Quiz 1 Review

As a process, what are Foss's four steps for doing Rhetorical Criticism? Is it really that simple?

1) selecting an artifact -be something you're interesting in 2) analyzing the artifact -to code or analyze your artifact using the procedures of the method; it is the step where you engage in a close and systematic analysis of the artifact 3) formulating a research question -is what you want to find out about rhetoric by studying an artifact, suggests what your study contributes to our understanding of how rhetorical processes work and your contribution to rhetorical theory -tend to be about four basic components of the comm process--the rhetor, the audience, the situation, and the message -don't be broad or generic; don't use wording that does not allow for the exploration and explanation of anything interesting; avoid yes or no answer questions; and do not include your specific artifact or data in the question 4) writing the essay -five major components: --an introduction that discusses the research question, its contribution to rhetorical theory and its significance --description of artifact and context --description of the method of analysis --report of the findings of the analysis --discussion of the contribution your analysis makes to rhetorical theory

using evidence

Are the examples numerous, typical, and have no obvious counter-examples? *analogies*: comparing two things to draw a parallel from one to the other Test: are the key similarities greater than the differences? Are they more alike than different? *sign*: one thing is a sign of another test: is the relationship between items consistent? *cause*: one thing causes another test: is the cause actually before the effect, sufficiently strong, and are there possible alternative causes? *principle*: major premise and minor premise lead to conclusion test: are the premises true and does the conclusion flow logically from the premises *authority*: use of testimony and credibility to prove a claim test: is the credibility relevant to the claim and are there any additional reasons beyond testimony to believe this? Fallacies: avoid "if I believe it and say, it must be true for others" avoid "Because they said it, it must be true" avoid "if the people believe it, it must be true"

Rhetoric

humans are the creators of rhetoric symbols are the medium for rhetoric communication for the purpose of rhetoric, the terms are often synonymous, but the choice to use rhetoric or communication to describe the process of exchaning meaning is largely a personal one any action, whether intended to communicate or not, can be interpreted rhetorically by those who experience or encounter it includes nondiscursive or nonverbal symbols as well as discursive or verbal ones functions in a variety of ways to allow humans to communicate with one another it tells us what reality is

What is a rhetorical situation?

the context of a rhetorical act, made up (at a minimum) of a rhetor, an issue, a medium, and an audience that occurs in response to a rhetorical situation with constraints. *rhetor*: a speaker or writer *exigence*: an issue *medium*: speech or written text *audience*: the people reading or listening *constraints*: things with power to modify the exigence One of the first modern scholars to focus on the concept of the rhetorical situation was Lloyd Bitzer in his influential and controversial article "The Rhetorical Situation" (Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1968). Thus, the writer determines the rhetorical situation as much as the situation gives meaning to the utterance. John Patton notes how 'the meaning of rhetorical situations is a dual process, partly a matter of recognition, i.e., clarity and accuracy of perception, and partly a matter of intentional, artistic, human action.'" (James Jasinski, "Rhetorical Situation," in Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, 2001) It involves particularities of persons, actions, and agencies in a certain place and time; and the rhetor cannot ignore these constraints if he is to function effectively "[A] text's content, organization, and style are influenced by a writer's rhetorical context--that is, by the writer's intended audience, genre, and purpose. Reconstructing that context before or as you read is a powerful reading strategy. "To establish a sense of the text's original rhetorical context, use the available sources of information to formulate at least tentative answers to the following questions: 1. What questions(s) is the text addressing? 2. What is the writer's purpose? 3. Who is the intended audience(s)? 4. What situational factors (biographical, historical, political, or cultural) apparently caused the author to write this text?"

artifact

the data for the study--the rhetorical act, event, or product you are going to analyze first, must contain the kinds of data that are the focus of the units of analysis of the method should be something you really like or really dislike, something that puzzles or baffles you, or something that you cannot explain

sophists

traveling professional teachers of rhetoric in ancient Greece formed during the second half of the fifth century BCE offered students mastery of the skills of language necessary to participating in political life and succeeding in financial ventures were most concerned with the civic world, most specifically the functioning of the democracy, for which the participants in sophistic education were preparing themselves wrote speeches for pay The names survive of nearly 30 Sophists properly so called, of whom the most important were Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Prodicus, and Thrasymachus. The actual number of Sophists was clearly much larger than 30, and for about 70 years, until c. 380 BCE, they were the sole source of higher education in the more advanced Greek cities. The charge was based on two contentions, both correct: first, that many of the Sophists attacked the traditionally accepted moral code; and second, that they explored and even commended alternative approaches to morality that would condone or allow behaviour of a kind inadmissible under the stricter traditional code. Relativism and skepticism have often been regarded as common features of the Sophistic movement as a whole One of the most famous doctrines associated with the Sophistic movement was the opposition between nature and custom or convention in morals.

enthymeme

what has the function of a proof or demonstration in the domain of public speech, since a demonstration is a kind of sullogismos the minimal requirement is that they have to display the premise-conclusion structure of deductive arguments have to include a statement as well as a kind of reason for the given statement "the body of persuasion" central to the rhetorical process of persuasion is that we are most easily persuaded when we think that something has been demonstrated in order to make a target group believe A, the orator must first select a sentence B or sentences B-b3 has already been accepted by the group; then show that A can be derived from B-b3 as premises; given that the target persons form their beliefs in accordance with rational standards, they will accept A as soon as they understand that A can be demonstrated on the basis of their own opinions it is also possible to use premises that are not commonly accepted by themselves, but can be derived from commonly accepted opinions; other premises are only accepted since the speaker is held to be credible; still other enthymemes are built from signs *That a deduction is made from accepted opinions—as opposed to deductions from first and true sentences or principles—is the defining feature of dialectical argumentation in the Aristotelian sense* The enthymeme is different from other kinds of dialectical arguments, insofar as it is used in the rhetorical context of public speech (and rhetorical arguments are called 'enthymemes'); thus, no further formal or qualitative differences are needed. First, the typical subjects of public speech do not—as the subject of dialectic and theoretical philosophy—belong to the things that are necessarily the case, but are among those things that are the goal of practical deliberation and can also be otherwise. Second, as opposed to well-trained dialecticians the audience of public speech is characterized by an intellectual insufficiency; above all, the members of a jury or assembly are not accustomed to following a longer chain of inferences. Therefore enthymemes must not be as precise as a scientific demonstration and should be shorter than ordinary dialectical arguments. it is a sign of a well-executed enthymeme that the content and the number of its premises are adjusted to the intellectual capacities of the public audience; but even an enthymeme that failed to incorporate these qualities would still be enthymeme. Arguments with several deductive steps are common in dialectical practice, but one cannot expect the audience of a public speech to follow such long arguments. This is why Aristotle says that the enthymeme is and should be from fewer premises.

rhetor

the creator of the artifact

Act vs. Artifact

act: something being done, that is often ephemeral or soon over artifact: the text, film, movie, trace, etc., or tangible evidence of an act that can be more accessible to a wider audience

Pathos: Dominant Tonality

bluesy sevens

Pathos: Major Tonality

bright, cheery

Logos: Toulmin's Warranted Structure

created the model to address everyday kinds of arguments instead of trying to apply formal logic claims are based on Evidence assuming certain Warrants (which are often unstated and weak) Three Terms: -Data/grounds: evidence of commonly accepted belief -warrant: assumption that connects data to a claim -claim: argument made for agreement or behavior change Three Secondary Terms: -backing: support for warrant -qualifier: limiting scope or strength of claim -rebuttal/reservation (Arguments against the claim)

Initial Credibility

credibility before speech most important????

canons of rhetoric

divided into five main categories: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery invention: concerns finding something to say (including cause and effect, comparison, and various relationships); is tied to the rhetorical appeal of logos (what whether than how something is said); defines rhetoric primarily as invention, discovering the best available means of persuasion arrangement: concerns how one orders speech or writing (intro using ethos, statement of facts, division, proof, and refutation from logos, and conclusion from pathos) style: concerns the artful expression of ideas (the how rather than the what of something said); and have virtues of style (five),levels of style (three for the three species), qualities of style, and figures of speech; often aligned with pathos, but much to do with ethos, and part of the appeal through logos; the form of the communication is just as important as the communication itself memory: the practice of storing up commonplaces or other material arrived at through the topics of invention for use as called for in a given occasion; and takes into consideration the memory of the audience delivery: concerns itself along with style with how something is said; makes powerful persuasive appeals of pathos; concerns the public presentation of discourse, oral or written; how one establishes ethos and appeals through pathos

How can a critic analyze a speech Context? What are important aspects of analyzing context? What should be avoided in analyzing context?

Provide: -info about the rhetor (Related info linking history and experience to rhetorical effects -brief discussion of the occasion or situation and what led it to that event -a sense of audience composition and disposition avoid straight bio, overemphasis on context description vs. analysis

Ethos: Where is Credibility?

Resides in the audience, not the speaker organizations have credibility too, not just individual speakers and both can be analyzed don't talk about credibility in general, talk about elements of credibility

dialectic vs rhetoric

Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with things that do not belong to a definite genus or are not the object of a specific science. Rhetoric and dialectic rely on accepted sentences (endoxa). Rhetoric and dialectic are not dependent on the principles of specific sciences. Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with both sides of an opposition. Rhetoric and dialectic rely on the same theory of deduction and induction. Rhetoric and dialectic similarly apply the so-called topoi.

How is defining something rhetorical?

Rhetoric can be a means for discovering new truths or a method to convince others; defining an artifact or act in certain terms can be rhetorical because it can introduce new ways of thinking about an artifact and convince others to see the artifact in that new line of thinking.

How does Foss define Rhetoric? What are the three components of her definition?

Rhetoric: the human use of symbols to communicate 1) Humans as the creators of rhetoric 2) Symbols as the medium for rhetoric 3) Communication as the purpose for rhetoric

rhetorical species

The speaker either advises the audience to do something or warns against doing something.

deliberative species

The speech that takes place in the assembly Deliberative rhetoric is speech or writing that attempts to persuade an audience to take (or not take) some action. always advises about things to come

Ethos: Good Character

Trustworthiness the kinds of decisions that a person makes in their life, not just in their speeches example: bad, Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton

Pathos: Color Theory

alpen glow, Hallmark, red and yellow fast food; colors have power to influence emotion

Intrinsic Credibility

credibility from the speech itself

plato

critiqued the Sophists for privileging appearances over reality, making the weaker argument appear the stronger, preferring the pleasant over the good, favoring opinions over the truth and probability over certainty, and choosing rhetoric over philosophy claimed Sophists were both mercenary and pretentious, that wisdom, like truth, is an ideal to be sought constantly wrote Gorgias said that Sophists were willing to use dishonesty to achieve their goals

Pathos: Minor Tonality

darker, more mysterious

Pathos:

difficulties: -not under direct control or volition; focus on subject/object, not emotion directly -culture bound; even regional differences in classic list of emotional drivers 5 ways to evoke pathos: -word painting -icons/images/associations -color theory -showing emotion like tears, rage, jubilation -music emotional appeal effects: -grabs attention -strengthens recall/memory -reduces counter-argumentation -overload can lead to shutdown

Pathos: Word Painting

language that is evocative or emotional and brings about a response ex: dentist and not flossing leading to reconstructive surgery

Different types of enthymemes

real and apparent vs. fallacious The fallacious enthymeme pretends to include a valid deduction, while it actually rests on a fallacious inference. We accept a fallacious argument only if we are deceived about its logical form.

Neo-Aristotelian method: Arrangement

similar to organization in public speaking courses. See also Writing Module on Flow Chronological, problem-solution, cause-effect, placement at beginning or the end, climax, scaffolding (Foss, 2009, p. 27)

Neo-Aristotelian method: Delivery

speed, pitch, tone, variation (articulation, pronunciation) posture, nonverbal rhythm, pacing (Foss, 2009, p. 27)

How are signs and symbols different?

symbol: something that stands for or represents something else by virtue of relationship, association or convention, are used for communicating with others or oneself; i.e. cup, fish, alphabet signs: direct connection to the object represented; i.e. smoke, changing leaves, red face from running

three means of persuasion (Aristotle)

technical: persuasion must rest on a method, and we must know the reason why some things are persuasive and some are not, and persuasion must rest on a complete analysis of what it means to be persuasive three things: the speaker, the subject, and the listener three technical means of persuasion: in the character of the speaker, in the emotional state of the hearer, or in the argument of logos itself

Ethos: Dynamism/Charisma

the inner light and energy that attracts people to a speaker

Terminal Credibility

credibility after speech

Extrinsic Credibility

happens outside of the speech situation

Neo-Aristotelian method: Bitzer's Rhetorical Situation

Lloyd Bitzer developed that all rhetoric is a response to a situation...an outcome (sometimes appropriate, sometimes not) of a problem or issue leading to the need for some verbal or written response Key elements: -exigence (problem or urgency that must be addressed) -audience (capable of being influenced and influencing change) -constraints (parts of situation that constrain the message and its reception) Key criticism by Richard Vatz: rhetoric creates situations too, not all rhetoric is predetermined by a situation

dialectic

*Dialectic* *can be applied to every object whatsoever *proceeds by questioning and answering *is concerned with general questions *Certain uses of dialectic apply qualified endoxa, i.e., endoxa that are approved by experts *doesn't take into account restricted intellectual resources of the target group *tries to test the consistency of a set of sentences *Non-argumentative methods are absent

Logos: Six Argument Types

*Principle: 2 premises and conclusion (syllogism) or any two of those (enthymeme) -both premises true? reasoning to conclusion valid? *Example: series of instances with general claim -typical? Sufficient number? negative examples? *Analogy: a comparison of less familiar to more familiar, claim of key likeness -key differences greater than similarities? *sign: elements related since one is a sign of another -association consistent? smoke and fire *cause: elements related since one causes the other -sufficient strength? multiple causes? *authority: support for the claim is the authority of the source -credibility relevant to claims? additional reasons?

Neo-Aristotelian method: Memory

familiarity with speech (memory, practice) stumbling or reading see Rick Perry on notable memory losses (Foss, 2009, p. 27)

Identify three standards Foss provides for evaluating rhetoric. How is Rhetorical Criticism related to argument?

justification, reasonable inference, and coherence -justification you must provide evidence to support your claim and have sufficient evidence from the artifact to back up the claim -reasonable inference you must show how you moved from the data of the artifact to the claims you are making -coherence you must order, arrange, and present your findings so they are congruent and consistent, they do not contradict one another and are internally consistent, and no plot holes related to argument because the critic is trying to portray their thoughts about an artifact to someone else in an effort to have their audience see the artifact in the same light as the critic

establishing credibility

speaker must display: practical intelligence a virtuous character good will

judicial/forensic species

the audience has to judge things that are going to happen in the future, and they have to decide whether these future events are good or bad for the polis, whether they will cause advantage or harm. The speech that takes place before a court is speech or writing that considers the justice or injustice of a certain charge or accusation. In the modern era, judicial (or forensic) discourse is primarily employed by lawyers in trials decided by a judge or jury.

Neoclassical/Neo-Aristotelian method of criticism

the first formal method of rhetorical criticism *Three basic steps*: reconstruct the context, apply the canons, assess the affects Wichelns's essay created the modern discipline of rhetorical criticism is concerned with effect, and regards a speech as a communication to a specific audiences, and holds its business to be the analysis and appreciation of the orator's method of imparting his ideas to his hearers was only for speeches; led to the study of single speakers, and were limited to be individuals of the past; a critic should deal with these elements: the speaker's personality, the public character of the speaker or the public's perception of the speaker, the audience the major ideas presented in the speech the motives to which the speaker appealed the nature of the speaker's proofs, the speaker's judgment of human nature in the audience the speaker's method of speech preparation, the manner of delivery the effect of the discourse on the immediate audience and it's long-term effects but that changed in the 1960s with "A Study Criticisms were: -an exclusive concern with effects does not always produce significant criticism -Aristotle's "Rhetoric" and other classical writings were written at a time and in the context of cultures that were different in values, orientation, and knowledge from ours -was concerned with its rational bias (focus on proof) -concerned with the mechanical application of categories to rhetoric that produced molded speeches *Procedures* -selecting an artifact -analyzing an artifact (reconstructing the context, application of the five canons, and assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience) -formulating a research question -writing the essay (an intro discussing the research question, its contribution and its significance; a description of the artifact and its context; description of the method of criticism; a report of the findings of the analysis; a discussion of the contribution the analysis makes to rhetorical theory)

Elements of ethos

Good sense, good character, good will, and dynamism/charisma ethos is dynamic enhancing ethos: -appearance: situationally dependent but has an impact -language use: incorrect language can impact your credibility -association/dissociation: using materials from someone credible, non-credible can impact your own credibility -grasp of facts, material: how well the material is known can increase credibility -show of empathy/identification: can increase credibility by identifying with some part of the audience

Ethos: Good Sense

intelligence and expertise, also competence and qualification people who have gotten the credential to be honored and listened to

artistic proofs

In Aristotle's rhetorical theory, the artistic proofs are ethos (ethical proof), pathos (emotional proof), and logos (logical proof).

Pathos: Icons

images or associations like babies or children or families or the American Eagle or Statue of Liberty

style

Aristotle: "lexis" or style -good style consists of the differentiation and the selection of various kinds of nouns, one of which is defined as metaphor, and being clear and being neither banal, above deserved dignity, but appropriate *virtue of prose style, ornament by dignified expressions, and appropriateness; from the times of Cicero and Quintilianus, correctness of Greek or Latin became the canonical four virtues of speech* -the opposition of good style, or frigid or deterring style (psuchron), the simile, which turns out to be connected with the metaphor; the issue of correct Greek, the appropriateness, and the means by which one's style becomes long-winded and dignified; -the poets were the first to give an impulse for the study of style, and may have an impact on the degree of clarity; clarity matters for comprehension and comprehensibility contributes to persuasiveness; -elevated vocab has a dual-edged sword; may evoke curiosity or make the speech become unclear, or make the audience suspicious metaphor: the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is proportion; the simile is defined as a metaphor; and metaphors bring about learning and the hearer has to find something common between the metaphor and the thing the metaphor refers to

What negative connotations or meanings are associated with "rhetoric" or being "rhetorical"?

Commonly used to mean empty, bombastic language that has no substance Other times, used to mean flowery, ornamental speech laden with metaphors and other figures of speech Neither is how the term has been defined throughout its long history as a discipline dating back to the 5th century BC

topos

a general argumentative form or pattern, and the concrete arguments are instantiations of the general topos word means: place, location; may have been derived from an ancient method of memorizing a great number of items on a list by associating them with successive places, say the houses along a street, one is acquainted with; but Aristotle's use means that every given problem must by analyzed in terms of some formal criteria Includes: a sort of general instruction, an argumentative scheme, and a general rule or principle which justifies the given scheme; some can also include discussion of examples, and/or how to apply the given schemes Function: prove or disprove a given sentence; after selection, can be used to construe a premise from which the given conclusion can be derived; Steps: select a topos for a given conclusion, the conclusion is either a thesis of the opponent to refute, or our own assertion we want to establish or defend examples: definition, comparison, cause and effect, and circumstance

epideictic species

praises or blames somebody, it tries to describe things or deeds of the respective person as honorable or shameful Epideictic rhetoric is speech or writing that praises (encomium) or blames (invective). Also known as ceremonial discourse, epideictic rhetoric includes funeral orations, obituaries, graduation and retirement speeches, letters of recommendation, and nominating speeches at political conventions. Interpreted more broadly, epideictic rhetoric may also include works of literature.

a basic argument

*a claim supported by reasoning or evidence* a claim is something you want other people to believe or agree with evidence is some form or proof used to support an argument whether statistics, examples, quotes, analogies, sign, cause, principle, using authority etc. you use and critique evidence in rhetoric to strengthen your argument an argument is not an assertion ( a statement without a reason), a personal opinion (unless from an expert), or a quarrel (argument between two people)

rhetoric

*rhetoric*: the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case rhetorician: someone who is always able to see what is persuasive *is useful especially in practical and public matters. *for the most part proceeds in continuous form. *is concerned for the most part with particular topics (i.e., things about which we cannot gain real knowledge). *aims at endoxa that are popular *must take into account that its target group has only restricted intellectual resources *tries to achieve the persuasion of a given audience *uses non-argumentative means of persuasion.

Ethos: Good Will

*value identification*: a speaker will state the good things that they have done, the public thinks are good, and will do good things; the public will think well of the speakers because of these things

Neo-Aristotelian method: Effect

-assess the goal(s) of the speaker and whether they were met -look at short-term and long-term impacts after the speech -quote other critics or editorialists who evaluate speeches -center effect analysis around issues raised in the paper about the use of Canons...looking for several paragraphs at least (Foss, 2009, p. 28)

Brown on Saddam Hussein

Context: 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait lead to swift retaliation by U.S. and allies, bombing of Baghdad, low morale. Hussein a Muslim, praised Allah. Audience mostly Arabic, neighboring countries. Used Radio addresses to bolster morale (Foss, 2009, p. 51-55). Invention: -logos: attacks justified by Koran and Allah, Allah blesses action if no substantial resitance, Iraq overthrew Kuwait in 3 days; Kuwait belongs to Iraq because wandering nomadic tribes camped their regularly; Iraq needs help to fight off evil Western influence--racial prejudice and involving Israel to distract from Kuwait -ethos: arab brothers and ID as a Muslim; help Palestinians regain rightful land from Israel -pathos: stir up anti-West hatred arrangement: started all addresses with Koran quote style: used classic Arabic dialect to gain prestige and ensure most would understand; helped reinforce religious language in Koran delivery: dynamic, energetic, passion clear in vivid language about West memory: some stumbling, reading from script effect: successful because he gained sympathy listing U.S. military abuses, promoted Arab pride, Arab nations willing to support and army swelled value identification: all Arabs/Muslims as "brothers" and the leader of the Arabs settling the Palestinian dispute pathos: -fight/support Arab/Muslim brothers (pride) -humiliate Western societies (anger/rage)

Logos: Fallacies

false analogy: when two items are similar in one respect, so they must be similar in another respect hasty generalization: jumping to conclusion without sufficient information false cause: concluding when something is caused by something else when in fact there may be alternate causes or no relationship at all -post hoc fallacy: implies that something that occurs after X occured because of X -single cause fallacy: attributes only one cause to a complex situation ad hominem: "to the man" an attack on the person rather than the argument ad populem "to the people:" most people believe it so it should be okay ad verecundiam: "to authority" an appeal to an unqualified, unidentified, or biased source to support a claim appeal to tradition: arguing a policy is justified because it's the way it's always been done equivocation: using the ambiguity of a word to lead to a false conclusion begging the question: making a claim based on a premise that is the very claim or point being made non sequitur: a claim that does not follow from the evidence, or a refutation that is irrelevant to the argument

theory

is a tentative answer to a question we pose as we seek to understand the world; it is a set of general clues, generalizations, or principles that explains a process or phenomenon and thus helps to answer the question we asked enable us to develop a cumulative body of research and thus to improve our practice of communication final outcome is a contribution to the improvement of our abilities as communicators implicitly suggest how more effective symbol use may be accomplished make us more sophisticated audience members for messages and become more engaged and active participants in shaping the nature of the worlds in which we live

primary vs. secondary rhetoric

primary: involves utterance on a specific occasion; it is an act, not a text but can be treated as a text secondary: refers to rhetorical techniques as found in discourse, literature and art forms then those techniques are not being used for an oral, persuasive purpose

How does Foss define Rhetorical Criticism? What are the important parts of this definition? Why do we do Rhetorical Criticism?

the process used for engaging in the study of rhetoric a qualititative research method that is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes 1) systematic analysis as the act of criticism; we can understand and explain more sophisticatedly or discriminatory about why we like or dislike something by investigating the symbols themselves, and begin to make statements about messages rather than our feelings 2) acts and artifacts as the objects of analysis in criticism; many critics prefer to study the artifact of an act--the text, trace, or tangible evidence of the act, and the term artifact provides a consistent and convenient way to talk about the object of criticism 3)understanding rhetorical processes as the purpose of criticism; begins with an interest in understanding particular symbols and how they operate, critics are interested in discovering what an artifact teaches about the nature of rhetoric, to make a contribution to rhetorical theory

aristotle

wrote three books of rhetoric (Rhetoric 1, 2, and 3) Rhetoric does not at all seem to be unreasonable: it is not enough to have a supply of things to say (the so-called "thought"), the theorist of rhetoric must also inform us about the right way to say those things (the so-called "style"). The first division (of the books) consists in the distinction among the three means of persuasion: logos, ethos, and pathos The second tripartite division concerns the three species of public speech: deliberative, judicial, and epideictic stresses that rhetoric is closely related to dialectic thought rhetoric could be used for good or evil, but all who would speak to the public need rhetoric, and affecting the decisions of juries and assemblies is a matter of persuasiveness, not of knowledge gives us a method to discover all means of persuasion on any topic whatsoever centered on the rhetorical kind of proof, the enthymeme tells the orator how to stimulate emotions and how to make himself credible, includes considerations about delivery and style, and the parts of a speech