Criticism of the Ideas and Arguments: Logos Proof Based on

1
Criticism of the Ideas and Arguments
LogosProof 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
Rhetors 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
  rhetors use of invention, organization, style,
  and delivery.

6
Bitzers 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 issueonce 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
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 speakers 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 rhetors response to the exigence
  and offer the rhetors interpretation of reality
• An analysis of the rhetors use of invention
  should start by identifying the purpose statement
  from which the arguments in the rhetorical act
  flow.

16
Stephen Toulmins Model of Argument

• The Toulmin model is a way of schematizing your
  analysis of a speakers ideas and arguments.

17
Enthymemes

• The core of Toulmins 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.

18
(No Transcript)
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
Toulmins 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

22
(No Transcript)
23
because
since
therefore
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.