Argument, Rhetoric, and Writing (in brief)
What comes to mind when you see or hear the word "argument"? At least some of the time,
people think of it as something to be avoided. In a more academic sense, though, argument is the crucial process in
which two or more people engage in order to understand one another's ideas.
The term, as used in composition and other college classes, is a
wholly positive operation. Too often, argument is thought of as a process
by which one person (the good, "right-thinking" arguer) wins and another person (the bad,
"wrong-thinking" arguer) loses. Argument should not be confused with a shouting
match in which the loudest prevails. For our purposes, it is important to see argument
not as some sort of game in which one "wins" or "loses" but rather
as a natural, rational tool by which people understand an idea or issue better than they did before the argument was made.
Not
"winning," but clarity, is our goal.
Generally speaking, argument requires two elements:
1) A claim made on a controversial issue
2) Support of the claim through reason and evidence
By "controversial," we do not mean the subject must be the stuff found in the supermarket tabloids or something
earth-shaking, but rather something--an idea, an issue--that is not agreed upon, something that has at least two competing perspectives. Sometimes
we weigh the evidence about very big things (e.g., whether we should or shouldn't attend a certain college, buy a particular house, marry
a particular person) and sometimes relatively small ones (e.g., whether to buy this or that
toothpaste), but the degree of importance of other arguments usually lies somewhere in
between these extremes.
Merely making a claim is not in itself an argument; one must give logical reasons as to why the claim is true. At some time we have all
said something like, "I think that so and so is a better candidate. I can't tell you why; I just know it's true." Argument demands that the
claim be supported with reasons: "So and so is the better candidate because she is stronger on education, the environment, and in her
economic policies than the other candidate is." Where the former statement is a claim that ends in an unsupported assertion, the second
is an argumentative claim supported by reason. Through argument, we are forced
to clarify and justify ideas we may have comfortably assumed in the past.
There are some things we do not argue about:
1) We don't argue about facts. A fact is a noncontroversial piece of data that is established empirically, by the senses ("I am wearing
blue jeans") or by agreement of a community of experts ("There is no atmosphere on Pluto"). You cannot, then, argue that Little Rock
is the capital of Arkansas, that the earth is round, or that smoking causes cancer. All of these are established facts, even if they haven't
always been so. Now, we might occasionally argue over what the facts are in a given case
("The president did/did not commit perjury in his deposition"), but by and large, we argue about
opinions.
2) We don't argue about things that are impossible or cannot be changed. This one sounds obvious, but beware.
3) We don't argue about things that are obvious (e.g., "Nuclear war is undesirable," "Secondhand
cigarette smoke is bad for children").
4) We don't normally argue about matters that are solely matters of personal
taste. Because "taste" and "opinion" can seem very similar, the distinction between the two can get blurry. It is a
(literal) matter of taste as to whether you like catsup or mustard on
your hotdog (or even like to eat hotdogs at all); some of us mustard-hotdog
types can never be "persuaded" to prefer catsup on our hotdogs, no
matter how many hotdogs with catsup we are forced to eat. By the dictates
of taste, one may always prefer Beethoven to Mozart and basketball to hockey
(though one might gain at least an appreciation of Mozart and hockey by becoming
exposed to and better informed about them). Opinions, which
(metaphorically speaking) reside not in the taste buds but in the brain, often change
as a person undergoes an examination or reexamination of the facts of a given
case. We do argue about opinions.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle understood rhetoric (which we can roughly define as persuasive speaking and writing) so well that his writings on it remain the basis of writing arguments in the twenty-first century. Among the many important things he formulated, Aristotle gave us the concept of the three "modes of persuasion," ethos, pathos, and logos. These three little words contain a multitude of ideas, and some understanding of them are crucial for all writers, from students of Composition to published writers. Here is an excerpt from his work Rhetoric. Keep in mind that where Aristotle was concerned principally with the spoken word, the concepts apply just as much to the written word:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first [ethos] depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second [pathos] on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third [logos] on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men much more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of this character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his powers of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject will be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question (Rhys Roberts trans. 1355b-1356a).
This website provides a brief discussion of the three modes of persuasion under ethos, audience, and logic. These concepts are often intermingled and work in tandem in any given argument, yet they have distinct meanings and purposes. An understanding of them is only slightly more important for students enrolled in Composition II than those in Composition I.
Finally, note that there is a big difference between a report
and an argument. A report is usually an objective
account of something--a text or an event. An argument, as we have
established, requires a claim on a controversial issue with evidence to back it
up. In many composition papers, you will be asked to write arguments--to advance your own point of view, your position, in
your paper--not give a report of someone else's. Use the outside sources
first to help you research and understand your subject and then, in your paper,
to help you establish and support your argument.
next (ethos)