Ethos, Pathos and Logos - Rhetoric and Writing - Lecture Notes | RHE 306, Study notes of Creative writing

Download Ethos, Pathos and Logos - Rhetoric and Writing - Lecture Notes | RHE 306 and more Study notes Creative writing in PDF only on Docsity! ea A a Baa aS Nk EI haa Ll A RR a eee WRITING & RHETORIC Brett C. Mclnelly & Dennis R. Perry  WRITING & RHETORIC Copyright © 2008 Composition Program, Brigham Young University. : Bai. id: Rhetoric: Getting People on the Same PAGE eens [ All rights reserved, . Permission in writing must be obtained from the publisher be- fore any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elecironic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, Proofs: Ethos, Pathos and Logos .......... Prinied in the United States of America “of the Word ..... 10987654321 ISBN 978-0-7380-24 17-2 Hayden-McNeil Publishing 14903 Pilot Drive Plymouth, Michigan 48170 www. hmpublishing.com Mclnelly 2417-2 £07  CHAPTER & But even those who hold positions of responsibility and influ- ence need to rely to a certain degree on. the art of rhetoric to be persuasive. Those who are relatively unknown must rely on these arts even more. For instance, because of their traditional role in the academic community, students are lypically in a po- sition where they may have limited credibility. Considers, for example, the traditional research paper. Teach- ers expect students to include their own reflections and con- clusions, bul teachers also expect students to rely heavily on the opinions of experts and authorities. Students quete, para- phr. with voices of authority lo create credibility and show what they have learned about their topic. Ifa research paper came in with very few references, the teacher would probably be suspicious, perhaps wondering whether the student was guilty of plagiaris » and summarize other writers, merging their voices Teachers have different expectations for their fellow teachers and scholars. In an essay by an established scholar, a lot may ve left unsaid because ther and assumptions about the topic that onc has mastered as an expert. Established scholars rely much more apon their own authoritative voices and less upon the voices of others. Saying is a body of common knowledge something that everyone clse knows can label one as a begin- ner. Of course, experienced scholars still cite their sources, but the kind of sources they cite and the way in which they talk about their subject demonstrates that they are knowledgeable. For students to achieve this same kind of credibility, they also need to learn to talk about their subjects in a knowledgeable way. When a student opens an essay wilh a sweeping, panoram- ic introduction, beginning with “Throughout the ages... , ” teachers may fault the for example, or “In Loday’s student for overgeneralization or Jack ot support. But a famous historian can make sweeping claims about the course of history without a lot of specific detail and without always quoting the opinions of other historians. Ethos makes a difference. ‘There are some specific strategies that can increase a writer’s credibility. Whether we want to or not, in every act of commu- nication we give an impression of ourselves. The key in argu- RHETORICAL PROOFS ing is to be in control as much as possible of how we present ourselves. We manage credibility by presenting ourselves in the best possible way, establishing a relationship with our audience that is appropriate for the situation. STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION ETHOS Trust can come from what we know about a speaker or write his or her position or role in the community, prior behavior, and knowledge or expertise. When analyzing ethos in a writien argument, the first step is to consider a writer’s background. if you don’t know much about the writer, then consider the background information he or she reveals. Look for stories the writcr tells or examples the writer gives from his or her own life, Look for information about the author provided by an. editor. You might even do some research to find out even more about the author. Then consider the following questions: What is the writer’s standing in the community? What position does he or she hold? Whai, kind of authority and influence come with this posi- tion? What is the writer's reputation? What is the writer’s education, experience, or expertise? What about the writer's life is particularly appropriate for the issue under discussion? As you construct your own arguments, ask these questions about you: Wand consider what information about your own life might be appropriate to share with your readers. ADOPTING AN AUTHORITATIVE VOICE Writers can also establish credibility through the way they pres- cnt themselves. For instance, it is important for a job applicant to make a good impression through a resume and ix: an inter- view. Even if an applicant has experience, education, and ex- periisc, if these qualitics do uot come through on the resuruc or during the interview, then the candidaic won’t be hired, In ws  CHAPTER & other words, it isn’t enough to actually know what you're talk- ing about; you also have to sow: Hike you know. Writers can sound credible by adopting an authoritative voice. This includes properly using the language of authority for what- ever issue we are discussing. We trust dectors, educators, and other experts in. part because they sound like experts. They speak the language of science and education, languages that our society recognizes as authoritative. Tf you want lo sound knowledgeable about science, you need to accurately use the language of science. Experis also know how to. support their claims with well-documented, appropriate evidence. Studies, expert opinion, and statistics are not just an important part of a logical argument; citing them can also establish credibility. ters can also assume an authoritative voice through a tech- nique called “voice merging” (Miller, 1992, p. 5). Voice merg- ing occurs when a wrilcr quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to an authoritative voice or to a voice that represents the values of the community. By merging his or her voice with this authorita- tive voice, the writer adds that credibility to his own. A political speaker, for example, might quote Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, or some other political hero to lend authority to the argument. A religious leader might quote the Bible or some other sacred text. Some writers quote or al- lude to the works of literary figures considered great or impor tant: William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, ‘Yoni Morrison, or others. Citing such authorities is more than mere decoration; Iso Lends credibility to the writer. it al IDENTIFYING WITH THE READER When analyzing written arguments, consider how writers con- vey or create credibility by identifying with the values of ube community. When politicians show themselves with their fami- ying football with a group of marines, hiking the Grand Canyon, or visiting a schvo! or homeless shelter, Uncy are try- ing Lo show that they identify themselves with the values of the community. A writer does the same thing by using recogniz- able cxamples, sharing personal inforruation, or appealing to reasons that support community values. lies, p' RHETORICAL PROOFS Choosing the right words is another way to identify with the reader. We trust those who “speak our language.” One who speaks the language of the community seems to belong. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr, when addressing the African- American community, spoke the language of that community, drawing upon his experience and training as a folk preacher. But when he addressed liberal white audiences, a main source of support for his campaign for civil rights, he adapted his lan- guage, drawing upon his university training. In both instances, he strengthened his credibility by speaking Ube language of the people he was addressing (Miller, 1992, pp. 9-12). SELECTING AN Appropriate Point oF View Point of view refers to the relationship the writer tries to es- tablish with his or her readers. A first-person point of view (11s- ing “1” or “we”) can create an intimate, personal, and Lriendly relationship between writer and readers, but “1” also draws attention to the writer as an individual. Doing so can be use- ful when a writer has particular expertise or relevant personal experience, or when he or she can speak as a representative member of a group. Using “T’ may not be as cffective, how- ever, on formal occasions or when the personal experience of the writer may appear irrelevant, limited, or biased. Some teachers believe that lhe first-person point of view is never ap- propriate in academic writing, but in recent years, more and more academic authors are using “1” when sharing relevant personal information. Using “we” emphasizes what a writcr shares with readers, but “we” can also alicnate people who feel that they share very little with the writer. Readers might also reject a wriler who seems to be overly intimate in order to draw them in, like avoiding a stranger who insists on giving them a hug. Asecond-person point of view (using “you”) immediately gains a readcr’s attention, as when someone calls your name out in a crowd or looks directly into your eyes. The second-person point of view is often used in giving instructions or warnings, and it lends itself very well to giving conumands. Used too much, it can make a writer appear dictatorial, preachy, or condescend- ing. Using “you” can also create a distance between the writer  CHAPTER & and reader or put readers on the defensive, particularly when they have some doubts about the writer’s claims or motives. A third-person point of view (using “he,” “she,” “it,” “they,” or “one”) ¢ a sense of objectivity and formality. The third- person point of view creates a distance between the writer, the reader, and the issue, and it can give the impression that the shed and unbiased observer. For this reason, scientists and scholars often use the third-person point of view. writer is a det However, the third-person point of view can make a writer ap- pear apathetic and impassive. (Point of view and levels of for- matity are discussed further in Chapier 8.) GivinG A BALANCED PRESENTATION Through their research social psychologists have discovered thatwe tend to trust someone who is apparently arguing against his or her own sel-interest. Suppose, for example, that. a cou- yicted criminal was arguing that the judicial system is much too strict. Would you find that person credible? But what if that same person was arguing that the criminal justice system is ranch too lenient? Py arguing that we should get tough on crime, the convicted criminal i: arguing against his own appar- eni scl@interest and for that reason may be more believable (Aronson, 1999, pp. 78-79). We aiso tend lo be suspicious of people who are obviously trying to persuade us. A stock broker who offers us a tip on a stock may just be trying to sell his or her services. But if we overhear that same stockbroker giving a tip to someotic, we are more likely to believe the tip because it’s not presented as part of a sales pitch (Aronson, 1999, pp. 80-81). Thi credibility, we should not give the impression. that we are scll- ing something or arguing in our own selfinterest. One way Lo do this is to make sure that we give a balanced presentation, that we make it clear to the reader that we have considered and fairly presented all positions on a topic. rescarch suggests that if we want to have greater FALLACIES OF ETHOS A fallacy is an argument that seems reasonable but isn’t, an ar guument that is deceptive or manipulative in some way. Fallacies of ethos work in uvo ways. In. the first case, a person misuses RHETORICAL PROOFS cthos by misrepresenting his or her authority. In this case, an author might try to win the trust of an audience by presenting himself or herself as knowledgeable, trustworthy, or interestcd, when in reality he or she is just trying to take advantage of the audience’s trust. In the second case, an author might attack an individual who really is credible in order to destroy that individual’s authority. : AD Honinem The Latin phrase ad hominem means “to the person.” ‘This term refers to a personal attack that has nothing to do with the argu- ment. Of course, questioning a person’s character or credibility is not necessarily fallacious. It becomes so when the attack on a person’s characicr is used as a distraction from the real issue. For instance, it would not be fallacious to attack a scientist's experimental results if you had reason to believe that he or she had falsified data. An attack would be fallacious, however, if you based your criticism on the Lact that the scientist had a string of ouislanding parking tickets. Some politicians use personal altacks as part of (heir campaign strategy. This is called “negative campaigning” or mudsling- past behavior, even things the opponent did when he or she was quite young, looking for anything that might damage the opponent's public image, Sometimes, politicians will even point to the irrespon- sible behavior of an opponent's relatives (siblings, civildren, in-laws, cousins) as a way of attacking the candidate’s current credibility. But such attacks have little to do with the candi- date’s aciual qualifications. ing.” A politician may rake up an opponent's Guy gy ASSOCIATION Guilt by association is an attack on an individual’s credibil- ity based upon that individual’s association with a parlicular group. This fallacy usually works in this way, You generalize from the behavior of some members of the group to the group as a whole, stereotyping all members of the group, and then you identify the individual you are attacking with that group. Racial stereotyping is one type of guilt by association. For in- stance, ancighbor said he didn’t like the fact that an Asian fam- Ss  CHAPTER © carry a negative connotation of “lower qualily” as well as “lower price.” ‘Lo say that a person is “cheap” means that he or she is careful with money bul with the negative connotation of “tni- More positive words with roughly the same denotation are “frugal” or “Unrilty.” serly” or “stingy. Some words carry such powerful emotional overtoncs that they color other terms that are associated with them. Richard Weaver (1985), a political philosopher, literary critic, and rhe- torical theorist, calls such terms “ultimate terms” (pp. 211-212). These are highly emotional terms around which other terms cluster. Ultimate terms with a positive connotation Weaver calls “god terms” (1985, p. 212). Those with a negative con- notation are called “devil terms” (1985, p. 222). For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, communism was a devil term for many Americans. Anything or anyone associated with communism— even obliquely—was painted by anti-communists with the same broad brash. In the 1950s, at the height of the anti-commounist. crusade by Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, even the slightest association of a person with communism or leftwing politics could rain that person's life. For more obvi- ous reasons, the word Nazi is another example of a devil term. Tn our own time, éerrorism has become a devil term. The follow- ing words would be god terms for many Amcricans: demo liberty, family, prosperity. When you analyze emotional language lo see if these emotional words form a in an argument, chec pattern or cluster of related terms that may be connected to an ultimate term, cither a god term or a devil term. Writers should also pay close attention to figurative ianguage, such as rctaphor, simile, analogy, allusion, imagery, hyperbo- le, understatement, personification, rhetorical questions, and irony, all of which are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Figures of speech draw attention. 1o themselves because they deviate from the expected. For instance, an cnvironmental activist might refer to the clear-cutting of timber as the “rape of the earth.” Rape is a highly emotional term with seriously negative connotations. It suggests violence and domination. Readers would have difficulty responding positively to a word such as rape, At the same time, the word rape is used metaphorically, and the comparison of clear-cutting with Une act of rape is obvir RHETORICAL PROOFS ously meant te shock. The comparison is likewise an example of personification because rape is an altack by onc persen. on another. Presenting the earth as a woman in this way may gain the unconscious sympathy of readers who feel for the victims of sexual violence. On the other side, supporters of clear-cutting might refer to this act as “harvesting,” using a word that carries much more benign connotations. Harvesting suggests farming and gaining the benefits of one’s own labors. It may also evoke the nostalgia and respect that many Americans have for the traditional farmer. FALLACIES OF PATHOS Emotions play an important role in persuasion, particularly in moying people to act on their convictions. But emotions can be easily manipulated as well. Fallacies of pathos occur when an author uses emotions to obscure an issuc, divert altcnuon away from the real issue, lead others into errors in reasoning, or exaggerate the significance of an issue. ‘Teachers, for ex- ample, occasionally hear fallacious appeals to emotion from their students. T once had a student who missed a lot of class and skipped some major assignments. Te tuned in a final cs- say, but it showed signs of being thrown together at the last minute. When 1 told him he wouldn’t be passing the class, he complained about how angry his parents would be il he lost his scholarship. His implied argument was this: “Vou showld give me a passing grade because my parents will be angry with me if you don’t.” The assumption here is that performance in col- lege courses should be measured by how parents will react to the final grades. ‘his assumpGon was unacceptable to me, but the student was hoping that the vividness of his emotional ap- peal would distract me from the flimsincss of tne argument. A A o Popucum The Latin phrase “ad populumy” means “lo the people.” The term refers to a fallacious argument that appeals to popular prejuclices. One of these is the bandwagon appeal, au appeal to popularity—if everyone else is doing it, it must be right. [ere are a couple of examples: “It is all right for me to cheat on my taxes because everyone else does it”; “Tes all right for me to break the speed limit because I’m just kecping up with the Be  CHAPTER & flow of traffic. Besides, other people go faster than T do.” The assumption in these argumenis is that “just because something is popular or common practice, it must be right.” Another ad populum fallacy is the appeal to traditional wisdom. This fallacy is an appeal to what has been done in the past: “Thar way we've always done it.” A related fallacy is the appeal to pro vincialism, the belief that the familiar is automatically superior to the unfamiliar: “That’s just how it’s done around bere.” ust the THREATS/ REWARDS The appeal to force is another name for a threat. A threat di- yerts attention lrom the real issue to the negative consequences of not accepting the argument, Extortion, blackmail, intimida- ion, hate speech, racial slurs, and sexual harassment are all examples of threats. The appeal to reward is just the opposite of a threat, diverting attention from the issue to what will be gained by accepting the point of view. Buying votes, trading favors, and bribery are all examples of the appeal to reward. Reo HeEReinc The “red herring” fallacy probably takes its name from a trick once used by escaping prisoners: dragging a fish across their path of escape to throw dogs off the scent. A red herring is any atlempt to draw attention away from the issue by raising irrel- evant issues. This diversion often involves obscuring the issue with more emotional issues. Here is an example: “I don’t think the president’s economic plan is a good idea. | mean, what is ities?” he going to do about the violence in our inner LOGOS: BUILDING LOGICAL ARGUMENTS The Greek word logos has several different meanings. Tt can mean “word, thought, reason, or order.” Our English word logic derives from logos, but logos has a broader meaning than logic. Logos refers Lo arguing through reasoning—the presen- tation of rational tought through language. Logos appeals to our ability to think; cthos and pathos typically work on our non-rational faculties, our abilities to trust and feel. Allhough ethos and pathos can be more compelling, logos provides the backbone of arguing, particularly for academic writing. Logos provides an overall framework of which cthos and pathos arc RHETORICAL PROOFS a part. Arguments from ethos and pathos can. be rationalized. In other words, they can be explained in terms of claims and reasons, but arguments lrom logos require claims and reasons as their basic structure. And although ethos and pathos are im- portant Lo move people to action, it is logos that leads to con- viction, to belief that lasis after the emotion passes. Logos pro- tects us against illegitimate or manipulative uscs of language and allows us to reflect on what we feel and what we believe. Although logos may not inspire people as much as ethos and pathos, logos will often prevent people from acting foolishly or rashly, The power of reflection and contemplation associated with lo- gos is what makes this appeal so important for academic writ- ing. Academic authors typically value certainty, and they will usually approach conclusions tentatively until a preponder- ance of evidence convinces them that (he conclusion is true or useful, This is why academic writcrs want to test one another’s arguments and have their arguments tested by others. This is why scientists usually try to replicate the experiments of other scientists, why social scientists compare their data with the data of other social scientists, or why art critics will check an au- thor’s interpretation or evaluation of a work against. their own. At its worst, academic argument can become as contentious and rancerous as any other argument. But at its best, academic argument leads to critical thinking, the ability to judge for our selves the rightness of a claim based on the available evidence. Logos provides the key to this critical judgment. When we supply reasons to support our opinions, we discov- er—perhaps for the first time—why we hold the opinions we do. We may also discover that some cherished opinions have no rational basis. In this way, logical argument and critical thinking not only create new knowledge, but they also can lead to self-knowledge, to a better understanding of who we are and what we believe. Critical thinking is part of the process of gain- ing an education. Through informed and responsible arguing, we recognize truths that would otherwis go unnoticed. The process of testing ideas through logical argument is a par- ticularly important part of a college education. According to  CHAPTER 4 the philosopher Richard Rorty (1999), a college serves two functions: providing students with “cultural literacy” and with . (pp. 114-126). Cultural literacy is an aware- ness of the common knowledge of the community of educaicd people. A degree in law or medicine, for example, certifies that the student who receives the degree has adequately leamed the body of knowledge that scholars in the legal or medical ritical literacy communities value. But a university serves the additional fanc- tion of teaching critical literacy. Critical literacy is the ability to question or explore what is believed lo be true, to challenge or dispute the claims and opinions of others in an attempt to clarify and understand. Ideally, a college is a place where people can come together to ask questions, debate, and dis- cuss ideas in a responsible fashion. This process of question- ing and responding is critical thinking. It takes place primar- ily through language, through reading, writing, and speaking. Critical thinking can. create tension, but it also represents the ideal for education. STRATEGIES FOR CREATING LOGICAL APPEAL So what makes a logical argument a good argument? Philoso- pher T. Edward Damer (2001) provides four criteria lo use to evaluate arguments: relevance, acceptability, sufficiency, and accountability (pp. 23-31). These criteria are useful in analyz- ing arguments or in building your own. RELEVANCE First of all, an argument needs to be relevant. In other words, the reasons and assumptions offered need to relate io the is- sue being discussed. You can test the relevance of reasons and assumptions by asking yourself, “If these reasons and assump- tions are true, would [ be more or less likely to believe the truthfulness of the claims?” If you would be less likely to be conyinced, then there irrclevant. Testing the relevance of an argument is also a good way to check for manipulative uscs of ethos and pathos (Dam- er, 2001, p. 24). If authority and cmotion aren’ really relevant to the argument, then you can set these aside and focus on the heart of the ar is a good chance that the reasons are rumen. RHETORICAL PROOFS ACCEPTABILITY Tu the proe that any claim can be called into question. In addilion, rea- of analyzing arguments, you may begin to think sons and assumptions can themselves become claims in need of additional support, leading to a chain of reasoning with no apparent solid intellectual ground upon which you can build with any certainly. Where does the justifying of claims, reasons, and assumptions come to an. cnd? Couldn’t a stubborn person keep asking for more and more support, disputing every state- ment in an argument, continually asking—as a young child does—“Why? Why? Why?” If one wants to be stubborn, yes; but such orneriness becomes ridiculous after a while. When argu- ments have a context, when they arc a meaningful part of the life of a community, then at some point they can be grounded in what the community accepts as credible, authoritative, or > knowledge ol the com- munity. This stock of knowledge differs from one commnuni- ty to another, and not all members of any group completely agree on whal constitutes “common knowledge.” This is why disagreements arise in the first place. But still there are state- ments and beliefs that most members of a community accept as rue, and an argument will be persuasive only when the rea- sons and assumptions that jus y the claim are grounded in the common beliefs of the community. Reasons that are grounded in the common beliefs of the community are called “commu- nity-based reasons.” Onc danger in relying on community-based reasons and adapt- ing your argument to ihe needs of your audience is that you may compromise the integrity of your own views. In other words, you may end up just tclling people what they want to hear. Pail it doesn’t have to be this way. The reasons you choose to justify your argument may not be the most compelling rea- sons for you, but they may be the most convincing for those you are addressing. And if you can still accept these reasons, you preserve your integrity. Tonee had a student writing an essay aboul a controversy in ine smal! town she came from. A town ordinance forbade the con- sumption and sale of alcohol in city parks. Some citizens want-  CHAPTER their aclions by referring to the “domino theory.” According to this theory, if communists were allowed to take over one country, neighboring countries would also fall to communism. like a line of dominoes, risking world domination by commu- nist nations. This analogy is a powerful and memorable image, but it ignores the fact that international politics is much more complex than stacking dominoes. The domino theory was also based on the assumption that Asian nations were like Europe- an nations in their politics and that one Asian nation (Korea) was pretty much like another (Victnam). These assumptions proved to be lalse as well. Post Hoc ‘The full Latin name for this fallacy is past hoc, ergo propler hac, a phrase that means “after this, therefore because of this.” This fallacy refers to an crror in reasoning based on the assumption that just because one event foliows another, the first caused the second. A lot of superstitions originate in this fallacy. A person walks under a ladder and a bucket of paint falls on his head, so he tells people that walking under a ladder brings bad Ick. ‘The problem is that walking wnder the ladder didn’t cause the bucket to fall (unless he bumped the ladder); furthers, to jump to the conclusion that there is a connection between ladders and bad luck is a hasty generalization. Buckets don’: [all cv ery tine someone walks under a ladder. We just remember the times they do. Siipeery Siope The slippery slope is another fallacy of causality. It occurs when you argue that one event will inevitably lead through a series ‘ aster, IUs found in the familiar of related events resulting in di a warning given to kids: “If you steal a candy bar, (hen you will s, then bikes, then cars, and then you’ll find yourself ” It is rue that most. crimiuals started with petly crimes, but it isn’t true that every kid who steals a candy bar will turn into a murderer. This argument is just designed to scare kids; logically, it docsn*t work. The slippery slope fallacy is a favorite of political extremists who argue that voting for one candidate (or the other) will drive the country to ruin. Ibis truc that voling has consequences, but a lot of other decisions RHETORICAL PROOFS would have to be made before an individual could ruin ihe goverument. You'll hear extremists argue that one particular bill, this onc Supreme Court nominee, or just a slight increase in taxes will all bring the country to unavoidable disaster. Of course, fatal decisions can be made, but as with any causal ar gument, the writcr should be prepared to explain exactly how the causal chain works. COVERSSMPLIFICATION Oversimplification occurs when a writer makes an argument that reduces complex issues to a simple argument. An over- simplification may haye some truth, but because it leaves out important information, it is misleading. Here is an example: ‘Jogging is good for you. Everybody ought to jog every day.” Lt may be wue—all viher things being equal—that jogging is good for you, but some people may have conditions (hat make jog- ging harmful or inappropriate. Onc kind of oversimplification is oversimplified cause. This fallacy occurs when a writer tries to reduce a complex event or phenomenon to one simple cause, such as arguing that school violeuce is caused by video games. These may contribute to violence among some students, but a complex issue such as school violence can’t be reduced to such a simple cause. Because causality typically involves complex re- lationships, the oversimplified canse is quite common. STACKING THE Deck Gamblers “stack the d so that they will win. ¥ in their favor by arranging the cards ters “stack the deck” by ignoring any evidence or arguments that don’t support their position. For example, a drug company might stack the deck by releasing only the positive results of experiments on a new drug, sup- pressing any negative resnlis. | once experienced “stacking the deck” when buying a used car. The person trying to sell me the car talked about how wonderful the car was. After I bought the car, the person trying to sell me an extended warranty pointed out all the things that could go wrong with the car. In both cases, these sales representatives were stacking the deck by ig- noring either the good or bad qualitics of the car. Whenever yowre hearing only one side of a story, you should wonder what's being left out. ee CHAPTER APPEAL TG TGNGRAMCE The burden of supportiny making it. A writer who makcs an appeal to ignorance refus- an argument falls on the person es to accept this burden of proof and tries to use the lack of evidence as evidence to support a claim. Here is an cxample: “Bigfoot, Lac Loch Ness monster, and extralerrestrials must r in fact, those who make the claim “Bigfoot exists” are the ones who need to support the claim. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that “Bigfoot docsn’t exist” just because you don’t have evidence thal he does. “Bigfoot doesn’t exist” is also a claim that requires support. ally exist because no one has ever proved they don’t.” Non SEQuiTur “it does not follow.” This refers to a conclusion that has no apparent connection lo the reasons. Non sequiturs are often. used in adver For cxampic, a car may be pictured with a beautiful woman The Latin phrase non sequitur means draped across the hood, the implied argument being “Look at this beautiful woman. You should buy this car.” But there is no clear connection between the conclusion and the reason. The woman is just there to get your attention, It is net pessible to identify a set of assumptions or reasons that would link the reason and conclusion in a sensible way. Fatse Divenema The false dilemma, or “either/or” fallacy, involves trying to force readers to accept a conclusion by presenting only two options, onc of which is clearly more desirable than the other. Rarely are there only two positions on any issue. T have to ad- mit, however, that my wile and I have used this straicgy on our kids: “Do you want to get started on your homework or piano lessons first?” “Hard-scll” salespersons and negotiators oficn use the { y “yes”: “Do you want to pay cash or credit (or that?” (eliminating the option that you right not want to buy it at all); “If you don’t get another chance”; “Would you rather buy wholedife insurance or risk leaving your family without an se dilemma to close a deal, to get people to act now, you'll nev income?” RHETORICAL PROOFS STRAWPERSON Imagine how much easier it would be to knock over a scare- crow than a real person. The strawperson is an oversimplified and distorted version of another’s viewpoint thal is casy to re- fute. A wriler usually resorts to setling up a sirawperson when his or her own arguments are not parlicularly convincing. Tn such a case, the writer has to weaken the other point of view to the point that it can be easily challenged. The strawperson works best when the other person is unable vo respond or give a proper account of his or her own viewpoint. CONCLUSION As Aristotle makes clear in his definition cf rhetoric, there is a power that comes from knowing how to identily and usc means of persuasion. Once you learn what they are, you will see them in use all around you. Although there are many spe- cific techniques for how to build credibility, create emotion, or build logical arguments, focusing on these broad strategies can make you a more effective communicator and help you to develop your own beliefs and values. REFERENCES Aristotle: (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civie discourse. GA. Kennedy (Ed. & ‘[rans.), New York: Oxford University Press. Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal. New York: Worth Pub- lishers. Damer, T. E. (2001). Adacking faulty reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Miller, K. (1992). Voice of deliverance: The language of Martin Luther King, Jr. and its sources. New York: The Free Pr SS. Reiner, R. (Director). (1995). The American pre United States: Castle Rock. ni. [Film]. Ror R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope, London: Penguin. Weaver, R. (1985). ‘he ethics of rhetoric. Davis, GA: Hermagoras