CW: 1/19

Going over the first chapter of Everything's an Argument, a concept that seemed to be somewhat false was the categorization of the different types of arguments. While the text did a good job of organizing and giving examples for what it states are the various types of arguments, it failed to give concrete distinctions between the various types of arguments it states exists. For example it stated their were both arguments to convince and arguments to persuade. However it didn't go into enough depth to enable the reader to find any real distinction between the definitions of these two arguments they both seem to be doing much of the same thing. In the way the text describes an argument to convince as an argument to change a persons opinion and this is inevitably persuading them to think a current way, making it a persuasive argument as well.

On the other hand an aspect of the text that was both insightful and visibly true was the texts dissection of the definitions of logos, pathos, and ethos. Every example of an argument they provided in the chapter incorporated at least one and usually more of these rhetorical aspects in the argument.