on 9/11 in a
neutral way would seem improper given the nature of that
action and thus might be seen by some as dysphemistic.
• However, neutral reports of unpleasant, evil, or
repellant facts do not automatically count as
dysphemistic rhetoric.
TECHNIQUES OF PERSUASION
• A persuasive comparison = df. One which is used to
express or influence attitudes or affect behavior. “John is as
big as a barn” persuades the hearer that John is larger than
normal by comparing him to a building.
• A persuasive definition =df. One in which the definiens
contains a term or terms which are prejudicial, and so
evokes an attitude about the definiendum.
– Defining ‘abortion’ as ‘baby murder’ is an example of a persuasive
definition.
– Also, in the definiens a fetus is assumed to be a human being.
– Since this is something to be proved, not assumed, the definition also
begs the question of the morality of abortion.
• A persuasive explanation =df. An explanation intended to
influence attitudes or affect behavior.
– Saying that people are conservative politically when they have a lot of
money is a persuasive explanation of the voting habits of some people.
STEREOTYPES
• A stereotype =df. A thought or image about a group of
people, animals or things based on little or no evidence.
• Saying that people from group x are stingy, that animals
from group y are stupid, and that things from group z are
inferior to things from another group, when based on little
or no evidence, are stereotypes.
• Stereotypes are often based on group or individual interests.
• A stereotype is an oversimplified generalization about the
members of a certain class of people or things.
• Language that reduces people or things to categories can
induce an audience to accept a claim unthinkingly or to
make snap judgements concerning things which they know
little about.
INNUENDO
• Innuendo =df. A form of suggestion in which
something negative is insinuated about someone or
something rather than actually said.
– For instance, a professor says to his students: “You can be
sure that, with me, there is at least one instructor at this
university that always observes fair-grading practices.”
– This is innuendo because it is suggested that some
university instructors do not always grade fairly.
– Even though the statement is logically consistent with its
being the case that everyone grades fairly, the idea is
suggested that unfair grading sometimes occurs on
campus.
• Condemning someone with faint praise is a form of
innuendo.
– “I’m pleasantly surprised at how well you’ve done in this
class.” is not literally negative, but is so suggestively.
LOADED QUESTIONS
• Every question rests on an assumption.
– For instance, asking: “Are you hungry?” assumes that you
are the sort of being that needs to be fed, that you can
understand the question, and that you are in a position to
answer it.
• A loaded question =df. A question which rests on one
or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.
– “Do you still cheat on exams?” is a loaded question if the student
of whom it is asked has never cheated.
– The question rests on the assumption that the student has cheated
in the past.
– If that is untrue, then the assumption is unwarranted, and so the
question is loaded.
• The loaded question is technically a form of innuendo,
because it permits us to insinuate the assumption that
underlies a question without coming right out and
stating that assumption.
WEASLERS
• A weasler =df. An expression used to protect a claim
from criticism by weakening it.
• Words such as ‘perhaps,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘maybe,’ and ‘may
be’ are examples of words which can be used in
weaslers, since they can be used to produce innuendo,
to plant a suggestion without actually making a claim
that a person can be held to.
– The word “perhaps” in “Perhaps John cheated on the last test” is
there used as a weasler.
– It creates innuendo by suggesting that John did something wrong.
– But it does not actually claim wrongdoing, and is thus consistent
with John’s not cheating.
• Words used to weasel can also be used legitimately;
saying “Jane may be the best student in the class” is not
weaseling.
DOWNPLAYERS I
• Downplaying =df. An attempt to make someone or
something look less important or significant.
• Stereotypes, persuasive comparisons, persuasive
explanations, and innuendo can all be used to
downplay something.
• Downplayer =df. A word or expression used to play
down or diminish the importance of a claim.
– “She’s only published a single work.” Here the
downplayer is “only,” and the implication is that she can’t
be very significant a thinker or writer with one work to her
credit. Or “He’s a so-called thinker.”
• Quotation marks can be used to downplay the
significance of something.
– “John’s ‘education’ came from a correspondence school.”
DOWNPLAYERS II
• Conjunctions such as ‘but,’ ‘however,’ and
‘nevertheless,’ can be used as downplayers.
– “Yes, she wrote a brilliant book, but look at how
long it took her to do it.”
• The context of a claim can determine whether it
downplays or not.
– Example: “Long only won by six votes.”
• Slanters [linguistic devices used to affect opinions,
attitudes, and behavior without argumentation] really
can’t – and shouldn’t – be avoided altogether.
– They can give our writing flair and interest.
– What can be avoided is being unduly swayed by slanters.
HORSE LAUGH
• Horse laugh is ridicule of all kinds, and includes use
of sarcastic language or laughing at a claim made.
• Ridicule is not reasoning, and in horse laugh, ridicule
is used to reject a claim.
• Example: “You call that art? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”
• In sarcasm a sharp remark - which is often ironic or
satirical - is used intentionally to cause pain. (Irony is
the use of words to express something other than, and
especially the opposite of, literal meaning.)
– For instance, Oscar Wilde once asked James
Whistler’s opinion of a poem which Wilde had
written. Whistler read it, handed it back to Wilde
and said, “It’s worth its weight in gold.” Wilde never
forgave him.
HYPERBOLE I
• Hyperbole = df. Extravagant overstatement; obvious
exaggeration for effect; an extravagant statement not
intended to be understood literally. Hence hyperbolic
= df. Having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
– For instance, saying “Jane has the brain of ten people put
together” is a hyperbolic way of saying that Jane is very
intelligent.
– Saying “I am dying of hunger” when it has only been six
hours since you have eaten is hyperbole.
• Not all strong language is hyperbole.
– Saying “Jane is the best student in the class, and may be the
best student I have ever had” is strong language but is not
hyperbolic.
– Saying “Jane is the best student anywhere” is.
HYPERBOLE II
• Both persuasive comparisons and dysphemisms can
involve hyperbole.
– If we said “If he were just a little smarter he could
compete intellectually with the average vegetable” is a
hyperbolic persuasive comparison (as well as an example
of ridicule or horse laugh.)
– Calling a professor a ‘fascist’ because she expects you to
be in class on time is a hyperbolic dysphemism.
• But a claim can be hyperbolic without containing
excessively emotive words or phrases.”
– For instance, saying “Jane is the best student anywhere” is
hyperbolic but unemotional.
• It’s when the colorfulness of language becomes
excessive – a matter of judgement – that the claim is
likely to turn into hyperbole.
HYPERBOLE III
• Hyperbole is a kind of slanting device which can be
used to slant in a positive or negative direction.
• Hyperbole can have a psychological effect on the
listener or reader since, even if you reject the
exaggeration, you may be moved [perhaps
unconsciously] in the direction of the basic claim.
– For instance, even if you recognize “Jane is the
best student anywhere” to be hyperbole, still you
may now think that Jane must be incredibly
bright for anyone to make that statement.
• One must be careful about hyperbole; it can add a
persuasive edge to a claim that it doesn’t deserve.
PROOF SURROGATES I
• Proof surrogate =df. An expression used to suggest
that there is evidence or authority for a claim without
actually citing such evidence or authority.
• A surrogate is a substitute, or one thing which stands in
place of another, and here an unsupported claim stands
in place of proof.
– For instance, saying “Experts say that . . .” without saying
who the experts are and how it is known that what they say is
true is an example of proof surrogate.
– Another example is “studies show . . .” without specifying
which studies, and who did them, and according to what
standards they were conducted.
– Or, “it is obvious that . . .” when it is not obvious at all.
PROOF SURROGATES II
• Proof surrogates are just that – surrogates. They
are not real proof or evidence.
• Saying “There is every reason to believe that
students at IPFW want [such and such]” is proof
surrogate unless the assertion of belief is
supported by proof or good evidence.
• Such proof or evidence may exist, but until it has
been presented, the claim at issue remains
unsupported.
• At best, proof surrogates suggest sloppy research;
at worst, they suggest propaganda.
ADVERTISING I
• Advertising serves a variety of purposes:
– The majority of advertising is aimed at getting people to buy
things, such as soap, cars, or coffee.
– Other ads try to get us to use something, e.g., a credit card.
– Still others try to get us to do something, like vote for a
candidate or join an organization or give to a charity.
• They have in common the aim of getting people to
perform a particular action or set of actions, with the
suggestion that either the person who performs the
action or the world in general will be improved as a
result of the action.
• Since the only good reason to buy anything is if it will
improve our lives, we should buy something based on
an ad for that thing only if the ad establishes that we
would be better off with the product than without it.
ADVERTISING II
• Rhetorical devices are frequently used in
advertising.
• Remember that rhetorical devices are things which
are used to influence belief or attitude through the
associations, connotations, or implications of words,
sentences, or paragraphs.
• Advertising firms understand our fears and desires at
least as well as we understand them ourselves, and
they have at their disposal the expertise to exploit
them.
ADVERTISING III
•
There are two basic kinds of ad:
1. Those that offer reasons for buying something or for doing
something
2. Those which do not.
•
There are three kinds of ad which do not offer
reasons for buying the product advertised:
1. Those which result in pleasurable feelings in us, for
instance by making us laugh,
2. Those which use people we admire or who we think are
like us in some way or ways, for instance a celebrity or an
ordinary consumer.
3. Those which use situations in which we would like to be,
for instance on vacation in Tahiti
- Some ads can combine all or some of these.
ADVERTISING IV
• To buy a product based on a reasonless ad is not
justified on principles of critical thinking.
• It is not reasonable, unless you already know that you
want the product and can afford it, and the ad merely
tells you that the product you want is available and
where you can get it.
• The claims of advertisers are notorious for not only
being vague, but for also being ambiguous,
misleading, exaggerated, and sometimes plain false.
• Because of this, we should be suspicious in general
about claims made by advertisements, and should
seek information about the product advertised which
goes beyond the ad itself.
ADVERTISING V
• Further, we are not justified in buying something
based on an ad for that thing alone.
• This is true even if the ad is an honest description
of the thing being advertised, because we cannot
tell from the ad alone that that is the case.
• Even advertisements that present reasons for
buying an item do not by themselves justify our
purchase of the item.
• Our suspicions about advertising in general
should undercut our willingness to believe in the
honesty of any particular advertisement.
SUMMARY I
• Winning acceptance for a claim without
presenting reasons for the claim M&P call
rhetoric.
• Rhetorical devices are “words or phrases that
have positive or negative emotional associations,
suggest favorable or unfavorable images, or
manipulate the assumptions and expectations that
always underlie communication.”
• Advertising uses rhetorical devices, and largely
concerns nonargumentative persuasion, and so
should be approached critically.
SUMMARY II
•
Common rhetorical devices:
1. Euphemism – An agreeable or inoffensive
expression that is substituted for an expression
that may offend the hearer or suggest something
unpleasant.
2. Dysphemism – A word of phrase used to produce
a negative effect on a reader’s or listener’s attitude
about something or to tone down the positive
associations the thing may have.
3. Persuasive comparison – A comparison used to
express or influence attitudes or affect behavior.
4. Persuasive definition – a definition used to
convey or evoke an attitude about the defined term
and its denotation.
SUMMARY III
•
Common rhetorical devices (continued):
5. Persuasive explanation – An explanation
intended to influence attitudes or affect behavior.
6. Stereotype – An oversimplified generalization
about the members of a class.
7. Innuendo – An insinuation of something
deprecatory.
8. Loaded question – A question that rests on one
or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.
9. Weasler – An expression used to protect a claim
from criticism by weakening it.
SUMMARY IV
•
Common rhetorical devices (continued):
10. Downplayer – An expression used to play down
or diminish the importance of a claim.
11. Horselaugh – A pattern of pseudoreasoning in
which ridicule is disguised as a reason for
rejecting a claim.
12. Hyperbole – Extravagant overstatement.
13. Proof surrogates – An expression used to
suggest that there is evidence or authority for a
claim without actually saying that there is.