HW 2/16

When reading chapter 7 of “everything’s an argument” I was able to understand the three main types of arguments the book was supporting. All three styles, classical oration, rogerian argument, and the toulmin argument, are fairly common strategies to use in rhetorical argument today. However, some of the examples the book used to shed light on the uses of the different arguments didn’t seem to make sense. For example, the book used Fredrick Douglass’ Fourth of July speech as a depiction of a Rogerian style argument. This did not make sense to me because the speech, while offering a different point of view on the Fourth of July, did not set up a context for the argument and didn’t even propose a compromise to an argument. In fact the only argument I could infer out of the speech was, Fourth of July doesn’t hold importance to African Americans. How is this an argument that both sides can compromise and benefit from?

Other than the few various examples, that didn’t make sense, the chapter overall reaffirmed many of my views on good rhetorical arguments. I noticed that all three forms of argument emphasize the notion that the alternative view must be stated and addressed in your argument. I believe this is vitally important to any argument because if you leave out the opposing view it is easy for your audience to assume that you don’t have a rebuttal to the points of that opposition. For example, if a politician made a speech on the benefits of opening the borders for immigration but failed to address some of the potential downsides, how credible would he seem? I also noticed that the three arguments are traditionally set up along the lines of deductive reasoning, with the argument being stated towards the front. However, I liked how the book showed that these arguments could be modified to be arguments of inductive reasoning as well. Due to the fact, deductive reasoning is generally more effective because you guide your audience to a conclusion rather than state the conclusion and then try to convince them.

                The chapter, while informative leaves a few questions unanswered. Why would you stick to one form of an argument when a combination of all three is potentially more effective? What do inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning have to do with the three forms of argument addressed? This concept seems to be just pasted at the beginning of the chapter as a side note.