The Sonnets and Much Ado About Nothing are two of William Shakespeare’s works that explore the deceptive nature of appearances as a way of distorting reality. Shakespeare illustrates how appearances are disingenuous and how they lead to misconstrued thoughts within relationships. In Shakespeare’s Sonnets, particularly sonnet 93, the speaker addresses the conflict between his lover’s physical appearance and inner being. Much Ado About Nothing seeks to demonstrate how deception occurs when false appearances are used as a way of twisting the truth. Both of Shakespeare’s famous works explore how appearances are used merely as a means of deception, by having sonnet 93 focusing on physical appearances, and Much Ado About Nothing examining false appearances.
Concept Of fallacious arguments and analysis of fallacious arguments in the movie Twelve Angry-Men :- Fallacy is a misconception which results from incorrect reasoning. According to traditional accounts fallacy is a pattern of bad reasoning which appears to be a pattern of good reasoning. Some other researchers define a fallacy an argument which is not good. Basically we can divide fallacy into two parts namely informal fallacy and formal fallacy. Informal fallacy is a misconception because of its form and its content.
Although Bird’s essay may seem like a sound argument, fallacies in her essay distort the argument. Throughout the essay, fallacies such as oversimplification, bandwagon, and red herring can be found. Oversimplification is known to be the most common fallacy used. This fallacy is when the writer leaves out information that is important to the argument. Bird is guilty of oversimplification in her essay.
What if the protagonist resolves the conflict through the qualities that are usually not found in classical hero? This literary device, known as the ‘anti-hero’, is employed by writers to describe protagonists who are not standard pure and true literary heroes. At the same time, the protagonist may possess some traits of characters that are usually visible in villains. The writers often deliberately create anti-heroes and emphasize their flaws to add some dramatic unexpected
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences. Smart also discusses how act-Utilitarianism is often associated with hedonism, and that
According to the Nizkor Project a person can substitute a claim intended to create a sense of pity for evidence found in an argument (Nizkor). This fallacy is known as an Appeal to Pity. The arguer appeals to an audiences feelings in a sympathetic way. This appeal is also known as “argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument.” (Logically Fallacious) An Appeal to Pity attempts to sway someone using emotions versus using actual evidence. This argument is based on a mistaken belief; because when we are in our emotional state our responses to certain situations are not necessarily the best guide to the truth.
Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” In the case of William Shakespeare’s The Comedy of Errors, there are many questions raised and very few answered. One of the central questions, however, is how the actions of other people affect one’s identity. The way Shakespeare changes the behaviors of confused characters in reaction to their environment and displays their feelings to subtly suggest an answer to this question further develops the meaning of the work as a whole that mistaken identity can cause more than confusion. The conflict is first presented early on when Syracusan Antipholus mistakes Dromio of Ephesus for his counterpart. This being only one error, confusion is its only effect.
Paragraph after paragraph, sentence after sentence, he wrote in parallel grammatical structures that both reiterated and explained his point. In a sentence towards the start of the passage he used multiple parallel structures, first, “The ruin of another will produce no profit to him who has not discernment to mark his advantage, courage to seize, and activity to prove it;” then, “but the cold malignity of envy may be exerted in a torpid and quiescent state, amidst the gloom of stupidity, in the coverts of cowardice.” The sentence included parallelism first in the form of a repeated noun with verb, then proposition with noun, and displayed the variety of ways in which envy can come to reality. In describing the events that lead to a person realizing how truly evil envy is, he used anaphora, and stated, “When he […] find himself pursued […] when he hears the misfortunes of …” This repetitive description of the tragedies caused by envy emphasizes the number of forms that it can take, and leads the reader towards a view that is in alignment with the writers’ intended
“The Eyes Have It” concludes with the notion that the English vocabulary once ultimately registering it, can be quite strange. Irony is used by New Criticism as a literary device to give the literature a sense of complexity and deviation. As seen in Texts and Contexts, one of the main characteristics that instills effective work in New Criticism is the ability to be complex, even when seeming simple (Lynn 55). In New Criticism, irony is used as a figure of speech where the speaker 's implication is partially said and partially not said, almost making the reading subjective. The two statements that the speaker have said, and not said are usually in contrast of eachother.
Center to Foucauldian analysis is the idea that “the purpose of criticism is to analyze the work through its structure, its architecture, its intrinsic form and the play of its internal relationships.” (Foucault 1980:102) and therefore avoids biographical views for being inaccurate. Frequently critics witness works from the same author that is drastically different from one another and makes it hard to believe that they are all works of the same author, thus a biographical approach is insufficient in dealing with them rising the question that if it’s the background of work and its author that led to the creation of a certain work then why two works that are not historically that much apart show different and sometimes opposite forms. Based
“Rhetorical Mode” is just a fancy way of saying “the way the author presents the subject.” Rhetorical Mode is related to organization and structure as well as to rhetorical strategies. Inductive, Deductive, Abductive, practical, and enthymeme are multiple types of Argument. An enthymeme is an argument that doesn’t give you enough information between the thesis and the conclusion. Analogous argument sets up a direct comparison between two things in order to prove a certain thesis. Abductive explanation uses its conclusion to explain its thesis.