1. Criticism of the Ideas and Arguments: Logos—Proof Based on the Message John A. Cagle

2. from Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric 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)

3. from Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric 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)

4. 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?

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. 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 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 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 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?

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. Invention Ethos Logos Pathos

15. 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.

16. Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argument The Toulmin model is a way of schematizing your analysis of a speaker’s ideas and arguments.

17. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

24. Claim A claim is a belief the speaker wants the audience to accept. Exigency Fact Evaluative Advocative

25. 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

26. 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.”

27. 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

28. 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”.