3

Introduction to RHETORIC
In this course you will enhance your ability to think logically and write persuasively by learning the foundations of
rhetoric and the skills of writing argumentation. Students should first understand the reading-writing connection;
that is, you must think of all texts they read as the writing of an author. You should not see a novel simply as a
book to read but as a finished and polished piece of writing. You should speculate, for example, on the reasons
William Faulkner chose to write A Rose for Emily with suspended detail and non-chronological ordering of events
or why Abraham Lincoln wrote Four score and seven years ago rather than simply eight-seven years ago. You
should examine their reading texts carefully to determine the intent of the writers. The ongoing focus in the study
of rhetoric will be on how a writer uses languagediction, detail, image, tone, syntax, logical ordering, juxtaposition,
or contrast, for exampleto achieve a specific purpose.
Rhetoric refers to the art of using words to persuade in writing or speaking. All types of writingfiction,
nonfiction, drama, and poetryseek to persuade, and rhetoricians study these genres for their persuasive qualities.
In our classroom you will study logic, the methods of ascertaining and preserving truth. You will learn how to
explore causal relationships, proving conclusions with sound logic and clear reasoning. You will learn to deliberate
issues carefully and to avoid hasty writing on a visceral level. You need to be able to analyze an assertion,
determine its validity, prepare an appropriate response, and communicate that spoken or written response with
clarity.

RHETORICAL THEORY
Argument: Argument is used here as a term to designate the entire persuasive essay. Writing argumentative
essays is a complex process that addresses a targeted audience with a specific purpose and requires reasoning, a
kind of controlled thinking in which the student comes to accept or reject an idea based on its validity and truth. An
error in reasoning, or a logical fallacy, will weaken an argument and diminish the credibility of the writer. Effective
arguments involve key issues, anticipated objections, gathered support, and logical reasoning to sway the thinking
or behavior of the audience. An effective argument is a well-contrived presentation of ideas that takes a stand about
an issueoften called the thesis statement or claimand supports that thesis statement with various evidence or
premises.
In writing arguments, you will learn to consciously structure your writing, using logical lines of reasoning such as
order of importance, chain of reasoning, cause and effect, rebuttal, concession/refutation, and process analysis.
Writers of arguments will also use the various modes of discourse to support their claims with a combination of both
logical (logos) and emotional (pathos) evidence to establish their credibility as writers or their ethical appeal (ethos).
The arguments inference is the relationship between the premises and a conclusion, the final statement, which
writers seek to prove as true and valid based on their premises, which also are assumed to be true.
Aristotles Rhetorical Triangle

logos (message)
context/occasion

kairos (the right moment,

opportune time)

pathos (audience)

ethos (speaker)

4
Purpose: Purpose is the specific reason or reasons for the writing. It conveys what the readers have to gain by
reading the essay. Purpose is the objective or the goal that the writer wishes to establish.
The writers purpose might be to
Support a cause
Promote a change
Refute a theory

Stimulate interest

Win agreement
Arouse sympathy
Provoke anger

Audience: The audience is the writers targeted reader or readers. The relationship between the writer and the
audience is critical. You should consider the kind of information, language, and overall approach that will appeal to
a specific audience. Here are some questions you can ask yourself during the prewriting stage of your
argumentative essays.
Who exactly is the audience?
What do they know?
What do they believe?
What do they expect?
How will my audience disagree with me?
What will they want me to address or answer?
How can Ior should Iuse jargon?
Should I use language that is formal, factual, and objective, or familiar, anecdotal, and personal?

Rhetorical Strategies: Appeals of Logic, Emotion, and Ethics

Types of Logical Appeals (logos):
Incorporate inductive reasoning
Use of deductive reasoning
Create a syllogism
Cite traditional culture
Cite commonly held beliefs
Allude to history, the Bible, great literature, or mythology
Manipulate the style
Employ various modes of discourse for specific effects
Provide testimony
Draw analogies/create metaphors
Types of Emotional Appeals (pathos):
Develop non-logical appeals
Use language that involves the senses
Include a bias or prejudice
Include connotative language
Ethical Appeal (ethos)
Show written voice in the argument
Make audience believe writer is trustworthy
Demonstrate that writer put in research time
Support reasons with appropriate, logical evidence
Present a carefully crafted and edited argument

Order chronologically
Provide evidence
Classify evidence
Use testimony
Cite authorities
Quote research
Use facts
Theorize about cause and effect
Argue from precedent

Explore the euphemism

Use figurative language
Develop tone
Experiment with informal language
Demonstrate that writer knows and respects the audience
Show concern about communicating with the audience
Convince the audience that the writer is reliable and
knowledgeable

5
Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that render an argument invalid.
General guidelines for student writers:
1. Do not claim too much! No writing will completely solve or even fully address all problems
involved in a complex topic.
2. Do not oversimplify complex issues. You selected your topic because it is controversial and
multifaceted. If you reduce the argument to simplistic terms and come up with an easy
solution, you will lose your credibility and diminish your ethos.
3. Support your argument with concrete evidence and specific proposals, not with abstract
generalizations and familiar sentiments. Always assume that your audience is skeptical,
expecting you to demonstrate your case reasonably, without bias or shallow development.
Ten Common Logical Fallacies (there are many more!)
1. ad hominem fallacy--To the individual, a persons character is attacked, instead of the argument.
Example: Nick Jacobson is not a worthy candidate for vice-president of the senior class because he is short and
frowns too much.
2. ad populum fallacyTo the crowd, a misconception that a widespread occurrence of something is assumed to
make an idea true or right. Example: The parents of Brittanys friends allow their daughters to stay out until
2:00 a.m. on a school night, so Brittanys parents should allow her to stay out until 2:00 as well.
3. begging the questionTaking for granted something that really needs proving. Example: Free all political
prisoners begs the question of whether some of those concerned have committed an actual crime like blowing up
the chemistry building in a political protest. *
4. circular reasoningTrying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea; such logical
ways move backwards in its attempt to move forward. Example: The nuns are not influential because they
rarely try to influence (Rep. Bart Stupak to MSNBCs Chris Matthews).
5. either/or reasoningThe tendency to see an issue as having only two sides Example: The possession
of firearms should be completely banned or completely legal.
6. hasty generalizationDrawing a general and premature conclusion on the basis of only one or two cases.
Example: The Dallas Police Chief suggested that all dogs be muzzled because two golden retrievers have been
disturbing the peace in Fritz Park.
7. non sequiturIt does not follow, an inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or
evidence. Example: He is certainly sincere; he must be right. OR Hes the most popular: He should be
president.
8. pedantryA display of narrow-minded and trivial scholarship; an arbitrary adherence to rules and forms.
Example: Mary prides herself in knowing so much about grammar, but she never earns high grades on essays
because she cannot think of insightful ideas or organize her essays. .
9. post hoc, ergo propter hoc--After this, therefore because of this, assuming that an incident that precedes
another is the cause of the second incident. Example: Han-Hui worked on his written argument longer than he
had for any other essay; therefore, he felt he must earn an A.
10. propagandaWriting or images that seek to persuade through emotional appeal rather than through
logical proof; written or visual texts that describe or depict using highly connotative words or imagesfavorable
or unfavorablewithout justification. Example: Chriss infatuation with the models ruby red lips, beautiful
teeth, sparkling eyes, and streaming hair made him believe that Crest White is the best toothpaste.
11. false analogyA fallacy in which an argument is based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons.
If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card thats in peoples pockets is gonna be as worthless as a

6
Confederate dollar after the War Between The Statesthe Great War of Yankee Aggression. (Paul Broun (RGA))
*Baker, Sheridan. The Practical Stylist With Readings. 8th Edition. New York: Longman, 1998.
Modes of Discourse**
Description -- The traditional classification of discourse that depicts images verbally in
space and time and arranges those images in a logical pattern, such as spatial or by association.
Narration-- The classification of discourse that tells a story or relates an event. It organizes the events or actions
in time or relates them in space. Relying heavily on verbs, prepositions, and adverbs, narration generally tells what
happened, when it happened, and where it happened.
Exposition-- One of the traditional classifications of discourse that has as a function to inform or to instruct or to
present ideas and general truths objectively. Exposition can use all of the following organizational patterns.
Comparison: This traditional rhetorical strategy is based on the assumption that a subject may be shown
more clearly by pointing out ways it is similar to something else. The two subjects may each be explained
separately and then their similarities pointed out.
Contrast: This traditional rhetorical strategy is based on the assumption that a subject may be shown
more clearly by pointing out ways in which it is unlike another subject.
Cause and effect: One of the traditional rhetorical strategies, cause and effect consists in arguing from the
presence or absence of the cause to the existence or nonexistence of the effect or result; or, conversely, in
arguing from an effect to its probable causes.
Classification: One of the traditional ways of thinking about a subject; classification identifies the subject
as a part of a larger group with shared features.
Division: Division is a traditional way of thinking about a subject that includes breaking the subject into
smaller segments.
Definition: Definition is a traditional pattern of thought which places a subject into an appropriate group
and then differentiates the subject from the other sections of the group. The first step limits the meaning of
the subject; the second step specifies its meaning. In prose, definitions are often extended by illustrations
and examples.
Argumentation: Also persuasion. This traditional form of discourse functions by convincing or persuading
an audience or by proving or refuting a point of view or an issue. Argumentation uses induction, moving
from observations about particular things to generalization, or deduction, moving from generalizations to
valid references about particulars, or some combination of the two as its pattern of development.
**Woodson, Linda. A Handbook of Modern Rhetorical Terms. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
1979.

Toulmin Structure of Argument

Claim
A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking
them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact.
Many people start with a claim, but then find that it is challenged. If you just ask me to do something, I
will not simply agree with what you want. I will ask why I should agree with you. I will ask you to prove
your claim. This is where grounds become important.
Grounds
The grounds (or data) is the basis of real persuasion and is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning
behind the claim. It is the 'truth' on which the claim is based. Grounds may also include proof of expertise and the
basic premises on which the rest of the argument is built. The actual truth of the data may be less than 100%, as all
data is based on perception and hence has some element of assumption about it.
It is critical to the argument that the grounds are not challenged, because if they are, they may become a claim,
which you will need to prove with even deeper information and further argument.
Data is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those
who are dogmatic, logical or rational will more likely to be persuaded by data. Those who argue
emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to
ignore it. It is often a useful test to give something factual to the other person that disproves their
argument, and watch how they handle it. Some will accept it without question. Some will dismiss it out
of hand. Others will dig deeper, requiring more explanation. This is where the warrant comes into its
own.
Warrant
A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant.
The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim
is true?'
The warrant may be simple and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements, including those
described below. Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the
listener.
In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to
question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.
There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often
established. They have the acronym GASCAP.
Generalization
Analogy
Sign
Causality
Authority
Principle
These strategies are used at various different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat
packages - typically they are interconnected and work in combination.
Backing
The backing (or support) to an argument gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions.
Sometimes the warrant is not broadly understood or broadly accepted. In that case, a speaker or writer may have to
defend the warrant by backing it up with reasons.
Qualifier

8
The qualifier (or modal qualifier) indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how
universally the claim applies. They include words such as 'most', 'usually', 'always', 'sometimes'. Arguments may
thus range from strong assertions to generally quite floppy or largely and often rather uncertain kinds of statement.
Qualifiers and reservations are much used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus they slip 'usually',
'virtually', 'unless' and so on into their claims.
Rebuttal
Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. These may
be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal
during the initial presentation of the argument.
Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing and so on. It also, of course
can have a rebuttal. Thus if you are presenting an argument, you can seek both possible rebuttals and also rebuttals
to the rebuttals.