Rhetoric & Critical Thinking

Rhetoric & Critical Thinking ~ and the Rhetorical Situation (An ongoing PowerPoint by Jo Doran)

What - Exactly - is Rhetoric?! • Rhetoric has been described as the study of speaking and writing - and the art of persuasion. • Some people describe it as “hot air,” designating rhetoric as a negative influence in any type of communication. • Classical rhetoric - the origin of rhetoric, so to speak - categorizes rhetoric as persuasive discourse (communication) for three situations: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic.

Forensic, Deliberative, Epideictic Rhetoric • Forensic rhetoric addresses issues of justice and concerns the past. • Deliberative rhetoric exhorts or persuades, while keeping an eye to the future. • Epideictic rhetoric is used to praise, and sometime blame, and concerns the present.

Rhetoric in This Class In this class, we will use rhetoric as explained below: • Rhetoric is the use of language and other mediums, such as images, etc., to present ideas to others in order to communicate, be understood, and understand. • Rhetoric always involves the use of the three rhetorical appeals - to some degree. • Rhetoric should include an understanding of the rhetorical situation.

Rhetorical Appeals • Logos • Logos is the logic used in a text, design, etc. • Logos includes information, statistics, and facts. • Pathos • Pathos is the emotion used in a text, design, etc., and should include a consideration of the following: • Excessive use of emotion • A lack of emotion • Bias • Ethos • Ethos is the credibility of the author and the content. • Ethos can include the use or misuse of credible sources: other people’s ideas and words. reputation of the author(s). • Ethos can refer to the reputation of the author, if that person is well known.

The Rhetorical Situation The Rhetorical Situation includes the interaction between the text, the reader, and the writer - within a context of culture. We will discuss this more when we talk about Discourse Communities.

Genre, Rhetorical Situations and Writing Strategies~ Jo Doran

Aside from annotating… We have to consider the genre of the text, visual, etc.: • What kind of text is it? • Story? • Report? • Biography? • Proposal? • When is it used? • What is it used for?

Open Language Open language is informal, wordy, more reflective. • Very Open Language: • Diary • Journal • Letters • Somewhat Open Language • Poetry • Fiction

Closed Language Closed language is objective, clear, concise. • Very Closed Language: • Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Statistic Report • Somewhat Closed Language • Journal Article • White Paper Report

Discourse Communities • Members: Who belongs to the group? • Purpose: What is the purpose of the group? • Goals: What is the group trying to do? • Audience: To whom is the group addressing aside from its members? • Communication: What methods of communication are used . . . • Within the group? • Outside of the group?

Rhetorical Situation • Text/Purpose: Type of genre and purpose of genre • Audience: Inside the group - and outside the group • Writer/Author: Members of the discourse community

Writing Strategies How is a piece best written? • This is determined by audience analysis. • What are the needs and interests of the audience? • How much/little information does the audience have? • What techniques can the writer use based on audience needs? • Type of language (open/closed, terminology, etc.): Conversational language? More formal? • Research level: How much research is best? • Medium: Text only - or visuals?

Rhetorical Appeals • Logos: Facts, Data, Statistics, Information • Pathos: Emotion, Bias, etc. • Ethos: Reputation, Believability, etc. Considerations of types (and levels) or rhetorical appeals needed - should be based on the genre being used and the audience needs.

Logical Fallacies ~ Jo Doran

Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to Force: Coercing a person • Teacher: If there is anyone in this class who is a pacifist, please leave now. • Everyone working here needs to elect Mr. Smith for the Board of Education position. You know what happened to Mr. Jones when he wouldn’t vote the right way, don’t you?

Fallacies of Relevance Ad Hominem - Personal Attack: Argument toward the man • Mr. Adam’s argument cannot be true because he’s an atheist. • We know that Father Brown will vote Yes on this because he’s a Christian.

Fallacies of Relevance Argumentum ad Populum Argument to the People • It must be ok; everyone I know is doing it. • If you’re an American, you can’t be against the war.

Fallacies of Relevance Hasty Generalization: Using an unreliable or non-specialized person to support an argument • Our children don’t believe they should go to bed at 9 p.m., so we don’t make them. • My favorite actress is Alfre Woodard, and she’s a Christian Scientist - so I’m going to be one too. • Brad Pitt does X… so X is right.

Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to Emotion Wrong use of Pathos • It must be ok; everyone I know is doing it. • If you’re an American, you can’t be against the war. • Well, I believe it… All my professors do!

Fallacies of Relevance Argument from Adverse Consequences: Seeing an argument as false because the consequences or results of the argument are unpleasant or negative • The company doesn’t have to lower its costs, because then I might have to fire people I like. • We don’t have to write our wills, because I cannot handle thinking of something happening to you.

Fallacies of Relevance Argument from Personal Incredulity Basing a decision to disbelieve an argument based on lack of personal knowledge • What you’re saying is not true, because I don’t understand it. • There is no such thing as nano-technology, because I can’t see things that small.

Component Fallacies Related to inductive/deductive reasoning, which includes syllogisms

Component Fallacies Begging the Questions: Assuming a statement is true and basing a decision off an assumed correct statement • Stupid comments like Mr. Jones stated should not be addressed • Because he makes bad decisions, like giving money to people who don’t work, he shouldn’t be re-elected.

Component Fallacies Circular Reasoning: Supporting an argument by using the basis of the argument • The bible says that God made the earth six days, and we know that’s true, so we should believe the bible. • Mr. Adams is right, because he always says the right thing, so he can’t be wrong.

Component Fallacies Hasty Generalization: Jumping to Conclusions • That duck is a mallard, and that one, and that one… All the ducks in this park must be mallards. • Everyone I interviewed on my way to work thought that we don’t need to raise taxes. Therefore, everyone must believe that we don’t need to raise taxes.

Component Fallacies Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: After this, therefore because of this • Everyone I know who took Mr. Adam’s class failed. So I’m going to fail the class. • Every time my nephew plays violent games, he hits his brother. Playing violent games causes children to become violent.

Component Fallacies Straw Man Argument: Oversimplifying an argument to pressure people to deny the argument • Mr. Smith wants us to give money to make this subdivision. He says that everyone should have a safe place to live. Yet we don’t have money to give everyone a safe place to live.

Component Fallacies Either/Or Fallacy Offering only two choices • If you’re not for us, you’re against us. • Either we decide on Mr. Jones’ point, or we fail.

Component Fallacies Faulty Analogy: Using a poor, weak, or wrong comparison to promote an argument • He looks like the guy who stole Jean’s wallet. Therefore, he must be bad. • Hillary is broken-down horse, and we all know that we put broken-down horses out to pasture.

Component Fallacies Tu Quoque And you too! • The ABC Diet doesn’t work because it didn’t work for you. • You say smoking is wrong, but you smoke. Therefore, smoking can’t be wrong.

Component Fallacies Slippery Slope: A leads to B, which leads to C, and finally D… so A leads to D • If you start drinking, you’ll start using pot, and then you’ll use meth, and then you’ll die. So if you start drinking, you’ll die from a drug overdose. • If we give Mr. Jones money to go on a trip to represent our company, he will just want money to go on more trips, and he’ll bankrupt us.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Because of the use of ambiguous words and phrases, the meanings are unclear

Fallacies of Ambiguity Equivocation: Using a different definition of the word • “Sugar is an essential component of the body . . . a key material in all sorts of metabolic processes.”Yet… the speaker here did not distinguish the difference between glucose (blood sugar) and sugar (sucrose).

Fallacies of Ambiguity Composition Arguing from parts of a whole to the thing itself • The parts of this machine are light. Therefore, the machine must be light.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Division Arguing from the thing itself to the parts • Martin is a great student in my class. Therefore, he must be a great student in every class and a great person.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Reification Treating a word as a concrete object • Mr. Jones said he was going to begin a war on poverty, so we had better be prepared for writing a peace treaty.

Fallacies of Omission Arguments based on missing information

Fallacies of Ambiguity Stacking the Deck: Only including points that support a particular argument • Since Jones did not address his opponent’s ideas, he stacked the deck. • That talk-show host stacked the deck by including stronger speakers for the side he favors.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Argument from the Negative: Stating that since one position id false, the opposite position must be true • Since we can’t make sure that everything on the Internet is true, it is always better to use printed materials.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Appeal to Lack of Evidence: Arguments presented where evidence is not or cannot be found • You can’t prove there is no God… therefore there is a God. • We can’t prove there isn’t live on other planets. Therefore, aliens are real.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Amphiboly: Ambiguity due to grammatical construction • “Lets eat Grandma!”

In-Class Assignment In a moment, you will choose a slip of paper. Each slip of paper has one logical fallacy on it - as I went over in this PowerPoint. Your Job: Make an argument - For or Against - the legalization of marijuana - using the logical fallacy on your slip of paper. You will be asked to share your logical fallacy with the class. You may work with your group members to get help/feedback. Please Note: Your argument is supposed to be ‘bad’ (i.e. - illogical) in that you are using a logical fallacy. This does not have to reflect your true feelings..)

Syllogism: “A formal, deductive argument made up of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.”

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning “Deductive reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations. Inductive reasoning takes events and makes generalizations.” When we consider generalizations - and then come to a specific conclusion - we are using deductive reasoning. Syllogisms use deductive reasoning.

Syllogisms • Syllogisms must be valid if they are to be true. • Syllogisms must be sound if they are to be true. • Syllogisms are a form of formal logic.

Sample Syllogism • All fish swim in water. • Edward is a fish. • Edward swims in water.

Valid Syllogisms: 3 Criteria Criteria #1. A valid syllogism must categorical: “absolute, certain, and unconditional, with no room for doubt.” • All fish swim in water. • Edward is a fish. • Edward swims in water. • We have to be in agreement that all fish swim in water. • We have to be able to agree that a fish may be named Edward.

Rhetoric & Critical Thinking