Chapter 5 PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC

So far we’ve examined: Those trying to prove or demonstrate a conclusion Those trying to support a conclusion 2© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Two kinds of argument:

Arguments that try to DEMONSTRATE a conclusion include 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 to SUPPORT a conclusion include: Generalizing Reasoning by analogy Reasoning about cause and effect More about this later! 4© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Real-life reasoning usually involves one or the other or both of these two basic forms of argument. 5© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

But there’s more to consider than just logic. 6© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Take this argument…

“It’s sick to torture an innocent creature, yet that’s exactly what these so-called scientists do when they 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 really just this: Scientists who use dogs in experiments bring pain to innocent creatures. Therefore, they act immorally. 8© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

The original phrasing seems more powerful. “It’s sick to torture an innocent creature, yet that’s exactly what these so-called scientists do when they perform hideous experiments on little puppies. Moral sadists! They make me vomit! They’re no better than Hitler.” “Scientists who use dogs in experiments bring pain to innocent creatures, and thus act immorally.” 9© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

It COLORS the argument with words having strong psychological impact, or “RHETORICAL FORCE” 10© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

“It’s sick to torture an innocent creature, yet that’s exactly what these so-called scientists do when they perform hideous experiments on 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 innocent creature, yet that’s exactly what these so-called scientists do when they perform hideous experiments on little puppies. Moral sadists! They make me vomit! They’re no better than Hitler.”

“Sick,” “Torture,” “hideous,” “little puppies,” “Hitler,” “vomit” etc. make us react emotionally. The passage tries not merely to support a conclusion, but to SELL it. It tries to PERSUADE us! 12© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

RHETORIC is the art of PERSUASION. It differs from LOGIC, which seeks to establish a conclusion. 13© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Rhetoric uses the psychological (rhetorical) force of expressions to influence 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 is something less than a true scientist. It DOWNPLAYS his/her credentials.

Likewise, “little puppies” arouses a powerful compassionate response. It gives one a mental picture like this: 16© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

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

NOTHING WRONG with trying to be persuasive or with using rhetoric to dress up or sell an argument. Good writers choose words carefully, to make their writing persuasive. 18© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

But this is CRITICAL THINKING! It means not being SEDUCED by rhetoric. 19© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Interesting? If you say that Alice DID NOT MURDER HER MOTHER… People form an unfavorable opinion of Alice! 20© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Even though there is no REASON to do so. 21© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Being able to make wise decisions and reasonable and well-founded judgments… …depends largely on our ability to “see through” rhetoric to evidence and argument. 22© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Distinguish between rhetoric and argument Be able to identify the more common forms 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 rhetorical explanation 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 the passage. 2. Is there an argument? Exercise 5-8, p © 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Kofi Annan said he won’t resign. But he is unpopular. Therefore, he won’t be permitted 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 © 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Issue: Whether parents/teachers should draw up contracts about children’s behavior, 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 out of 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 Identify each numbered rhetorical device. 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 the environment 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 be familiar with this stereotype, but you should sense that it is a dysphemism.) 2. Downplayer 3. Nothing 4. Nothing 5. Rhetorical analogy/hyperbole 6. Rhetorical analogy/maybe hyperbole Exercise 5-4, p Identify each numbered rhetorical device. 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 his buddies have done very well since the invasion.” Weaseler Loaded question —rests on an assumption that should have been established but wasn’t “When did you stop cheating on your girl friend?” 37© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. “This may cure your problem.”

NEVER dismiss a statement or argument simply because it contains rhetoric. Rhetoric has a legitimate place in discourse. A solid claim or a good argument may well contain powerful rhetoric. But don’t accept a statement/argument BECAUSE of its rhetorical force. Evaluate it on its MERITS! One final caution: 38© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.