Chapter 5PERSUASION THROUGH

RHETORIC

So far we’ve examined:

Those trying toprove ordemonstrate aconclusion

Those trying tosupport aconclusion

2© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Two kinds of argument:

Arguments that try toDEMONSTRATE a conclusioninclude arguments like these:

All As are Bs.

No Bs are Cs.

No As are Cs.

If P then Q. Not-Q. Not-P.

3© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Arguments that try toSUPPORT a conclusion

include:

Generalizing

Reasoning byanalogy

Reasoning aboutcause and effect

More about thislater!

4© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Real-life reasoning usuallyinvolves one or the other or bothof these two basic forms ofargument.

5© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

But there’s more to consider thanjust logic.

6© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Take this argument…

“It’s sick to torture an innocentcreature, yet that’s exactly what

these so-called scientists do whenthey perform hideous experiments

on little puppies. Moral sadists!They make me vomit! They’re no

better than Hitler.”

7© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

The argument is reallyjust this:

Scientists who use dogs inexperiments bring pain to innocentcreatures. Therefore, they actimmorally.

8© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

The original phrasing seemsmore powerful.

“It’s sick to torture aninnocent creature, yetthat’s exactly what theseso-called scientists dowhen they performhideous experiments onlittle puppies. Moralsadists! They make mevomit! They’re no betterthan Hitler.”

“Scientists who usedogs in experimentsbring pain toinnocent creatures,and thus actimmorally.”

9© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

It COLORS the argumentwith words having strongpsychological impact, or“RHETORICAL FORCE”

10© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

“It’s sick to torture an innocentcreature, yet that’s exactly what

these so-called scientists do whenthey perform hideous experimentson little puppies. Moral sadists!They make me vomit! They’re no

better than Hitler.”

11© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

“It’s sick to torture an innocentcreature, yet that’s exactly what

these so-called scientists do whenthey perform hideous experimentson little puppies. Moral sadists!They make me vomit! They’re no

better than Hitler.”

“Sick,” “Torture,” “hideous,”“little puppies,” “Hitler,”

“vomit” etc. make us reactemotionally.

The passage tries not merely tosupport a conclusion, but to SELL it.

It tries to PERSUADE us!

12© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

RHETORIC is the art ofPERSUASION.

It differs from LOGIC, which seeksto establish a conclusion.

13© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Rhetoric uses thepsychological (rhetorical)

force of expressions toinfluence our attitudes.

14© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

EXAMPLE:

15© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Calling a scientist a “so-called”scientist suggests he/she issomething less than a true scientist.

It DOWNPLAYS his/her credentials.

Likewise, “little puppies”arouses a powerful

compassionate response. Itgives one a mental picture

like this:

16© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

17© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© E

rica

S. L

eeds

NOTHING WRONG withtrying to be persuasive or

with using rhetoric to dressup or sell an argument.

Good writers choose wordscarefully, to make their writing

persuasive.

18© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

But this is CRITICALTHINKING!

It means not being SEDUCEDby rhetoric.

19© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Interesting?

If you say that Alice DID NOTMURDER HER MOTHER…

People form an unfavorableopinion of Alice!

20© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Even though there is noREASON to do so.

21© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Being able to make wisedecisions and reasonable and

well-founded judgments…

…depends largely on our abilityto “see through” rhetoric toevidence and argument.

22© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Distinguish between rhetoric andargument

Be able to identify the more commonforms of rhetoric

We should be able to do this:

23© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Specifically, these: Euphemism/

dysphemism

Rhetorical analogy,rhetorical definition,and rhetoricalexplanation

Innuendo

Loaded question

Hyperbole

Stereotype

Ridicule/sarcasm

Weaseler

Downplayer

Proof surrogate

24© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

We’ll begin with exercises.

And end with a surprise quiz.

25© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

1. State the FACTUAL content of thepassage.

2. Is there an argument?

Exercise 5-8, p. 174.

26© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Kofi Annan said he won’tresign. But he is unpopular.

Therefore, he won’t bepermitted to continue.

27© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

1. What issue is the author addressing?

2. What is his position?

3. What’s the main rhetorical device?

4. Is there an argument?

Exercise 5-9, p. 174-5

28© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Issue: Whether parents/teachers shoulddraw up contracts about children’sbehavior, time-keeping, etc.

Position: Should not

Main rhetorical device: Ridicule

Argument: None

29© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Ridicule/Sarcasm“John McCain made a great speech last night.

Everyone awakened feeling refreshed.”

Specific rhetorical devices.

30© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Hyperbole (hype; exaggeration)“Is Deborah generous? She’d give you her life

savings if she thought you were in need.”

Specific rhetorical devices.

31© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Euphemism (makes it sound better)“collateral damage”; “sleeping around”

Dysphemism (makes it sound worse)“junk food”; “geezer”

Specific rhetorical devices.

32© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Rhetorical definition“An environmentalist is a tree-hugging

extremist.”

Rhetorical explanation“The reason environmentalists won’t let you cut

down a tree is they want to put everyone outof work.”

Rhetorical analogy“Your average environmentalist is about as

smart as a toilet seat.”

33© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Exercise 5-2, p. 172.Identify each numbered rhetoricaldevice. Don’t look in back of book.

1. Hyperbole

2. Dysphemism

3. Rhetorical analogy

4. Dysphemism

5. Nothing

6. Dysphemism

34© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Stereotype“What did he expect marrying her? She’s just a

dumb blond.”

Downplayer“Pornography is a problem, but we must protect

free speech.”

“These self-appointed experts on theenvironment are just trying to scare us.”

Proof surrogate“Clearly she shouldn’t have done that.”

35© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

1. Stereotype/Dysphemism (You may not befamiliar with this stereotype, but you shouldsense that it is a dysphemism.)

2. Downplayer

3. Nothing

4. Nothing

5. Rhetorical analogy/hyperbole

6. Rhetorical analogy/maybe hyperbole

Exercise 5-4, p. 173.Identify each numbered rhetoricaldevice. Don’t look in back of book.

36© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Innuendo“I didn’t say Bush invaded Iraq to help his

buddies in the oil industry. I just said hisbuddies have done very well since theinvasion.”

Weaseler

Loaded question —rests on anassumption that should have beenestablished but wasn’t

“When did you stop cheating on your girlfriend?”

37© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

“This may cure your problem.”

NEVER dismiss a statement or argumentsimply because it contains rhetoric.Rhetoric has a legitimate place indiscourse. A solid claim or a goodargument may well contain powerfulrhetoric.

But don’t accept a statement/argumentBECAUSE of its rhetorical force. Evaluateit on its MERITS!

One final caution:

38© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.