Copyright by Gary L. Pullman
Over the centuries, philosophers, especially rhetoricians, including Aristotle, Kenneth Burke, Marshall McLuhan, and Bertrand Russell, among others, have isolated the subjects of human discourse and the principles and techniques of rhetoric, or the art of effective speaking and writing.
In effect, these subjects, principles, and techniques form a model of the way that we, as human beings, see, or interpret, and understand the world and enable us to create a corresponding model of reality while permitting us to modify this model as we learn and understand more and to communicate this continually updated paradigm of reality, just as it lets us comment upon it and our place within the bigger scheme of things, through the arts and sciences as well as ordinary, daily discussions and arguments.
According to Aristotle, everything that can be written or spoken about deals with one of these questions:
- Who?
- What?
- When?
- Where?
- How?
- Why?
To which I add one other:
- How many? or How much?
These questions are related to
- Who?: agent or agency (doer)
- What?: circumstance, event, idea, incident, feeling, object, situation
- When?: moment, era, age
- Where: place
- How?: means, method, process, technique
- Why?: cause, motive, reason, purpose
- How many? (quantity in number) or How much? (quantity in volume)
In drama and narrative diction, these questions relate to
- Who?: character
- What: situation
- When?: setting
- Where?: setting
- How?: various (e. g., genre, dramatic or technique)
- Why?: motive
- How many? or How much?: various (e. g., word count, number of acts or chapters, number of characters, number of subplots)
What can be said or written almost always addresses one of these rhetorical areas:
- Analysis: breaking a whole [e. g., a subject] into its pieces to understand how each piece is related to other pieces and to the whole)
- Argumentation: providing current, reliable, relevant, authoritative, accurate, and purposeful evidence to support a specific claim; in addition, Aristotle states that persuasive argumentation involves three types of appeal: rational (logos), emotional (pathos), and ethical (ethos)
- Causal Analysis: analyzing and presenting the cause or causes that produce an effect or effects; sometimes, the reverse occurs, with the identification of one or more effects followed by the identification and explanation of its or their cause or causes
- Classification: grouping items according to criteria such as common and distinguishing attributes or characteristics; classification is almost always used with division
- Comparison: grouping and considering the similarities between two items; comparison is almost always used with contrast
- Contrast: grouping and considering the differences between two items; contrast is almost always used with comparison
- Definition: distinguishing a member of a group of similar members from the others on the group by identifying the differences between the one and the others: A planet is a heavenly body (class) that orbits a star and is big enough to have enough gravity to force a spherical shape and clear away objects of a similar size near its orbit (differences).
- Description: explaining the appearance of an item
- Division: separating a whole into parts or groups (e. g,, a thesis into points, an essay into paragraphs, an argument into claim and evidence)
- Exemplification: using examples (specific instances or cases) to represent a whole or to indicate a pattern: “toss” is an example of an action verb; the My Lai massacre is an example of a war crime
- Narration: relating, recalling, or reciting, usually chronologically, the incidents or events that, together, convey a story
- Process analysis: identifying and explaining the specific steps to be performed in a prescribed manner in order to accomplish a particular result; sometimes, the analysis includes cautionary statements or warnings, as necessary
The type of essay (e. g., analysis, comparison-contrast, exemplification, process analysis, etc.) often determines both the essay's structure and the types of evidence.
As taught in colleges and universities, argumentative writing is divided into
- an introductory paragraph
- that ends with a thesis sentence, or controversial (arguable) claim, divided into a number of points,
- a number of body paragraphs—one or more for each point in the thesis—each of which is introduced by a topic sentence that identifies the point in the thesis about which the paragraph or section or related paragraphs provides supporting evidence or refutes an opposing argument;
- a concluding paragraph
In constructing, revising, analyzing, or refuting an argument, various types of evidence must be provided. Some types are “stronger,” or more convincing, than other types. On general, these are regarded as strongest to weakest (most convincing to least convincing):
- Verified or established causal (cause-and-effect) evidence (STRONGEST)
- Consensus of expert opinion
- Expert opinion
- Facts (these include, but are not limited to, physical evidence, such as hair or fibers found at crime scenes, or biological evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA)
- Reasons
- Anecdotal evidence (eye-witness evidence, testimonial evidence, or evidence based on personal experience) (WEAKEST)
These questions can also help evaluate arguments:
- Who is making the claim? (A scientist, an engineer, another expert, a man with a topknot who is wearing a white tank top?)
- What is the claim (and its related points, or parts)?
- When was the claim made? (Is it new, old, or between? How long has it been investigated?)
- Where was the claim made? (At a university? In a scientific laboratory? In a national newspaper? Somewhere abroad? In the basement of the claimant's parents' home?)
- How was the claim developed? (Part by part, over a period of time, by various people with little or no expertise, experience, or credibility? As a result of the scientific method? By credible people who have investigated the claim and its parts, or points? By innuendo or by verifiable facts?)
- Why is the claim being made? (What, if anything, does the claimant have to gain by making the claim? Money? Followers? Political advantage? Attention?)
- How many people believe the claim? How many have a solid basis for believing it?
By learning how to construct arguments, people also learn how to refute arguments:
- Identify the thesis, or claim. (The thesis may be implicit, rather than explicitly stated, although, in formal arguments, it is almost always explicitly stated).
- Identify the points, or parts, of the thesis. (A thesis, especially for a complex argument, is likely to consist of or involve several related points.)
- Examine each type of evidence: is it based on a verified or established cause? A consensus of expert opinion? An expert's opinion? Facts? Reasons? Eye-witness evidence, testimonial evidence, or evidence based on personal experience? Consider the evidence as strong or weak, accordingly.
- Research the subject matter if it is unfamiliar to you so that you can gain enough knowledge to determine the validity of claims about the topic. What are recognized, undisputed facts?
- Ask questions: What background (experience) does the person making the claims have? Does he or she have any relevant knowledge and expertise? If so, how much? What do the majority of experts say about the topic and the claims that are being made about it?
- What is the person's purpose? To inform? To entertain? To persuade? To sell something? To gain some sort of personal benefit?
- What sources does the person use? Scientific? Academic? Government? Legal? Are the sources authoritative? Is the person a recognized authority? (Ray Bradbury did not have a degree in science, nor was he an amateur scientist, but he was a recognized science fiction writer and could have taught a college course in writing science fiction [or science fantasy]. However, he was by no means an expert in any of the sciences.)
- Do the sources pass the “CRAPP” test? Are they Current? Relevant? Authoritative? Accurate? What is their Purpose?
- How likely is the possibility (if there is a possibility) of the claim or its associated applications or evidence? Here is an example: Bigfoot exists (claim). He's been seen—several times. He's been photographed! His footprints have been seen—and collected. His fur has been seen—and collected. Eyewitnesses have reported encounters with him—and lived to tell the tale! Footprints and photographs are easily faked. The FBI lab identified alleged Bigfoot fur and skin as those of a deer. Eyewitness testimony (a type of anecdotal evidence) is subject to misinterpretation, faulty memory, distortion, exaggeration, confusion, bias, faulty perception, delusion, and, of course, outright lying. In addition, as geologist and natural science professor Mark Wilson observes, no “biological evidence” has ever been found or authenticated, “no bodies, bones, skin, hairs or DNA.”
Here are a few YouTube videos that refute or debunk some current conspiracy theories:
Moon
landing conspiracy
Collapse
of World Trade Center Towers
Math:
Conspiracy Theories Are Likely to Fail
Subway
Tuna Conspiracy
COVID-19
Conspiracy Theories