Rhetoric Dos and Don'Ts

8/12/2019 Rhetoric Dos and Don'Ts

1/12

Things to remember for the A P test:find them, know them, identify their use in the text

Devices--

active/passive voice

alliteration allusion analogy anecdotal narration antithesis asyndeton (reference to)

authority balanced sentence beliefs/common

practices characterization clich

coherence colloquialism commonground compliments/flattery concession confession consequences counterargument credentials deductive reasoning

(use of) details

diction double speak examples euphemism fear figurative language historical reference hyperbole imagery imagery(5 senses) inductive reasonin irony jargon juxtaposition language (informal

formal) loose sentence metaphor onomatopoeia organization oxymoron pace paradox

parallel structure

parody passive voice periodic sentence/

loose sentence (appeal to) popularity precedence (use of) quotes repetition sentence personification polysyndeton pronouns repetition rhetoric rhetorical questions satire scapegoat simile syntax tone tradition understatement/litote unity

Patterns of Organization:

classification cause / effect compare/contrast definition argumentation description narration

Aea!s to"

#thosPathos$ogos

#!ements of %ty!e:

diction (!ord choicesof author)

punctuationsimplistic advanced

voice" active passiveimplied author v#!riter ethos in essay

tone" kno! tone

!ords !atch for toneshift audience" close

distant structure syntax$parallel

structure loosesentences syntacticalpermutation balance

$ogica! &a!!acies

%d &ominem 'and!agon 'egging the uestion 'iased ample 'urden of *roof +alse ,ilemma

-ambler.s +allacy -enetic +allacy -uilt 'y %ssociation &asty -eneralization gnoring % 0ommon

0ause 1isleading 2ividness 3on sequitor uestionable 0ause
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html


2/12

4ed &erring 4elativist +allacy lippery lope tra! 1an !o 6rongs 1ake %

4ightThree 'hetorica! Aea!s:#thos, Pathos, $ogos

78f the 9modes of persuasion:provided through speech thereare three species; for someare in the character of thespeaker and some are indisposing the listener in some!ay and some in theargument itself by sho!ing orseeming to sho! something7

%ristotle On Rhetoric b(trans# -eorge %# ?ennedy)

6hen a speaker or !riter(referred to from no! on as arhetor) is trying to persuadethe audience the rhetor !illmake use of variouspersuasive strategies;

#thos

7@thos7 is used to describe theaudience.s perception of thenarrator.s credibility orauthority# he audience asksthemselves 76hat does thisperson kno! about this topicA7and 76hy should trust thispersonA7

here are t!o kinds of ethos;extrinsic (outside !hat youhave to say) and intrinsic(inside !hat you have to say)#

@xamples of extrinsic ethos!ould be as follo!s; f you area successful professionalbasketball player talking aboutbasketball to other proathletes then your ethos isstrong !ith your audienceeven before you open yourmouth or take pen to paper#

Bour audience assumes youare kno!ledgeable about yoursubject because of yourexperience# f you are abaseball player talking aboutbasketball instead then yourextrinsic ethos is not as strongbecause you haven.t beenplayed pro basketball butyou.re still a professionalathlete and kno! somethingabout that kind of life# f youare a college professor of@nglish then your extrinsicethos is likely to be pretty!eak !ith your audience#0hange your audiencearound ho!ever and theethos of each hypotheticalrhetor might change#

@xamples of intrinsic ethos!ould be as follo!s; Cet.s sayyou.re that professionalbasketball player mentionedabove and you start toaddress your audience andsuddenly you stutter andmumble you get all the rulesof basketball !rong (7there.s athree"point lineA7) and youmispronounce other players.names and you reveal your

ignorance of the history ofbasketball by mentioningteams that never existed#uddenly your overall ethostakes a nose"dive !ith youraudience and you becomeless persuasive# %t the otherextreme let.s say you.re that@nglish professor and youspeak !ith confidence andreveal that you kno! a greatdeal not only about theintricacies of basketball but

also about individual players.records and the history andorigins of the sport# Bouroverall ethos !hich !as !eakto begin !ith because theaudience !as skeptical of!hat an @nglish professor!ould kno! about their sportsuddenly gets stronger# t getsstronger because your

intrinsic ethos goes up in theeyes of your audience#

he use of ethos is called an7ethical appeal#7 3ote that thisis very different from our usual

understanding of the !ord7ethical#7

Pathos

7*athos7 is used to describethe rhetor.s attempt to appealto (in the !ords of the coursepacket) 7an audience.s senseof identity their self"interestand their emotions#7

f the rhetor can create a

common sense of identity !iththeir audience then the rhetoris using a pathetic appeal or arhetorical appeal using pathos(7pathetic7 here meanssomething different than ourusual understanding of the!ord)# o if that college@nglish professor abovementions having playedbasketball in high school andconvinces the audience thatshe or he !as pretty good

then not only does that factstrengthen the rhetor.s ethosit also makes a patheticappeal#

7*athos7 most often refers toan attempt to engage anaudience.s emotions# hinkabout the different emotionspeople are capable of feeling;they include love pity sorro!affection anger fear greedlust and hatred#

Cet.s say a rhetor is trying toconvince an audience todonate money to a hurricanerelief fund# he rhetor canmake pathetic appeals to anaudience.s feelings of lovepity and fear# (%nd the extentto !hich any of theseemotions !ill be successfully
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html


3/12

engaged !ill vary fromaudience to audience#) 7Cove7!ill be invoked if the audiencecan be made to believe intheir fundamental connectionsto other human beings# 7*ity7!ill be felt if the plight of thehomeless hurricane victim canbe made very vivid to theaudience# %nd 7fear7 might!ork if the audience can bemade to imagine !hat they!ould feel like in thathomeless victim.s place# f therhetor !orks all of these thingstogether properly (and alsodoesn.t scre! up ethos andlogos) then the audience ismore likely to be persuaded#

$ogos

7Cogos7 is the use of logic topersuade your audience#here are various lines ofreasoning that !e !ill discuss(one of them you.ve alreadylearned in some detail;definition)# %s the !orkbookputs it 7% logical argument

usually convinces its audiencebecause of the perceivedmerit and reasonableness ofthe claims and proof offered insupport of the overall thesisrather than because of theemotions it produces in theaudience (pathos) or becauseof the status or credentials ofthe speaker (ethos)#7

.m not going to say moreabout logos right no! because!e !ill address it in detail onuesday#

Putting them together

eldom is any one statementan example of only oneappeal#

7%s your doctor have to tellyou that if you don.t stopsmoking you.re going to die#7

his statement combines allthree appeals# (8ne of the

lines of argument !e.lladdress in future readings anddiscussion is called 7causeand consequence7)

Don(t forget

%l!ays al!ays al!ays thinkabout your audience# 6henthinking about ho! best topersuade your audience askyourself these kinds ofquestions; 6hat are their

valuesA 6hat do they believein alreadyA 6hat is theirexisting opinion of my topicA6hat are they likely to findpersuasiveA

6hat might !ork for oneaudience might not !ork foranother#


4/12

Tone )ocabu!ary $ist

Positivelightheartedconfident

amusedcomplimentaryamiablerelaxedsoothing

jubilantencouragingreverenthopefulcheeryelatedpassionate!himsicalromanticcalmenthusiasticelevatedexuberantoptimisticsympatheticproudfancifulappreciativeconsolingecstatic

jovialloving

compassionatefriendlypleasantbrave

joyfulenergetic

*egativeangry!rathfulthreateningagitated

obnoxiousinsultingcholericdisgustedbitteraccusingarrogantquarrelsomesurlyoutraged

irritatedcondemnatorybelligerent

disgruntledfuriousindignantinflammatoryaggravatedbrashtesty

+umorrony%arcasmscornfulbanteringdisdainfulirreverentcondescendingpompousmockingridiculing!rysarcastictauntingcynicalinsolentpatronizing!himsicalmaliciousdroll

criticalironicfacetiousflippantmock"heroicteasingquizzicalcomicalsatiricamusedsardoniccontemptuouscaustic

ribaldirreverent

%orrow&ear.orrysombermournfulconcernedmorosehopeless

remorsefulpoignantmelancholy

solemnfearfulpessimisticgravestaidominoussadseriousdespairingsobersolemnresignedhorrordisturbedapprehensivegloomyforebodingmournfulregretful

Othersformalobjectivequestioninglearnedauthoritative

disbelievingsentimentalpretentiousapatheticconventional

judgmentalreflectiveceremonialcandidinstructivefactualincredulousurgent

ferventhistrioniccallousforthrightlyricalsincererestrainedclinicalmatter"of"factdidactic

shockednostalgicearnest

resignedcontemplativehaughtyobjectivedetachedadmonitoryinformativebaffledreminiscentpatrioticmeditativeintimateobsequious:


5/12

&A$$A/#% O& '#$#)A*/#; hese fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argumentat hand#

Aea! to &orce (Argumentum Ad Baculumor the 71ight"1akes"4ight7 +allacy); his argument uses force the threat

of force or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion# t commonly appears as a lastresort !hen evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader# f the debate is about !hether or not DEDFG anopponent.s argument that he !ill smash your nose in if you don.t agree !ith his claim doesn.t change the truth of anissue# Cogically this consideration has nothing to do !ith the points under consideration# he fallacy is not limited tothreats of violence ho!ever# he fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash""financial professional and soon# @xample; 7uperintendent you should cut the school budget by HIII# need not remind you that past schoolboards have fired superintendents !ho cannot keep do!n costs#7 6hile intimidation may force the superintendent toconform it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget !as the most beneficial for the school orcommunity# Cobbyists use this method !hen they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in thelegislators. constituencies and threaten to thro! the politician out of office if he doesn.t vote the !ay they !ant#eachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as theteachers or risk failing the class# 3ote that it is isn.t a logical fallacy ho!ever to assert that students must fulfill certainrequirements in the course or risk failing the classJ

0enetic &a!!acy; he genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea product or person must be untrust!orthy because of itsracial geographic or ethnic origin# 7hat car can.t possibly be any goodJ t !as made in KapanJ7 8r 76hy should listen to her argumentA he comes from 0alifornia and !e all kno! those people are flakes#7 8r 7&aJ .m not readingthat book# t !as published in ennessee and !e kno! all ennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecksJ7 his type offallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominemor ersona! attack appearing immediately belo!#

Persona! Attack(Argumentum Ad Hominem literally 7argument to!ard the man#7 %lso called 7*oisoning the 6ell7);%ttacking or praising the people !ho make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself# his practice isfallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argumentitself# he statement 7DEDFG7 is true regardless if is stated by criminals congressmen or pastors# here are t!osubcategories;

(


6/12

(


7/12

no problem#7 ndeed it is important to get 7both vie!points7 on an argument but basing a substantial part of yourargument on a source that has personal professional or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments#

Aea! to #motion(Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally 7argument from pity7); %n emotional appeal concerning!hat should be a logical issue during a debate# 6hilepathosgenerally !orks to reinforce a readerRs sense of duty or

outrage at some abuse if a !riter tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept !hat shouldbe a logical conclusion the argument is a fallacy# +or example in the


8/12

usan &erman and @gbert are exceptionally poor students# 1aybe they !ere sick and missed too many lectures thatterm to pass# f a logician !ants to make the case that most students !ill fail 'iology


9/12

isn.t 7s it good to have decent housingA7 he question really is 76ill this particular measure actually provide it or isthere a better alternativeA7 his type of fallacy is a common one in student papers !hen students use a sharedassumption""such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have""and then spend the bulk of their essaysfocused on that fact rather than the real question at issue# t.s similar to begging the 4uestionabove#

8ne of the most common forms of %gnorantio Elenchiis the 7'ed +erring#7 % red herring is a deliberate attempt tochange the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side"pointQ for instance MenatorKones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax# %fter all there are other senators !ho have donefar !orse things#N %nother example; M should not pay a fine for reckless driving# here are many other people on thestreet !ho are dangerous criminals and rapists and the police should be chasing them not harassing a decent tax"paying citizen like me#N 0ertainly !orsecriminals do exist but that it is another issueJ he questions at hand are (


10/12

stop the progression once it has begun""and thus the argument is a logical fallacy# +or instance if one !ere to argue7f !e allo! the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the nternet it !ill then feel free to infringe upon ourprivacy on the telephone# %fter that +' agents !ill be reading our mail# hen they !ill be placing cameras in ourhouses# 6e must not let any governmental agency interfere !ith our nternet communications or privacy !illcompletely vanish in the Lnited tates#7 uch thinking is fallaciousQ no logical proof has been provided yet that

infringement in one area !ill necessarily lead to infringement in another no more than a person buying a single can of0oca"0ola in a grocery store !ould indicate the person !ill inevitably go on to buy every item available in the storehelpless to stop herself# o remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacyQ once you use one you may find yourselfusing more and more logical fallacies#

#itherOr &a!!acy(also called 7the 'lack"and"6hite +allacy7 and 7+alse ,ilemma7); his fallacy occurs !hen a !riterbuilds an argument upon the assumption that there are only t!o choices or possible outcomes !hen actually there areseveral# 8utcomes are seldom so simple# his fallacy most frequently appears in connection to s!eepinggeneralizations; M@ither !e must ban T or the %merican !ay of life !ill collapse#N 76e go to !ar !ith 0anada or else0anada !ill eventually gro! in population and over!helm the Lnited tates#7 7@ither you drink 'urpsy 0ola or you !illhave no friends and no social life#7 @ither you must avoid either/or fallacies or everyone !ill think you are foolish#

&au!ty Ana!ogy; 4elying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively# +orexample Meducation is like cakeQ a small amount tastes s!eet but eat too much and your teeth !ill rot out# Cike!isemore than t!o years of education is bad for a student#N he analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinksthat education is similar to cake# %s you can see faulty analogies are like flimsy !ood and just as no carpenter !ouldbuild a house out of flimsy !ood no !riter should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material#

6ndistributed 2idd!e Term; % specific type of error in deductive reasoning in !hich the minor premise and the majorpremise of asy!!ogismmight or might not overlap# 0onsider these t!o examples; (


11/12

/omosition; his fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the !hole to the properties of the!hole itself""it is an inductive error# uch an argument might hold that because every individual part of a large tractor islight!eight the entire machine also must be light!eight# his fallacy is similar to +asty 0enera!ization(see above)but it focuses on parts of a single !hole rather than using too fe! examples to create a categorical generalization# %lsocompare it !ithDivision(see belo!)#

Division; his fallacy is the reverse ofcomosition# t is the misapplication of deductive reasoning# 8ne fallacy ofdivision argues falsely that !hat is true of the !hole must be true of individual parts# uch an argument notes that71icrotech is a company !ith great influence in the 0alifornia legislature# @gbert mith !orks at 1icrotech# &e musthave great influence in the 0alifornia legislature#7 his is not necessarily true# @gbert might !ork as a graveyard shiftsecurity guard or as the copy"machine repairman at 1icrotech""positions requiring little interaction !ith the 0alifornialegislature# %nother fallacy of division attributes the properties of the !hole to the individual member of the !hole;7unsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products# usan Kones is a !orker at unsurf# he must be anenvironmentally minded individual#7 (*erhaps she is motivated by money aloneA)

&A$$A/#% O& O2%%O*; hese errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument ormisdirects others from missing information#

%tacking the Deck; n this fallacy the speaker 7stacks the deck7 in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove thepoint and listing only those examples that support her case# his fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization butthe term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error# 0ontrast it !ith the straw manargument#

Argument from the *egative; %rguing from the negative asserts that since one position is untenable the oppositestance must be true# his fallacy is often used interchangeably !ithArgumentum Ad Ignorantium(listed belo!) andthe eitheror !allacy(listed above)# +or instance one might mistakenly argue that since the 3e!tonian theory ofmathematics is not one hundred percent accurate @insteinRs theory of relativity must be true# *erhaps not# *erhaps thetheories of quantum mechanics are more accurate and @insteinRs theory is fla!ed# *erhaps they are all !rong#

,isproving an opponentRs argument does not necessarily mean your o!n argument must be true automatically nomore than disproving your opponent.s assertion that DEDF5 !ould automatically mean your argument that DEDFU mustbe the correct one#

Aea! to a $ack of #vidence(Argumentum Ad %gnorantium literally 7%rgument from gnorance7); %ppealing to a lackof information to prove a point or arguing that since the opposition cannot disprove a claim the opposite stance mustbe true# %n example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able toprove that they do not exist# Cogicians kno! this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealeditself#

+yothesis /ontrary to &act(Argumentum Ad #peculum); rying to prove something in the real !orld by usingimaginary examples alone or asserting that if hypothetically T had occurred B !ould have been the result# +or

instance suppose an individual asserts that if @instein had been abortedin utero the !orld !ould never have learnedabout relativity or that if 1onet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college the impressionisticmovement !ould have never influenced modern art# uch hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it isoften possible that some other individual !ould have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionisticart style# he speculation might make an interesting thought"experiment but it is simply useless !hen it comes toactually proving anything about the real !orld# % common example is the idea that one 7o!es7 her success to anotherindividual !ho taught her# +or instance 7Bou o!e me part of your increased salary# f hadn.t taught you ho! torecognize logical fallacies you !ould be flipping hamburgers at 1c,onald.s for minimum !ages right no! instead of
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#hasty_generalization_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#division_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#division_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#division_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#composition_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#composition_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#straw_man_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#straw_man_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#argumentum_ad_ignorantium_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#argumentum_ad_ignorantium_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#either_or_fallacyhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#hasty_generalization_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#division_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#composition_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#straw_man_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#straw_man_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#argumentum_ad_ignorantium_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#either_or_fallacy


12/12

taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a la!yer#7 *erhaps# 'ut perhaps the audience !ould have learned aboutlogical fallacies else!here so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless#

/om!ex 3uestion(%lso called the 7Coaded uestion7); *hrasing a question or statement in such as !ay as to implyanother unproven statement is true !ithout evidence or discussion# his fallacy often overlaps !ith begging the

4uestion(above) since it also presupposes a definite ans!er to a previous unstated question# +or instance if !ereto ask you M&ave you stopped taking drugs yetAN my hidden supposition is that you ha!ebeen taking drugs# uch aquestion cannot be ans!ered !ith a simple yes or no ans!er# t is not a simple question but consists of severalquestions rolled into one# n this case the unstated question is M&ave you taken drugs in the pastAN follo!ed by Mf youhave taken drugs in the past have you stopped taking them no!AN n cross"examination a la!yer might ask aflustered !itness M6here did you hide the evidenceAN or 7!hen did you stop beating your !ifeA7 he intelligentprocedure !hen faced !ith such a question is to analyze its component parts# f one ans!ers or discusses the priorimplicit question first the explicit question may dissolve#

0omplex questions appear in !ritten argument frequently# % student might !rite M6hy is private development ofresources so much more efficient than any public controlAN he rhetorical question leads directly into his nextargument# &o!ever an observant reader may disagree recognizing the prior implicit question remains unaddressed#hat question is of course !hether private development of resources really ismore efficient in all cases a point !hichthe author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true !ithout discussion#

/ontradictory Premises(also kno!n as a logical paradox); @stablishing a premise in such a !ay that it contradictsanother earlier premise# +or instance 7f -od can do anything he can make a stone so heavy that he can.t lift it#7 hefirst premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects# he second premiseestablishes an immovable object impervious to any movement# f the first object capable of moving anything exists bydefinition the immovable object cannot exist and !ice!ersa#
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#begging_the_question_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#begging_the_question_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#begging_the_question_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#begging_the_question_anchorhttp://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#begging_the_question_anchor

Rhetoric Dos and Don'Ts

Documents

Transcript of Rhetoric Dos and Don'Ts