The Toulmin method is an effective tool that helps determine the efficacy of an argument by using this method the author’s argumentative strategies are evaluated to determine their strength. This essay will use the Toulmin method in order to assess the strength of James E. McWilliams’ argument. The Toulmin method will break down the author’s argument into components—the claim, evidence, warrant, qualifiers, and rebuttal. Through using the Toulmin method, Williams’ argument and the components of his argument will be dissected and individually analyzed to determine each component’s effectiveness and how it contributes to the overall power and credibility of Williams’ argument. The Locavore Myth Analysis Developing and expressing an argument effectively takes skill.
Questionnaires were then administrated, and data was collected on how well the participant trusted the source and if their opinion changed. The study confirmed the assumption that credible sources tend to create the desired impact on the audience. According to Hovland, people are more likely persuaded when the source presents itself as credible (Hovland,
He opens his argument saying, “rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic” (490), showing that in order for one to understand rhetoric, the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic should be understood first. He explains the similarities, saying that, “both are faculties for providing arguments”, displaying that both are used in speech to debate a topic (494). By using this he also explains what the terms mean, as they are both persuasion techniques. He then defines the term more clearly and states, “Rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration”(491).
This rational method of comparing Brutus and Caesar serves to emphasize Cassius’s argument through a logical method of persuasion. As evidenced by the techniques of pathos, rhetorical questions, and compare and contrast, Cassius uses persuasion in a skillful way in order to convince Brutus to overthrow
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics. The quote above is the opening statement of this book. It is saying that in all that man does, he/she seeks some good as ends or means.
The ontological argument, formulated by Anselm in his book proslogion, is written from a faith seeking understanding perspective; ontology meaning exploring the concept of all types of existence, typically Gods’. The argument is an a priori argument, this meaning that it is based on logic and is therefore deductive and an analytical argument. Therefore called the ontological argument. The ontological argument explores the existence of a necessary God. Furthermore, the argument is strong due to its key ideas, which are supported by intellectual philosophers such as Anselm, Descartes and two modern philosophers; Malcom and Plantinga.
Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism. In essence, consequentialism is the ideology that justifies its action by producing the greater good (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Some may refer to the principle of utility as the greatest happiness principle. Utilitarianism was fully developed by a British philosopher named John Stuart Mill. There are two types of utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
Oxford University defines reason as “explanation or justification for an action, an obvious cause to do something’ which in a way proves that ‘human being is rational by nature’. Reason holds a very important place or in other words, it is a basic means of human survival. Philosophers like Aristotle, who strongly believed that best lived life is life devoted to philosophy, which means, reason as a way of life and not simply as a kind of intellectual inquiry, because philosophy is the highest form of rational activity. In this essay, I will explore how does two of the greatest philosophers of their time, Hobbes (1588-1679) and Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), treatment of reason differ from one another for their own argument. I will do so by examining their thoughts and ways of argument by taking few points of their argument And, also by giving a light picture of their argument before making and analysis and conclusion.
1) On Page 52, Carroll writes, “The rhetorical situation and rhetorical triangle are two ways to begin to understand how the rhetoric functions within the context you find it.” I found this to be very important because it can help the reader understand how to analyze rhetoric and argument as whole. Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle shows the relationship between Logos, Ethos and Pathos. The triangle shows how each they coincide with one another to make the most compelling and persuasive argument. Yet each of these persuasive techniques is situational. 2) On page 48, Carroll writes, “Rhetorical messages always occur in a specific situation or context.” Carroll is speaking to Rhetorical messages or in simpler words subliminal messages and how
The three main reasons are his uses of Aristotle’s three Rhetorical appeals: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Aristotle’s Ethos is the use of the persons credibility or character to persuade the audience to follow them. Pathos is the use of appealing to one’s emotions in hopes that they will follow and trust what you are telling them. Lastly, Logos is the use of logic to portray your reasoning in hopes that the audience will