Getting to Know the Vocabulary

Bluster (p. 44):  To blow in loud, violent gusts, as the wind during a storm.

Lurk (p. 44):  To lie in wait, as in ambush.

Cinch (p. 44): A sure thing; a certainty.

Drift (p. 45):  To wander from a set course or point of attention; stray.

Chaplain (p. 45):  A member of the clergy who conducts religious services for an institution, such as a prison or hospital or is connected with a royal court or an aristocratic household.

Tarry (p. 48):  To delay or be late in going, coming, or doing.

Banjo (p. 48): A usually fretted stringed instrument having a narrow neck and a hollow circular body with a covering of plastic or stretched skin on which the bridge rests.

Quibble (p. 51): To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

Perk (p. 52): To regain or cause to regain one's good spirits or liveliness.

Chysanthemum (p. 40): Any of numerous, mostly Eurasian plants of the genus Chrysanthemum in the composite family, many of which are cultivated as ornamentals for their showy radiate flower heads.

A Skillful and Strict Clutter Family

            Having just begun the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, I found it very interesting to observe the thorough descriptions Capote makes of each individual in the family. Beginning with Mr. Clutter, Capote uses narration and exposition to present the characters and depict their main traits. I can predict that the family unit will be very important in this book, since Capote spends the first notable section of the book describing the relationship between the generations in the family and how this affects the environment in the house. For example, Capote states, “The Rupp family were Roman Catholics, the Clutters, Methodists—a fact that should in itself be sufficient to terminate whatever fancies she and this boy might have of some day marrying” (p. 8). I can relate this to families in the early 1900s and even some today, which uphold their religious traditions to high that they do not allow their heirs to marry someone who follows another religion. Despite this, Nancy still keeps the ring Bobby gave her as a symbol of her relationship.

            It is important to note that the Clutters are a very self-sufficient family and have learned how to deal with their own problems without the help of anyone else. Capote points this out when he declares, “Other than a housekeeper who came in on weekdays, the Clutters employed no household help…” (p. 9). It is impressive to observe how this fact allows the writer to continue the story by highlighting Nancy’s main skills, which are not few. The interesting part is that she does not brag about her abilities. This does not surprise me since the people who know they are very talented and have a high self-esteem do not need to go around bragging and forcing everyone to realize how good they are. With Mr. Capote’s fantastic cooking, architectonic, and designing skills accompanied by Nancy’s academic, riding, and artistic skills, the Clutter family has a very solid base from which to begin dreaming of a prosperous family. The point is, why does Capote give us such a detailed description of the family? Do the hunters from Oklahoma symbolize the beginning of a violent life?

 

 

A Great Controversy

            British rule in India has been for long a very controversial topic since it has brought in opinions from all political parties and has caused extended discussions of British duty in that country. The speech by Winston Churchill Our Duty in India is very well-written and very persuasive. His attack on the Socialist Party and on their ideals with what appears to be credible evidence adds profoundness to his perspective on British rule in India. At the beginning of the speech, Churchill starts to propose several questions crammed into a single one. The many questions fallacy is present when he states, “What spectacle could be more strange, more monstrous in its perversity, than to see the Viceroy and the high officials and agents of the Crown in India labouring with all their influence and authority to unite and weave together into a confederacy all the forces adverse and hostile to our rule in India?” This allows him to continue his speech giving arguments that appear to answer all the questions he proposed, when he is only answering one or two of them.

            Another fallacy that I depicted in the speech was misinterpreting the evidence. This type of fallacy is used when Churchill declares, “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” Here the premise and the examples given fail to lead to the conclusion. None of the proofs can guarantee that the British government cannot come to an agreement with Gandhi. Finally, a complex cause is used when he states, “This wonderful fact is due to the guidance and authority of a few thousands of British officials responsible to Parliament who have for generations presided over the development of India.” Churchill shifts his argument temporarily from blaming the Socialists for their lack of authority to state that the main and almost only reason why India is currently is good shape is because of the loyal British soldiers (obeying Conservative orders) in India. Churchill provides solid arguments that are very convincing to the audience and through his effective use of fallacies, is able to assert certain ideas and draw conclusions that seem to be the only correct ones.

 

 

Depicting Fallacies

                Not only speeches contain fallacies, some essays also do. This is the case in Shooting an Elephant, an essay that apparently tells a relatively simple story, but if analyzed thoroughly, contains several types of fallacies that persuade the reader and make him sympathize with the protagonist. Starting with an appeal to popularity, it is interesting to observe the way in which Orwell uses rhetoric in a way that is not direct, but through his characters. An example is when the protagonist states, “As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so.” The protagonist is assuming that since he is a police officer, that fact makes him an automatic target. His proof fails to lead to the conclusion.

             In addition, Orwell uses tautology to further make the audience take the standpoint he wants them to. This technique is used when he states, “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it.” This statement is just repeating itself two times. The proof is the conclusion, only paraphrased. Therefore, it is a fallacy. As you can see, the apparently naïve essay has a lot of rhetoric in it which actually works. At the end of the essay, I sympathized with the protagonists feelings and understood what he was going through. Lastly, misinterpreting the evidence is another fallacy that works extremely well in this text. When the protagonist is analyzing the situation, he thinks, “It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant — it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery.” The example has very little to do with the actual situation. Although it seems like an effective simile, it actually causes the audience to misinterpret the evidence as be persuaded by the character to make one think that killing the elephant is a very bad idea. Fallacies are crucial in speeches and I found it very interesting to see the effect they have in essays. The subtleness of how they are placed in the essay makes the audience be persuaded without noticing it.

 

 

Hidden Fallacies

            Most, if not all, of the greatest speeches in history contain fallacies in them. Although fallacies are considered as a sort of foul in rhetoric, they are very useful in some cases to persuade. In his famous speech at Kingsley Hall, Gandhi uses fallacies in a very effective manner. At first, it is very hard to spot them, since they are hidden in his complex use of logic in the speech. For example, the speech contains the many questions fallacy where Gandhi states, “Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules.” In this sentence, Gandhi combines several questions about the same topic but that could be answered in different ways. Instead of doing this, he establishes one conclusion that seems to cover them all. This allows him to cover an entire topic and answer some of the questions with the greatest controversies in very little time.

           Another example of a fallacy used is the fallacy of antecedent. This is present when he declares, “It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being….” Gandhi concludes that it is not a blind law because it has never been so it will never be. The use of this fallacy contributes to the persuasiveness of the speech since it seems as if the statement was completely true and inarguable, but it just contains a well-used fallacy. Finally, the use of a hasty generalization contributes to a speech which is delivering an opinion, but which appears to be stating an absolute fact. This type of fallacy is used when he states, “…Whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.” There is no sufficient evidence that the acceptance of divine authority makes life’s journey easier, but in this statement it is stated as if it had all the evidence in the world. It is truly impressive to depict the diverse use of fallacies in this speech, since you can realize that even individuals like Gandhi, who appear to be talking straight from their hearts, actually use manipulative techniques such as these. How sneaky!

 

 

Analyzing the Counterpart

                Not only is it important to know how to use rhetoric in your favor, but it is also crucial to identify when people are using rhetoric against you. An individual who favors extremes will not receive much support, since he will demonstrate that he is clearly more interested in his personal benefit than in reaching a conclusion that favors the audience as well. This is an example of an individual that lacks rhetorical virtue, which is one of the key traits an effective rhetorician has to have. The best move to make is to establish a stance that is right in the middle of the two extremes. That way, neither of the two can attack you because of your position. A person who uses this technique can be considered trustworthy and reliable. On the other hand, a person who has a very defined position, but presents it in a very radical or very ambiguous manner, is not to be trusted and should be treated with extreme caution.

 

            Seeming to be disinterested is one of the best strategies in order to get the audience’s confidence. When the audience begins to think that the choices you are proposing benefit him, then he will start to trust you more and be more vulnerable to persuasion. In addition, it is very important to analyze the desire of the person to know all the aspects of a certain situation in order to make well-informed decisions and make efficient choices. An individual who, under any circumstance whatsoever, gives the same opinion, will not be very effective in persuading the audience. As Heinrichs states, “The practically wise person sizes up the problem before answering it” (p. 181). Demosntrating that desire to be engaged in the situation and wanting to thoroughly comprehend the problem can lead to and establishment of a relation between you and the audience. This relation will create a bond, which is vital to be able to manipulate them and be able to get them to agree with you.

 

 

Getting to Know the Rules of Rhetoric

            Logic and rhetoric are two different things. While logic tries to prove that something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, rhetoric is used to provide choices from which the audience can choose and try to make them agree with your proposals. Reaching a consensus is the best way to win an argument, since it makes the audience think that what they have chosen will only benefit them and that you are just a path to their well-being. Meanwhile, only using logic in an argument can result in fighting. Fighting is one of the only rules there is in rhetoric. Although rhetoric is very flexible when it comes to rules, it has certain suggestions that can help assure a better argument, at least from your side.

                I found it interesting to see the influence that deliberative speech has in an audience. To describe this point, Heinrichs declares, "It's okay to use sermonizing, demonstrative rhetoric in a deliberative argument to get the audience on his side, but then the persuader should instantly switch to the future tense" (p. 163). If you only talk about values and guilt, then your whole proposal will seem to be based only on the problems of the present, instead of proposing solutions for the future. Also, threatening or humiliating your opponent demonstrates a lack of virtue in rhetoric by that individual. I realized that most people tend to do this in a discussion, since they think ridiculing their opponent will help them gain the audience’s support. Sometimes it does. But this technique should only be used in extremely urgent cases when the counterpart directly and explicitly attacks you. However, these types of aggressive approaches will eventually lead to a stalemate in which neither part will get their point across and will not be able to reach a consensus. Attacking the other part in such a way will only build up anger and infuriate both parts. Therefore, neither one will win the argument. On the contrary, providing the audience with a choice allows them to consider various possibilities and probably you will be able to guide them to the one you feel is more convenient. Finally, there are times when certain topics become inarguable. Debating these topics is useless, since there is no way to win the argument. Be careful with rhetoric because the fact that is has very few established rules, there are many ways in which it can backfire you is not used effectively.

 

 

An Inspiring Victory Speech

       Barack Obama’s Victory speech, just after he was elected President of the United States for a second term, was very inspiring and used rhetoric to transmit the message he wanted and reassured his followers that their decision was the best one. Despite this, Obama uses certain fallacies in order to persuade the audience that the United States is in its best moment and with his leadership, it will achieve even more than what is has in the past. Obama declared that if everyone worked together and carried out their duties, then there would be big recognitions and successful moments awaiting them. The premise is not necessarily true, since nothing guarantees that hard work means there are excellent things waiting for you at the end of the path. Obama guarantees this. In addition, Obama’s excellent use of deliberative speech and establishing his verb tense in the future gives choices to the audience, which certainly supports the ones Obama wants them to. Obama’s clever use of rhetoric made his victory speech a very influential and powerful one.