Transcript Criticism of the Ideas and Arguments: Logos—Proof Based on the

Criticism of the Ideas and
Arguments:
Logos—Proof Based on the Message
John A. Cagle
Chaim Perelman, The Realm of
Rhetoric
from
To make his discourse effective, a speaker must
adapt to his audience. What constitutes this
adaptation, which is a specific requisite for
argumentation? It amounts essentially to this:
the speaker can choose as his points of
departure only those theses accepted by those
he addresses. (p. 21)
Chaim Perelman, The Realm of
Rhetoric
from


These two qualities [of arguments] are efficacy and
validity. Is the strong argument the one that persuades
effectively, or is it the one that must convince every
reasonable mind? (p. 140)
The strength of an argument depends upon the
adherence of the listeners to the premises of the
argumentation; upon the pertinence of the premises;
upon the close or distant relationship which they may
have with the defended thesis; upon the objections
which can be opposed to it; and upon the manner in
which they can be refuted. (p. 140)
Rhetor’s Purpose and Thesis





What is the intended purpose of the
speech?
What is the thesis?
What are the main lines of argument?
What interconnections among the
arguments function to establish the
main thesis?
What forms of proof support the claims?
The Message &
Criticism

The emphasis of traditional criticism is on how well the
arguments and proof functioned in a rhetorical act.

The message is the element in a rhetorical situation
over which the rhetor exercises the most control.

The text of a rhetorical act reflects the choices the
rhetor made in response to the situational constraints.
Analyzing and evaluating these choices is the essence
of criticism and is done in terms of the rhetor’s use of
invention, organization, style, and delivery.

Bitzer’s Rhetorical Exigency



An exigence, an audience, and certain constraints
comprise a rhetorical situation.
The rhetorical situation is defined as “a complex of
persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an
actual or potential exigence which can be . . .
removed if discourse . . . can so constrain human
decision or action as to bring about the . . .
Modification of the exigence” (1968, p. 6)
The exigence itself is “an imperfection marked by
urgency . . . a defect, an obstacle, something waiting
to be done, a thing which is other than it should be”
(1968, p. 6).
Conflicting Claims, Issues, &
Stasis




Often controversy arises between people
about the nature of a problem and/or its
solutions.
An issue is a question over which opposing
arguments clash.
A claim is any belief a speaker wants others
to accept.
Stasis is the question at issue—once
determined, discourse is tailored to that.
Stasis Points in Arguments




Designative claims answer the question: "Is it?" The first thing people just do
is convince others (or themselves) that there is a problem or whether something
happened or not. Disagreements argues over questions of exigency: Is there
really a problem here? How do we know it is a problem? Who is it a problem
for? Does the problem affect us?
Definitive claims answer the question: "What is it?" Having accepted the
existence of a problem, people have disagreements about questions or
fact: What is the problem? What is it like? What is going on? In this area are
pragmatic constraints from the environment that often determine limitations on
the solution.
Evaluative claims answer the question: "What is its quality?“ Disagreements
exist about questions of value: What is the merit of the situation, idea, object,
or action? What is the desirability? Is it good or bad? In this area are criteria or
standards for judging solutions.
Advocative claims answer the question: "What should be done about the
problem?" Disagreements exist about questions of policy: What should be
done? Will the idea work? Will it cost too much? Will it do more harm than
good?
What basically is at issue for the audience?-i.e., what people disagree about or need to know more about
Issues of exigency:
Is there a problem here?
How do we know it is a problem?
Why is it considered a problem?
Who is it a problem for?
Does the problem affect us?
Issues of value:
How serious is the harm?
What are we really after?
What changes would eliminate or reduce
the problem?
What are our criteria?
What are the priorities among our criteria?
Issues of fact:
What is going on? What are the details?
What caused this to happen?
What kind of harm is being done? To whom?
What groups or organizations are affected by the
problem?
What groups would be part of the solution?
How does our situation compare with other
places?
What do we know about the problem?
What do we need to find out before we can go
on?
Issues of policy:
What should be done about the problem?
How do we pay for it?
Is it legal?
Could the solution work?
What side effects would it have?
Who would do what by when to put the
solution into action?
Analysis of Exigency







What issue led to the decision to speak?
What was the specific occasion for the rhetorical act?
Why was this an issue?
What was the specific point of stasis? (fact, definition, value,
policy)
What were the prevailing opinions or oppositional arguments on
the issue?
Who were the prominent or implicit counteradvocates?
How could the issue be resolved or determined through
rhetoric?
Analysis of Audiences
(immediate and secondary)





Were the audiences in a position to respond
appropriately?
Were the audiences receptive to persuasion through
argument?
What were the demographics of the audiences?
(size, age, background, etc.)
What were audiences’ level of knowledge, beliefs,
interests, hopes, concerns?
What were values, needs, biases, goals, fears,
motives of the audience?
Analysis of Constraints








What were the social, political, cultural, and
ideological constraints?
Where was the locus of power and who held control?
What were the situational or institutional constraints?
What constraints were created by the audience?
What were the consequences of violating the rules?
Did the more important constraints come from the
audience or the situation?
Did constraints limit rhetorical choice in language,
style, data, arguments?
Did the speaker have any special constraints on or
opportunities for persuasion?
Analysis of Arguments














What was the speaker’s specific purpose?
What were the main claims advanced ? (facts, definitions, policies, values)
What data were used as evidence for the arguments? (statistics, testimony,
examples)
Were the data honest, sound, ethical, believable, relevant, accepted?
What types of warrants were used? (substantive, authoritative, motivational)
What were the explicit and implicit values in the message? (Fisher)
What were the explicit and implicit assumptions about the distribution of
power?
Were the arguments complete? (Toulmin analysis)
What were the counterarguments and how were they refuted?
Were the arguments ethical, sound, and effective with the specific audiences?
Did the arguments fit the universal audience standard? (Perelman)
Were the arguments wise? Were the ideas important?
Does the speech have lasting value?
Why did the arguments persuade or fail to persuade?
Invention
Ethos
 Logos
 Pathos

Purpose in Rhetorical Acts


Rhetorical acts are arguments because they
constitute the rhetor’s response to the
exigence and offer the rhetor’s interpretation
of reality
An analysis of the rhetor’s use of invention
should start by identifying the purpose
statement from which the arguments in the
rhetorical act flow.
Stephen Toulmin’s Model of
Argument
The Toulmin model is a way of
schematizing your analysis of a
speaker’s ideas and arguments.
Enthymemes
The core of Toulmin’s idea of argument is
the enthymeme. This is a sentence
comprised of a claim and a reason.
Example: “Superman is a good
superhero because he is very strong.”
Claim = Superman is a good superhero
Reason = because he is very strong.
Enthymeme

Because success or failure of an
enthymeme depends on whether or not the
audience supplies what the rhetor expects
them to, it is imperative for the critic to
discover as much as possible about an
audience in order to analyze and evaluate
the effectiveness of enthymemes in the
rhetorical act.
Syllogisms & Enthymemes





Aristotle invented logic.
Aristotle used the term syllogism to mean, simply, “form of
argument”
In demonstrative or scientific logic, the premises of syllogisms
are known to be true.
In dialectic and rhetoric, the premises in forms of argument are
only probable, not yielding certain conclusions.
Enthymemes are syllogisms in which at least one premise is
probable. Otherwise, they function exactly the same as
syllogisms in scientific reasoning.
Toulmin’s Elements of an
Argument



The basic pieces of an argument are
claim, grounds, and warrant
The relation to rhetoric was laid out by
Douglas Ehninger and Wayne
Brockriede
The dimensions of data were laid out by
James McCroskey
Claim

A claim is a belief the speaker wants the
audience to accept.




Exigency
Fact
Evaluative
Advocative
Data or grounds

Data or grounds are statements the
audience will believe or already believes
that support the claim.



1st order data: audience belief
2nd order data: source credibility
3rd order data: evidence
Supporting Components of
Toulmin Arguments: Grounds



An enthymeme (claims + reason) is supported by
grounds (or data).
Grounds are the evidence behind the generalization
in the reason.
In the Superman example, the reason was, “because
he is very strong.” The grounds would be, “he was
able to pick up automobiles when he was a toddler,
he can bend steel with his pinky, and he can stop a
speeding train.”
Warrant

A warrant is what psychologically links the
data to the claim to establish belief.



Authoritative warrants are based on sources
believed by the audience
Motivational warrants are based on emotions,
attitudes, and values evoked by the grounds
Substantive warrants are based on what the
audience perceives to be reasonable and logical
Supporting Components of
Toulmin Arguments: Warrant


The warrant is the assumption that
underlies your enthymeme. In a sense,
it is the logical bridge between the claim
& the reason.
In the Superman example, “Superman
is a good superhero because he is very
strong,” the assumption (warrant)
underlying the argument is that “good
superheroes are very strong”.