1. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. This tutorial well help you work through the process of spotting and identifying examples of rhetorical devices found in chapter 6. This process is both an art and a science; depending on an understanding of how arguments work, knowledge of the various rhetorical devices, as well as an ‘eye’ for differentiating these tactics for one another and from good arguments. Go to next slide. On the following slides you will see example ‘arguments’ which may contain rhetorical devices. Though not every type of rhetorical device is illustrated, the techniques demonstrated here apply to all sorts of rhetorical devices. 6-1

2. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Defense lawyer Robert Baker, at the O.J. Simpson civil trial: “This isn’t a fight for justice, it is a fight for money.” The first step in finding and identifying a rhetorical device is to identify the intended conclusion of the argument. Remember, an argument relies on an inference linking the truth of the premise(s) to the truth of the conclusion. Rhetorical devices can often be spotted by noting how the argument fails to make this inference. So, what is Baker’s conclusion here? Go to next slide. 6-2

3. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Defense lawyer Robert Baker, at the O.J. Simpson civil trial: “This isn’t a fight for justice, it is a fight for money.” Baker is concluding that the trial is “not about justice.” How do we know this? Well, Baker doesn’t have to argue that the trial is about money, it is a known fact that the people suing Simpson are trying to get money. The next step in looking for rhetorical devices is to inspect the way the argument tries to prove the conclusion. A good argument will, for one thing, have relevant premises that provide good evidence that the conclusion is true. Go to next slide. 6-3

4. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Defense lawyer Robert Baker, at the O.J. Simpson civil trial: “This isn’t a fight for justice, it is a fight for money.” Based on what we have here, it seems Baker is arguing that the fact that the trial is about money proves that it is not about justice. Does this seem like a good argument? If so, then is every trial that tries to get money from the defendant also “not about justice”? This is a rhetorical device. Based on what you learned from the text, identify the variety of rhetorical device at work here. Go to next slide. 6-4

5. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. This is an example of the False Dilemma variety of rhetorical devices. It tries to argue that “money” and “justice” are mutually exclusive. In fact we know that this is just not the case. It is certainly possible that a trial might be about both money and justice. Imposing monetary penalties on someone might indeed be a way of seeking justice. Go to next slide. Of course, we must remember that Baker’s conclusion could be true. The trial might indeed be about money and not justice. However, this pseudoargument does not support that conclusion. 6-5

6. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Once your kids are watching cartoons, they’re also watching those toy commercials. If they see the commercials they’ll want the toys; before you know it, they’re obsessed with the toys and you’ve lost all control over them. So don’t let your kids watch cartoons. Go to next slide. Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion. Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is and how it is tied to the conclusion. 6-6

7. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The conclusion, readily identified by the indicator “so,” is “Don’t let your kids watch cartoons.” Now, inspect the way the argument supports this conclusion. Watching Cartoons. Watching Toy Commercials. Wanting Toys. Being Obsessed With Toys. Being Out Of Control. What do you think of this reasoning? Go to the next slide. 6-7

8. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Watching Cartoons. Watching Toy Commercials. Wanting Toys. Being Obsessed With Toys. Being Out Of Control. If watching cartoons will lead inexorably to your kids being out of control, then the conclusion is probably a reasonable one. However, will all of these intermediate steps necessarily happen? Doesn’t the arguer need to prove they will? Yes she does !! There is a rhetorical device at work here. What kind is it? Go to the next slide. 6-8

9. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. This is an example of a rhetorical device called Slippery Slope. It represents well the general tactic of illustrating an escalating series of events, each worse than the one before it, that lead to something really terrible. In this case the relatively benign “watching commercials” leads to “parents losing control of the kids.” The arguer knows that all parents will agree the final event in the series will be something that needs to be avoided and tries to suggest a solution, in this case, not letting kids watch cartoons. The problem with this kind of rhetorical device is that no proof of the intermediary steps is offered. If these steps are proven then it becomes a good argument. Go to the next slide. 6-9

10. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The paper presents some compelling thoughts about why the death penalty should abolished. However, once you know that the author of that paper is a death row inmate, convicted of two brutal murders, I am sure you’ll agree to disregard what he says. So, what is the conclusion of the argument? Identify it and then inspect the sort of proof that is supplied. Are there good reasons to believe this conclusion? Is this an example of a rhetorical device? If so, what type? Go to the next slide. 6-10

11. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Obviously, the arguer’s conclusion is that the death penalty should not be abolished; and specifically that the arguments to the contrary, given by the author of the paper should be discounted. But why should we dismiss the arguments offered in the paper? Because the author of the paper is a death row inmate. He is biased and self-serving when he argues against capital punishment. It is probably fair to assume that the author of the paper is biased, after-all he has a lot riding on his ability to persuade his readers to abolish the death penalty. Should we assume, however, that any argument composed by a death row inmate is flawed? Go to the next slide. 6-11

12. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. This is an example of the type of rhetorical device called ad hominem. Specifically it is ad hominem circumstantial. It attacks, as all ad hominem arguments do, the arguer instead of the argument. The fact that the person is on death row might make him a bad person, but it does not make his arguments bad. They may be poor arguments, but this needs to be determined by looking at their merits, not their author’s. Some factor might predispose a person to argue for a particular position on an issue, but it does not disqualify them from making excellent arguments! If someone attacks a person as a way of attacking their arguments, it is very likely a rhetorical device. Go to the next slide. 6-12

13. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. What do I think of what those tree-sitting environmentalists have to say? I say they are wrong! How could our economy possibly survive if we imposed a nation-wide ban on all logging? Go to next slide. Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion. Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is and how it is tied to the conclusion. 6-13

14. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The conclusion here is that the tree-sitting environmentalists are wrong. And based on what we have here, it appears that they are wrong in demanding a total ban on logging… nationwide. We might suspect an ad hominem here, since the author calls the environmentalists, “tree-sitters.” But, this is probably a fair assessment, since many environmentalists protesting logging do sit in trees. And, she is not saying that the fact that they are environmentalists is the reason we should disregard their arguments. Basically, she is just saying that their position is so extreme that it is impossible to enact. Go to next slide. 6-14

15. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Go to next slide. It is helpful here to remember this fact. The more extreme the conclusion the more difficult it is to prove. So, it is actually easier, much easier, to argue against an opponent who has an extreme position. Their burden of proof is so high that almost any defense at all will work to defeat them. The opponent with a moderate position, accordingly, is more difficult to defeat since it is so much easier for them to provide good support for their modest conclusion. Based on this fact, we realize that arguers have good reason to try to cast their opponent’s positions as extremes, making them easier to attack. 6-15

16. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Go to next slide. This tactic, portraying an opponent’s position as an extreme, is know as a Straw man. Visualize a military recruit practicing bayonet tactics on a human-sized dummy filled with straw. To detect this type of rhetorical device, imagine what the ‘tree-sitter’ would say when he read the argument. Probably something like, “but we’re not demanding a ban on all logging, only on logging in old growth forests, or within 200’ of streams.” Of course, some people might be advocating a total ban on logging, but the vast majority of environmentalists don’t hold such views. 6-16

17. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The life on other planets must be highly intelligent. After all, we’ve never documented a single case of the aliens landing on Earth – which proves that they realize how dangerous it would be to make contact. Go to next slide. Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion. Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is and how it is tied to the conclusion. 6-17

18. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Go to next slide. This argument concludes that life on other planets is intelligent. The proof? They are smart enough not to be spotted. How do we know they are smart enough not to be spotted? Well, they have never been spotted. There is something really wrong here. What is it? Look again for the conclusion. Saying the life on other planets is intelligent assumes that it does, in fact, exist in the first place. The ‘proof’ too assumes aliens exist. After-all, if they don’t exist then the fact that they’ve never been spotted isn’t evidence at all is it. This is an example of Begging the Question. It assumes the truth of the thing it is trying to prove. 6-18

19. McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Again, this tutorial has not looked at every type of rhetorical device from the chapter. However, as you have seen, the basic strategy for solving these types of problems is the same in every case. 1.Find the conclusion. 2.Note the evidence cited and how it applies to the conclusion. Is it relevant? Are there unwarranted assumptions? 3.Realize that the specific names for types of rhetorical devices were created to fit common sorts of fallacious reasoning. Even without studying logic you can determine what is wrong, and since you have studied, you can connect the problem with the name. This is the end of this tutorial. 6-19