Everything's an Argument

Chapter 1 opens with examples of political arguments that played out on social media to establish that any expression acts as an argument, from tweets to clothing to greetings. Some arguments are nuanced or inherent, while obvious arguments incorporate claims based upon evidence in order to persuade.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz want to counter negative connotations associated with argumentation and to shift attitudes from seeing the primary goal of any argument as winning to an opportunity for solution-focused discussion. They recognize that the purpose of some arguments is to win, starting their exploration of types of arguments.

The first type of argument discussed is meant to convince and inform. Arguments meant to convince differ from those that persuade in that the former asks the audience to accept the argument to be true while the latter moves past acceptance into action. Most arguments aiming to inform present facts to broaden awareness.

Arguments meant to persuade must be more moving than an argument meant to convince. While many persuasive arguments rely on emotional appeal, the most persuasive arguments use all three rhetorical appeals: to emotion, to logic, and to authority.

Similar are arguments meant to inspire decision-making. These arguments investigate options with the goal of finding consensus. Many topics for these kinds of arguments—such as abortion, immigration, and same-sex marriage—spark controversy across multiple mediums but are too complex for a single side to win. These decision-making arguments can also apply to more mundane situations, such as arguing with oneself over which college major is the best choice.

On the other hand, some arguments seek to explore issues, not to determine a winning side. These arguments draw conclusions from data; reflect, as in a journal or blog; or consider alternative perspectives. Invitational and Rogerian arguments fall under this category. Invitational arguments seek to understand the opposing perspective, while Rogerian arguments seek to find common ground between opponents. Such arguments aim to find truth rather than convince an opponent.

Fifth-century philosopher Aristotle classifies arguments based on time: past, present, and future. Arguments about the past, or forensic arguments, present a perspective on who did what, why they did it, and what the consequences were. These arguments feature prominently in academia and the justice system. For example, the defendant of a speeding ticket may try to convince the judge that the police officer who issued the ticket made a mistake. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz also use the example the federal government investigating General Motors for producing automobiles with ignition switch defects. Both examples make arguments over past occurrences.

Arguments about the future, or deliberative arguments, answer the question of whether something should be done and are often seen in legislature and policy-setting. These arguments make proposals that can sometimes be speculative, such as an argument that banning physical books from higher education will begin the process of synthesizing textual works and all reader annotations together online, a stance based on projections and reasoned guesses.

Arguments about the present, also known as epideictic or ceremonial arguments, examine the status of present society and its causes. These arguments occur at public, formal events such as sermons and graduation speeches and rely on the speaker’s credibility.

Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations categorized arguments based on the kinds of issues being addressed, an approach called stasis theory. Stasis, or status, theory poses questions in sequence that each explore the status of various aspects of the issue to determine the exact point(s) of contention.

The first question asks what happened, developing an argument of fact. These arguments can be proven through reliable evidence. For example, an argument of fact might establish that humans are polluting the ocean using scientific data. The second question asks to define the nature of the issue, developing an argument of definition. Examples of arguments of definition include whether a fetus is considered human and the legal definitions of sexual assault. The third asks for the quality or cause of the issue, developing an argument of evaluation. These arguments establish criteria before measuring something against them. As an example, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include an article that examines a decline in SAT reading scores. This argument of evaluation establishes the criteria of the SAT test before measuring that the majority of test takers do not demonstrate college readiness. The final question asks what should be done, developing a proposal argument. The authors provide the example of a student suggesting a solution to rising student fees. The first three questions provide the understanding necessary to propose the action steps of the final question.

In addition to types of arguments, there are also types of audiences. Intended readers are those individuals whom the speaker expects to address, such as regular readers of a newspaper’s editorial page. Invoked readers are how the speaker imagines readers within the text, such as addressing those editorial readers as ones who wish to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. Real readers are additional groups of people whom the text attracts. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz refer to themselves and this textbook as an example: Their intended readers are students and invoke those who take argumentation seriously within the text.

To appeal to these audiences, Aristotle identified pathos, ethos, and logos as strategies. Pathos, or an emotional appeal, evokes an emotional response from the audience. For example, a description of a bridge collapse can evoke fear about neglected infrastructure in the audience. Ethos, or credibility, appeals to the audience’s sense of trust in the speaker. The same argument may refer to professional engineers. Logos, or appeals to logic, include reasons and evidence. Facts, statistics, and case studies can appeal to the audience’s sense of logic when it comes to investing in infrastructure.

The speaker, the text, the audience, and the surrounding context comprise the rhetorical situation, which includes related social complexities. Strong speakers consider the rhetorical situation to determine kairos, or the most opportune time, place, and way of expressing an argument. To communicate effectively across cultures, one must learn about the culture and gain awareness of one’s own cultural norms.

• Any expression is considered an argument.
• Types of arguments include those intended to convince and inform, to persuade, to make decisions, to understand and explore. In addition, there are arguments of fact, of definition, of evaluation, and proposals.
• Intended readers are the speaker’s target audience. Invoked readers are an audience the speaker reaches unintentionally.
• Speakers appeal to audiences by building ethos (credibility and trust), pathos (emotional connection), and logos (knowledge).

This chapter explores the following question:

• How does a speaker build pathos?
• How does appealing to pathos influence an audience?

Research shows that people often make decisions based on their feelings, which makes appeals to pathos, or emotional appeals, powerful. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz warn not to use emotional appeals thoughtlessly, for they can cause discord between socioeconomic groups.

To illustrate their warning, the authors discuss a speech made by Florida Senator Marco Rubio to the US Senate. In 2014, Rubio went on an off-prompt rant against Cuba in response to Iowan Senator Tom Harkin’s positive remarks about the country. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include excerpts from the speech, showcasing its sarcastic, contemptuous language and underscoring the risk the young senator took against a more experienced colleague. After sharing praise for Rubio’s speech from a blog, the authors recommend watching the speech before agreeing with that praise.

Sometimes emotional appeals establish trust between speaker and audience by projecting deep understanding about an issue. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include an excerpt from a 2005 commencement address by Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple. Jobs recollects founding Apple in a garage, hiring an executive who ultimately fired him, and reemerging with new creative successes such as Pixar. Though these recollections do not constitute an argument, they do establish the depth of Jobs’s experiences, preparing the audience to accept his advice.

Emotional appeals can also help readers empathize with the speaker. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a passage from a professor describing her students’ awkward reaction and internal questioning after she informed them she’s blind at the start of a course. Readers can empathize with the students’ reaction, causing them to confront their own prejudices against blind people.

Emotional appeals persuade when a speaker’s logic does not correspond with the audience’s beliefs. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz comment on an excerpt from Michael Pollan’s New York Times article “An Animal’s Place,” in which Pollan describes his introduction to Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation while eating a steak as analogous to reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin in a 19th-century Southern plantation. Pollan helps his audience open their minds to animal rights by sharing his own preposterous introduction to the topic.

Emotional appeals enhance a strong logical argument when used purposefully; however, they can also work adversely. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz cite an argument that alumni presented to universities about the tribal love instilled at football games. They explain that the speaker’s imagery of the cheering college student turned philanthropist resonates with the audience’s own college experiences, making his argument more effective. The passion behind an argument can convince others to join a speaker’s cause.

Humor, another type of emotional appeal, can relax an audience into acceptance. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz refer to satirical TV shows as examples of humor used in arguments before presenting an excerpt from Ron Rosenbaum’s article “Let Them Eat Fat.” Rosenbaum jokingly counters those on anti-fat diets, discussing the benefits of fatty foods with sensuous language and comparing America’s perspective on fatness to its hostility toward drugs. His humorous treatment of an otherwise droning topic allows him to make his dietary point. Speakers also use humor to address sensitive issues, such as within a eulogy. Former President George W. Bush joked about his intellect at the 2004 Radio and TV Correspondents’ Dinner, breaching the public’s criticism via humor. Some humor also ridicules, such as within The Onion, a satirical newspaper. This kind of humor can easily discredit the speaker if not wielded effectively.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz advise readers to consider how they want their audience to react to their argument before making emotional appeals to evoke it, considering what will ultimately persuade the audience to their purpose. The authors encourage readers to tell a story but caution them to be honest.

• Speakers build pathos through evocative language, purposeful anecdotes, and humor.
• Building pathos influences an audience by gaining their trust and empathy.
• Emotional appeals enhance reasoning and logic.
• Humor also acts as an emotional appeal that relaxes an audience into accepting a claim.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• How does a speaker build ethos?
• How does appealing to ethos influence an audience?

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz assert that American society approaches information skeptically. Those who effectively use an appeal to credibility, or ethos, gain the trust of the skeptics in their audience by establishing genuine credentials. Elon Musk open sourcing his electric vehicle patents and several car manufacturers portraying themselves as environmentally friendly are examples of companies building ethos. Others may use repetition of character-based slogans, such as CNN being the most trusted name in news. The authors also present the nonjudgmental and modern actions of Pope Francis as ethos-building, as he presents himself in a way that even the nonreligious can respect.

Credibility, authority, and noble motives comprise arguments based on character and trust. Credibility comes from likability, relatability, and respect for the audience’s values. Presenting J. K. Rowling’s joking start to her 2008 Harvard commencement speech, the authors emphasize how she immediately puts her audience at ease by breaking the tension over such a momentous occasion.

In addition to humor, presenting oneself as reasonable and relating one’s argument to widely accepted core values can inspire credibility. One way to demonstrate reasonableness is to concede to aspects of an opposing argument. When speakers make such concessions, it shows the thought behind their claims and establishes trust from their audience. Even purposeful use of language, such as using second-person pronouns, speaking colloquially to a younger audience, or speaking formally in a school presentation, can establish credibility, signaling to the audience that the work deserves attention. Visual presentation matters, as well, whether that means including graphics to represent ideas or ensuring an attractive print layout. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz also advise readers to consider how those who may provide future letters of recommendation will remember their work when the time comes.

Speakers establish authoritative ethos by expressing their knowledge and experience related to the subject. To illustrate the significance of authority, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include an excerpt from an article explaining that a president must earn the people’s trust through his actions, words, and image. Personal experience can have a similar effect to credentials, as shown by an excerpt from a woman speaking against nuclear radiation in Utah. The effects of this radiation on her and her family give her perspective authority.

Titles, degrees, and years in a field can also give a voice authority when applied specifically to the subject. Sometimes a writer should explicitly state these credentials, while other times a speaker may have an already trusting audience.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz close the chapter with an example of how audiences can be critical of ethos. They present an essay defending the speaker’s family history against being told to “check [his] privilege” (47). He begins each sentence with “perhaps my privilege…” followed by ways his ancestors worked against adversity. People retaliated against this attempt at ethos, accusing the speaker of naivety, ignorance, and privilege. The authors caution that audiences will consider both knowledge and motives when examining a speaker’s ethos.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz suggest that readers establish credibility in their arguments by displaying outward respect of the audience’s values, identifying common ground, demonstrating relevant knowledge and experience, and being transparent about motives.

• A speaker builds ethos by demonstrating their audience’s character values and establishing their credibility.
• When an audience finds a speaker to be reasonable and authoritative, they are more likely to trust and believe them.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What types of logical arguments can be made?
• How does appealing to logos influence an audience?
• How does a speaker appeal to logos?

The chapter begins with three images that each represent a logical appeal. A photograph of an actor portraying fictional detective Sherlock Holmes represents an audience’s desire for facts to form a reasonable conclusion. A still of the fictional TV character Spock from Star Trek, who can use only reason, not emotion, embodies an audience’s desire for sound logic. A cartoon mocking the common marketing claim that a majority of doctors recommend a product shows the comfort high odds can bring.

Aristotle classifies logical arguments into two types. Artistic proofs, meaning reasoning constructed by the speaker, appeal to common sense. Inartistic proofs, meaning evidence gathered by the speaker, include hard data like facts, statistics, and documents. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz demonstrate both using President Barack Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address. President Obama uses an inartistic proof—a ratio comparing a woman’s salary to that of a man—to open his argument that women’s working conditions need improvement. He continues the argument with artistic proof, providing reasons women deserve equal opportunity.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz emphasize both the persuasive power of and risk associated with facts, as they can be proven or disproven. The Washington Post questioned President Obama’s ratio by examining the source information for disparities and found that the number shared in the speech was picked from several other, less impactful data points. The authors surmise that the president’s speech would have been more convincing had his staff carefully examined the speech’s evidence. They advise readers that their audiences will be similarly critical of logical arguments.

Presenting facts effectively includes consideration and communication of a reliable source. Scholarly arguments present information objectively and dispassionately, as illustrated by the didactic tone in a paper excerpt about the emotional effects of Facebook. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz caution readers to look out for sensationalized information marked by subjective, heated language.

Speakers can manipulate even the coldest facts and statistics to suit their arguments. As shown by the backlash to a map of broadly defined school shootings, audiences examine statistics for source, context, and methodology. Audiences may also have their own interpretations of the statistics presented, as in a tweet criticizing CNN for correcting the map’s report of 74 school shootings to “only” 15 (59).

Surveys, polls, and studies also need close examination for source, context, purpose, and stakeholders. When presented with a study or survey, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz recommend evaluating the information for a reliable number of participants, a representative test group, and randomly selected participants. The wording of poll questions can affect responses too. In one poll, people changed their responses to questions about the rights of homosexual couples when the survey question included word “marriage” (61). The authors finally recommend examining the date of the survey since significant events can shift public opinion. For example, the meltdown of a nuclear power plant in Japan caused a negative response to a previously favored initiative to build more plants in California.

Personal testimonies can also logically support a claim, especially in court and when the audience trusts the speaker. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz use an example of judges determining a man was sexually assaulted by another man based on testimony. They also cite a speaker who defended her use of the word “terrorist” against the Tea Party. She used a narrative of the Tea Party’s focus on their hurt feelings to support her claim that hurt feelings can be expected when an opponent makes a strong argument.

Aside from presenting facts, data, and testimonies, speakers can also appeal to logos through reasoning, or logic. Authors use deductive reasoning when substantiating a claim through a chain of widely accepted premises, or reasons. For example: “All human beings are mortal. Socrates is a human being. Therefore, Socrates is mortal” (63). This syllogism, a type of deductive reasoning, comes to its conclusion by situating the issue at hand—Socrates’s mortality—within the context of a larger, more widely accepted premise that all humans are mortal. In syllogism, the more widely accepted premise is directly stated. An enthymeme, another type of deductive reasoning, implies the assumed premise. For example, the argument that “we’d better cancel the picnic because it’s going to rain” assumes premises like “rain is bad weather for picnics” (65-66). When the implicit assumption doesn’t carry immediate meaning to the audience, speakers must clarify and support these premises.

While American culture values factual evidence along with fairness and equity, other cultures have other values. For example, Chinese culture values authority, while some African cultures value community over individualism. Speakers should consider their audience’s cultural values when presenting a logical argument.

Logical arguments can also follow several structures, such as arguments based on degree, analogies, or precedent. Arguments based on degree place the issue on a spectrum. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present Ayn Rand’s argument that the concept of spiritual slavery is worse than physical slavery as an example, adding that Rand should add evidence to support this claim. Other examples of arguments based on degree include benefits outweighing risks and “better now than later” reasoning.

Arguments based on analogy make comparisons to explain ideas. For example, a speaker may compare blaming teachers for poor student results to blaming soldiers for poor war results. Arguments based on precedent compare an existing situation to justify their idea. For example, a speaker could argue that Oregon needs to permit self-service gas stations because other states permit them. Other arguments based on precedent include a blog post arguing that a certain strain of the Ebola virus will stay around, unlike previous cases, based on this strain’s differences from previous strains.

• Aristotle classifies logical arguments into two types: artistic proofs, or reasoning, and inartistic proofs, or evidence.
• While powerful when wielded carefully, hard evidence can be manipulated and disproven.
• Speakers build logos through reasoning and evidence like personal testimonies, facts, and data.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What are fallacies of argument?
• What is the significance of fallacies to a speaker? To an audience?

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz define fallacies as “argumentative moves flawed by their very nature or structure” (71). Fallacies interfere with civil discourse but can be persuasive, so they are used often. The authors express their desire to share common fallacies so readers can identify and avoid them.

Fallacies of emotional arguments include scare tactics, either/or choices, slippery slopes, overly sentimental appeals, and bandwagon appeals. These fallacies are powerful but can delegitimize an argument.

Politicians and marketers often use scare tactics to motivate their audience into action. Fear causes people to act irrationally, but they will also ignore the warning if it is repeated too often, as happened with antismoking campaigns.

People use the either/or fallacy to divert attention from alternative solutions. For example, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations argued that Israel can be either a state for all or a state for only Jewish people. This simplification ignores that Muslims can become full citizens in Israel.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz define slippery slope arguments as those that exaggerate negative consequences. Unlike reasonable preventions, such as a parent correcting a misbehaving child, these arguments become scare tactics. For example, one speaker argues that the National Rifle Association (NRA) uses slippery slope arguments to hamper gun restrictions. Rather than determine a middle ground, the NRA would like people to believe that if any legislation is introduced, the worst will happen.

Overly sentimental appeals leverage the audience’s compassion as a distraction from facts. For instance, publishing a human interest story about the poor can villainize those in a higher socioeconomical class without addressing the entire situation.

Bandwagon appeals encourage people to do the same as others. A common example is this parent favorite: “if everyone else jumps off a cliff (or a railroad bridge or the Empire State Building), you will too?” (75). Though seemingly harmless, these fallacies can obscure the complexity of some issues.

Fallacies of ethical argument use unethical means to gain their audience’s trust. These include appeals to false authority, dogmatism, ad hominem arguments, and stacking the deck. Appeals to false authority provide only the authority of the speaker or another authority to support a claim. Politicians often use the US Constitution inaccurately as an authority, and religious people present their religious texts as a false authority to those who don’t believe. The authors advise readers to rely on trusted sources but with a critical eye.

Speakers express dogmatism when they refuse to acknowledge any other position as viable and believe their claim to be self-evident. The authors provide an excerpt telling Germans they don’t have the right to smoke due to its harm to German society as an example. Readers should be wary of arguments dismissing a topic or idea because of its offensive nature.

When people attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself, this is an ad hominem, or “to the man” (78), argument. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz clarify that this fallacy also extends to women, providing an example of criticism of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s religious beliefs when she delayed an Obamacare mandate. Bemoaning the good guy versus bad guy effect of this fallacy, the authors emphasize the significance of credibility within an argument and in society.

Speakers stack the deck by presenting only their side without acknowledging additional perspectives or evidence. The documentary Super Size Me embodies this fallacy because it shows only the effects of eating without exercise rather than both options. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz criticize documentaries from Michael Moore and Dinesh D’Souza for using this fallacy prevalently and warn readers that using this fallacy can discredit their arguments.

In addition to fallacies of emotion and authority, fallacies of logical arguments present invalid, insufficient, and unreasonable support. Recognizing these fallacies can prove challenging due to skillful language and manipulation of logic. Fallacies of logical argument include hasty generalizations, faulty casualties, begging the question, equivocations, non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and faulty analogies.

When an argument draws a conclusion from insufficient information, it uses a hasty generalization. Hasty generalizations believe that because one thing is true, then it must apply to all other things. An example would be determining all Fiats are worthless because one Fiat breaks down. People often make hasty generalizations about groups of people, such as labeling women as bad drivers or men as messy. The authors advise readers to support claims with sufficient evidence and to qualify any generalizations.

Faulty casualties, also known as faulty assumptions, post hoc, or ergo propter hoc, assume causation based on insubstantial connection. For example, a man sued Coors, claiming he didn’t finish his novel due to their beer. Sometimes what sounds reasonable, such as an elderly person breaking a hip from falling, proves to be incorrect. Doctors now realize the broken hip precedes the fall. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz cite an article in which the speaker claims that internet usage decreases intelligence. A senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies challenges this claim, claiming instead that internet tools lead to better problem-solving skills. Neither claim currently has substantial supportive evidence.

Arguments that go nowhere are described as begging the question or circular reasoning. These claims are supported by the claims themselves. For example, a person who claims they couldn’t have done something dishonest because they’re an honest person is using circular reasoning.

Some speakers use equivocations, or half truths, as arguments. For example, someone who plagiarized a paper may claim she wrote the paper herself because she copied it by hand, leveraging the double meaning of the word “wrote.” Omission of information also falls under the equivocation category, like Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen not turning over all relevant emails to the House of Representatives in 2014.

Other arguments, known as non sequiturs, don’t follow logic. Children often use these arguments against their parents when they want something, claiming their parents don’t love them because they won’t give the child what they want. Some speakers will skip over a chain of reasoning, such as suggesting colleges should operate online only because of rising tuition costs. Some politicians use non sequitur arguments to avoid, such as when Mitt Romney discussed his personal character when asked if he would keep his positions conservative in the 2011 CNBC Republican primary presidential debate.

Those who use the straw man fallacy refute a false opposing argument that’s easy to argue against. For example, in response to an article about climate change, political commentator Charles Krauthammer argues that science cannot be settled as it constantly changes with new evidence. He challenges a misconstrued definition of the term “settled science” rather than challenging the science itself.

A red herring distracts from the argument by abruptly shifting the argument to something irrelevant. Some will argue that the fact Vikings moved due to increasingly harsh weather conditions proves that climate change has always naturally occurred, which is irrelevant to the current global warming situation. People also tend to identify red herrings as means to discredit opposing arguments.

While some comparisons can elucidate ideas, others can inaccurately draw parallels. The authors share an argument in which individuals worried about increasing US debt falsely compare the national debt to that of a single family. The argument asserts that America doesn’t have to repay its debt in full and that the debt is mostly money owed to itself, not to others.

• Fallacies are flawed persuasive rhetorical strategies.
• Fallacies delegitimize an argument and can obscure the complexity of an issue.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is a rhetorical analysis?
• How does one write a rhetorical analysis?

Rhetorical analysis is the examination of how a text functions. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz analyze the 2013 Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial, “God Made a Farmer,” that includes photographs of rural American workers narrated by a 1978 Paul Harvey radio broadcast. The authors explain how the commercial appeals to emotion through its simple, pastoral images and hard realities of a rural livelihood contrasted against the media fanfare of the Super Bowl. This contrast and its sentimental effect on football fans especially appealed to American farmers, who increased Dodge sales immediately.

In addition to examining function, rhetorical analysis also considers context, such as the argument’s impact and implications. In his article “So God Made a Black Farmer Too,” blogger Edgy Deloch-Hughes criticizes the Dodge commercial’s lack of diverse farming population representation. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz advise readers to look closely at texts and consider how and why elements were or were not included.

Writing a rhetorical analysis includes analyzing how well an argument persuades the intended audience. Arguments present themselves in many forms, such as advertisements, songs, and political cartoons. A rhetorical analysis explores elements of argumentation, including the purpose, audience, appeal, type, author background and motivation, authority, support, claims, context, organization, language, and style. The authors advise readers to explain how each element enhances or hinders the argument and to quote the argument, providing evidence for each conclusion drawn. A rhetorical analysis is also an argument of its own.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz first recommend analyzing the argument’s purpose: Is it intended to sell, to convince voters, to advocate, or to achieve some other goal? Some arguments make their purpose immediately clear while others, especially in advertising, hide their intent. Next, the audience should determine the author. US federal law requires political candidates to approve political advertisements so voters know whether to affiliate its contents with the candidate or not. Once the author is identified, the audience should research the author and publisher to determine their goals, policies, and funding.

Knowing the target audience allows a rhetorical analysis to determine the argument’s success. Arguments may not appeal to the same audience in the same way; their appeals depend on their purposes. A flyer advocating against drinking and driving in a college dorm and a billboard for beer may both target college students, but they will build different moods using disparate elements. Arguments may also establish authority through varied means, such as showing respect or shared values. One argument gives respect for the struggles of white women in the workplace while also highlighting the additional obstacles Black women face. Another expresses desire for reality in advertising in hopes that the audience values the same. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz also share a criticism of Cadillac’s 2014 Winter Olympics commercial that calls out the company’s portrayal of the American dream as overworking to buy expensive things as tasteless.

Once a rhetorical analysis identifies the audience, it can examine how the argument appeals to that audience. Arguments based on emotion, or pathos, can try to distract their audiences from logic to sway them toward their purpose. Emotional appeal can also enhance a logically strong argument, such as appealing to fear when persuading people not to drink and drive. The authors advise readers to pay attention to the images paired with text and to analyze whether the emotional appeal succeeds. Presenting an excerpt from Ron Rosenbaum’s “Let Them Eat Fat,” the authors ask whether his prolific use of imagery convinces or distracts from his scientific claim. A rhetorical analysis should consider language and evoked emotions to determine whether they support the argument’s claim.

Rhetorical analysis also examines an argument’s trustworthiness by considering the speaker’s background, evidence used, acknowledgement of other perspectives, and documented sources. An example from Norwegian Prime Minister Jen Stoltenberg evokes ethical ideals to comfort Norwegians after a terrorist attack. A teacher and parent writes a blog about elementary-age homework that establishes ethos by sharing that he’s conducted research by reading parent interviews, emphasizing his close relationship to the topic, and pointing out the unnecessary intensity of some parental responses to homework to assure his audience of his reasonableness. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz warn readers to be careful with extreme language, whether passionate or overly technical, to avoid alienating audiences.

Rhetorical analysis of logical arguments requires evaluating the validity of a claim based on the arguments’ support. A thesis, or a single sentence establishing the claims within an argument, sometimes makes this easier, but not all arguments will have one. Often, longer pieces make a series of claims, each supported by their own evidence. Rhetorical analysis examines these claims individually and as a whole for validity.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present excerpts from John McWhorter’s piece in Time magazine, in which he first claims that Spike Lee erroneously determined that white people moving to a previously Black neighborhood was an injustice, then later expands his claim to add that Lee would be quick to label white people’s attempts at respecting Black culture as appropriation. The authors advise readers to evaluate the evidence for each claim carefully for quality, accuracy, clarity of presentation, and citations; they also emphasize the need to personally evaluate source material as people increasingly turn toward the internet rather than a library where a qualified librarian developed the collection.

Rhetorical analysis also examines the arrangement of arguments and use of media within them. Aristotle classifies the structure of an argument into two parts: statement and proof. How these two parts come together depends on each unique argument. Some may critique absences within an argument, such as not addressing feasibility within a proposal. Those analyzing rhetorically should pay attention to the details of presentation within an argument, including transitions, headings, source citations, images, presentation type, and tone. Some arguments may be structured nontraditionally or may leave the audience to determine part of the argument. Others, like the “God Made a Farmer” commercial, present as something that belies their actual purpose—to sell.

Finally, rhetorical analysis examines an argument’s style, or its language and tone. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present an example from the opening of an argument that lists productive attributes of a population before setting apart the descriptor “unemployed” as a stark juxtaposition (102). Another example mocks the decline in rigor of university courses by parodying the formal tone and language of a grading rubric but including ridiculous criteria.

Style informs readers of the argument’s type; it also sets expectations and conditions the audience’s response. Sherman Alexie discusses the response of straight men to National Basketball Association player Jason Collins’s announcement that he’s gay. Alexie’s argument uses a series of parallel sentences to create a long paragraph that builds up to Jason Collins being a “highly attractive dude,” as Alexie jokes in the following single sentence paragraph (103). Those analyzing for style should consider formality, humor, use of language, and visual components. The authors emphasize the significance of style in both argumentation and rhetorical analysis.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a guide to writing rhetorical analysis:

• Finding a Topic: First, determine a topic by looking in editorial pages for an argument to analyze:
• Researching Your Topic: Next, research the author’s credentials, any sources of funding, the publisher, and the argument’s context.
• Formulating a Claim: When developing the rhetorical analysis, formulate a working claim that can be amended as the analysis deepens. Claims may explore the argument’s effect, purpose, audience, appeals, and rhetorical elements but should not address whether the speaker agrees or disagrees with the argument.
• Preparing a Proposal: If asked to prepare a proposal for a rhetorical analysis, readers should include a copy of the text being analyzed, the working claim, the rhetorical elements of focus, information intended for research, a target audience, and expected challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: When determining the presentation of a rhetorical analysis, the authors recommend considering format, medium, and visuals.
• Thinking About Organization: When organizing the analysis, include basic information about and a summary of the text, then address its context, make a claim about its effectiveness, analyze how the rhetorical elements function, provide evidence for each section of the analysis, and acknowledge potential counterarguments.
• Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response: If possible, a peer evaluation can be helpful. The peer should examine whether the claim addressing rhetorical effectiveness is significant, whether it includes rhetorical elements, and whether the author of the text being analyzed would consider the claim serious criticism. When evaluating evidence, the peer should consider its sufficiency, explanation, appropriateness, source, and smooth integration. For organization and style, consider whether the organization makes sense, if transitions are effective, if the style is appropriate to the audience, if any sentences can be improved, the length of the paragraphs, and word choice. Finally, check spelling and grammar, verify any names, and review formatting.

• A rhetorical analysis examines how a text functions, including its context and how the speaker persuades an audience toward their purpose through appeals, style, and structure.
• To write a rhetorical analysis, analyze the text’s purpose and audience; how the speaker builds ethos, pathos, and logos; the validity of claims and evidence; the arrangement of the text; and its style.