Rhetoric
Sophomore English (A)
Before we get into the denotations, etc. of what
rhetoric is, what connotations do you have with
the term? Why?
What is rhetoric?
It is . . .
the art of analyzing all the choices involving
language or media that a writer, speaker,
artist, viewer, reader or listener might make in
a situation so that the text becomes
meaningful, purposeful, and effective for
readers and listeners
or . . .
the art of featuring content for a specific
purpose (what is content?)
Rhetoric is . . .
The specific features of
texts, written or spoken, that cause them to be
meaningful, purposeful, and effective for
readers or listeners in a situation
The rhetorical situation ethos
Writers
Speakers
Texts
Messages
logos
Context
---------Media
Readers
Viewers
Listeners
pathos
Thinking about arguments, their contexts, audiences, and appeals brings us to
the rhetorical situation – a shorthand phrase for the entire set of
relationships
“in a situation”
That phrase “in a situation” has come up twice
now - What does it suggest about the nature of
rhetoric?
That it has EXIGENCE
- the issue, problem, or occasion that causes
someone to write or speak
There is a Rhetorical Framework:
SOAPSTone
Speaker
Occasion
Audience
Purpose
Subject
Tone
- the one who is writing or speaking
- this is the ‘exigence’ - the context (big and small)that
prompted the speaker to sit down and hash this out
- the ones to whom the piece is directed
- the reason behind the text. What the speaker
wants the audience to do or think as a result
- the main idea of the piece – what it is all about
- the attitude of the author. It enhances the
effectiveness of the piece. Word choice is key.
There are the THREE APPEALS :
ETHOS
PATHOS
LOGOS
They are involved in the transaction (that
is, the act of carrying through,
accomplishing, or doing) Rhetoric
ETHOS:
the ethical appeal having to do with the
speaker’s credibility – that they are a credible
source (a person with character) worth
hearing out
In what ways can a speaker make this appeal?
-correct grammar and spelling
-vocabulary choice
-sounding fair
-having an expertise
PATHOS:
the emotional appeal – the means to persuade
the audience by appealing to their emotions
In what ways can an author make this appeal?
-inspire anger, outrage, sympathy, patriotism,
honor, fear, etc.
-using emotional stories
LOGOS:
the appeal to logic and reason
In what ways can an author make this appeal?
-cite facts
-cite credible evidence
-cite certain authoritative experts
Which appeal is at the heart of the rhetorical
TRANSACTION?
Yep – LOGOS
The best way to support a claim is with cold,
hard facts
There is also the appeal to needs:
Physiological needs
- food, drink, health
Safety needs
- security; freedom from harm; order and stability
Belongingness and love needs
- love within a family and among friends
Esteem needs
-material success; achievement; power, status, and
recognition from others
Self-actualization needs
- fulfillment in realizing one’s potential
Speaker =
Occasion (exigence) =
Audience =
Purpose =
Subject =
Tone =
What is the ETHOS?
What is the PATHOS?
What is the LOGOS?
Speaker =
Occasion (exigence) =
Audience =
Purpose =
Subject =
Tone =
What is the ETHOS?
What is the PATHOS?
What is the LOGOS?
Speaker =
Occasion (exigence) =
Audience =
Purpose =
Subject =
Tone =
What is the ETHOS?
What is the PATHOS?
What is the LOGOS?
The transaction at work
When a writer argues, they generally use a form of
rhetorical transaction called the Toulmin method
(after Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument)
The Toulmin method:
Claim – Evidence – Warrant
The Claim
It is the 'main idea', the thesis, or the controlling idea
A good claim is not obvious. Why bother proving a point
nobody could disagree with?
A good claim is engaging. Consider your audience's
attention span and make interesting claims which point
out new ideas: teach the reader something new.
A good claim is not overly vague. Attacking enormous
issues whole leads only to generalizations and vague
assertions; refrain from making a book-size claim.
A good claim is logical; it emerges from a reasonable
consideration of evidence. (Note: this does not mean that
evidence has only one logical interpretation. Reasonable
people often disagree.)
A good claim is debatable. Claims that are purely factual
and claims that are only opinion fail this requirement.
A good claim is typically hypotactic (it uses subordinate
clauses). Simple sentences rarely comprehend enough
complexity to do justice to a well-conceived opinion
The Qualfier
Is a restriction set on the claim
ABSOLUTE
QUALIFIED
Will
May, might, could
Forms of “be” (am, is, are, was, were)
May be, might have been, may have been
All
Many, most, some, numerous, countless,
a majority
Every
(Same as “all”)
None/no
Few, not many, a small number, hardly
any, a minority
Always
Often, frequently, commonly, for a long
time, usually, sometimes, repeatedly
Never
Rarely, infrequently, sporadically, seldom
Certainly
Probably, possibly
Impossible
Unlikely, improbable, doubtful
The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Qualifiers express doubt; they leave your reader
wondering if you know what you’re talking about.
Constructions like it appears that and it seems likely
that diminish the strength of your claims.
Sometimes that’s exactly what you want, when you
don’t want to overstate your case and cannot justify
making a stronger, more direct claim.
President Nixon probably resigned as a result of the
Watergate cover-up.
President Nixon resigned as a result of the Watergate
cover-up.
The Evidence
These are the reasons (arguments, proofs, grounds) given
in support of the claim using the three appeals.
Evidence can come in the following forms:
-use of facts and statistics (inductive logos)
-use of expert opinions (ethos and logos)
-use of examples and explanations – stories – (logos),
quotes or details from the text
-use of logical reasoning (deductive logos)
Evidence is used to answer "how do you know?'
inductive logos
A type of reasoning that moves from the specific to
the general. The argument is based on a limited
number of examples, and from these examples, the
writer attempts to fashion a more general or
universal rule. The trick here is making sure the
examples used truly are representative of the
whole.
- the writer holds up a specific example and then
claims what is true for it is also true for the
general category.
example:
“This lemon is sour, therefore all lemons are likely
sour.”
deductive logos
-Also called syllogistic reasoning, deduction is a
type of reasoning that moves from the general to
the specific. The argument is based on a general
or universal rule that both the reader and the
writer agree upon. The writer takes this general or
universal rule, and then tries to show how a
specific example fits into that larger category. The
trick here is to distinguish between validity and
truth
- begins with a general or universal truth accepted
by most people, and then applies that to a
specific example.
example:
“All lemons are sour. This is a lemon. Therefore,
this lemon is also sour.”
Evaluation of the Evidence
Is the evidence up-to-date?
This may depend on the subject.
Is the evidence sufficient?
Is the evidence relevant?
Don’t lose sight of the subject and introduce evidence that is wide
of the claim.
Are the examples representative?
It is the speaker’s responsibility to choose examples that are typical
of the examples that are not used.
Are the examples consistence with the experience of the audience?
The audience will use their own experience to measure the
soundness of the speaker’s evidence.
The Warrant (because)
This is the 'because'
These are the . . .
assumptions or presuppositions underlying the argument;
the generally accepted beliefs, values, or definitions;
the common ways our culture views things.
Because they are so commonplace, warrants are almost always
unstated and implied
The Warrant (because)
Warrants are . . .
The common ground of the author and audience.
Shared warrants invite the audience to participate by
unconsciously supplying part of the argument.
They provide the underlying reasons linking the claim and the
evidence
You can infer the warrants by asking, “What is causing the
author to say the things they do?; Where is the author coming
from?; Why do you think it? (make connections between the
evidence and the claim; what you know about
The Warrant (because)
You can infer the warrants by asking,
“What is causing the author to say the things they do?”;
“Where is the author coming from?”;
“Why do you think it?”
(make connections between the evidence and the claim; what
you know about the subject and evidence and what you know
your audience or readers know about the subject.)
An author must ask themself “What assumption(s) must my
audience make to be able to accept my claim?”
The warrant – this presumed understanding – links the claim to
the evidence.
Logical Fallacies
Fallacy
- an error of reasoning based on faulty use of
evidence (facts or opinions in support of the
claim – reports, statistics, expert views,
personal experience) or incorrect inference
(interpretation of the facts)
The following slides offer some examples of
fallacies made in argument.
Logical Fallacies
Ad hominem
-Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence
for a view but on the character of the person
advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by
discrediting those who hold them. It is always
important to attack arguments, rather than
arguers, and this is where arguments that commit
the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
Logical Fallacies
The Bandwagon Fallacy
-The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments
that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a
reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact
that an idea is suddenly attracting adherents as a
reason for us to join in with the trend and become
adherents of the idea ourselves.
-This is a fallacy because there are many other features
of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in
popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even
mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted
by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea,
then, is no guarantee of its truth.
Logical Fallacies
Gambler’s Fallacy
-The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that
short-term deviations from probability will be corrected
in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are
statistically unlikely, say, a series of 9 coin tosses that
have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the
next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results,
though, has no effect on the probability of the various
possible outcomes of the next coin toss.
Example
(1) This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row.
Therefore:
(2) It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed.
Logical Fallacies
Genetic Fallacy
-The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either
accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its
merit.
-Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought
not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as
ad hominem arguments do.
-Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad
results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its
source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than
rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both
types of argument are fallacious.
Example
(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
Therefore:
(2) The tooth fairy is real.
Logical Fallacies
Red Herring
-The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a
logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is
committed when a listener attempts to divert an
arguer from his argument by introducing another
topic. This can be one of the most frustrating – and
effective – fallacies to observe.
-The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically
from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are
red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry.
Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox
by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may
be prevented from proving his point by distracting him
with a tangential issue.
Logical Fallacies
False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
-The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false
dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked
to choose between two options when there is at
least one other option available. Of course,
arguments that restrict the options to more than
two but less than there really are are similarly
fallacious.
– If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will
collapse.
– America: Love it or leave it.
Logical Fallacies
Straw Man Fallacy
- The Straw Man fallacy is committed when the arguer
misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker
than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the
position, and then concludes that the real position has been
refuted.
-This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been
claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually
been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by
it.
- This can be done by oversimplifying the opposition and then
attacking the oversimplification.
Example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the
attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't
understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."