rhetorical choices in an argumentative essay

How to Write the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay (With Example)

November 27, 2023

how to write AP Lang rhetorical analysis essay example

Feeling intimidated by the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay? We’re here to help demystify. Whether you’re cramming for the AP Lang exam right now or planning to take the test down the road, we’ve got crucial rubric information, helpful tips, and an essay example to prepare you for the big day. This post will cover 1) What is the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay? 2) AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric 3) AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis: Sample Prompt 4) AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example 5)AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example: Why It Works

What is the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay?

The AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay is one of three essays included in the written portion of the AP English Exam. The full AP English Exam is 3 hours and 15 minutes long, with the first 60 minutes dedicated to multiple-choice questions. Once you complete the multiple-choice section, you move on to three equally weighted essays that ask you to synthesize, analyze, and interpret texts and develop well-reasoned arguments. The three essays include:

Synthesis essay: You’ll review various pieces of evidence and then write an essay that synthesizes (aka combines and interprets) the evidence and presents a clear argument. Read our write up on How to Write the AP Lang Synthesis Essay here.

Argumentative essay: You’ll take a stance on a specific topic and argue your case.

Rhetorical essay: You’ll read a provided passage, then analyze the author’s rhetorical choices and develop an argument that explains why the author made those rhetorical choices.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric

The AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay is graded on just 3 rubric categories: Thesis, Evidence and Commentary, and Sophistication . At a glance, the rubric categories may seem vague, but AP exam graders are actually looking for very particular things in each category. We’ll break it down with dos and don’ts for each rubric category:

Thesis (0-1 point)

There’s nothing nebulous when it comes to grading AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay thesis. You either have one or you don’t. Including a thesis gets you one point closer to a high score and leaving it out means you miss out on one crucial point. So, what makes a thesis that counts?

Make sure your thesis argues something about the author’s rhetorical choices. Making an argument means taking a risk and offering your own interpretation of the provided text. This is an argument that someone else might disagree with.
A good test to see if you have a thesis that makes an argument. In your head, add the phrase “I think that…” to the beginning of your thesis. If what follows doesn’t logically flow after that phrase (aka if what follows isn’t something you and only you think), it’s likely you’re not making an argument.
Avoid a thesis that merely restates the prompt.
Avoid a thesis that summarizes the text but does not make an argument.

Evidence and Commentary (0-4 points)

This rubric category is graded on a scale of 0-4 where 4 is the highest grade. Per the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis rubric, to get a 4, you’ll want to:

Include lots of specific evidence from the text. There is no set golden number of quotes to include, but you’ll want to make sure you’re incorporating more than a couple pieces of evidence that support your argument about the author’s rhetorical choices.
Make sure you include more than one type of evidence, too. Let’s say you’re working on your essay and have gathered examples of alliteration to include as supporting evidence. That’s just one type of rhetorical choice, and it’s hard to make a credible argument if you’re only looking at one type of evidence. To fix that issue, reread the text again looking for patterns in word choice and syntax, meaningful figurative language and imagery, literary devices, and other rhetorical choices, looking for additional types of evidence to support your argument.
After you include evidence, offer your own interpretation and explain how this evidence proves the point you make in your thesis.
Don’t summarize or speak generally about the author and the text. Everything you write must be backed up with evidence.
Don’t let quotes speak for themselves. After every piece of evidence you include, make sure to explain your interpretation. Also, connect the evidence to your overarching argument.

Sophistication (0-1 point)

In this case, sophistication isn’t about how many fancy vocabulary words or how many semicolons you use. According to College Board , one point can be awarded to AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis essays that “demonstrate sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation” in any of these three ways:

Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer’s rhetorical choices.
Explaining the purpose or function of the passage’s complexities or tensions.
Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.

Note that you don’t have to achieve all three to earn your sophistication point. A good way to think of this rubric category is to consider it a bonus point that you can earn for going above and beyond in depth of analysis or by writing an especially persuasive, clear, and well-structured essay. In order to earn this point, you’ll need to first do a good job with your thesis, evidence, and commentary.

Focus on nailing an argumentative thesis and multiple types of evidence. Getting these fundamentals of your essay right will set you up for achieving depth of analysis.
Explain how each piece of evidence connects to your thesis.
Spend a minute outlining your essay before you begin to ensure your essay flows in a clear and cohesive way.
Steer clear of generalizations about the author or text.
Don’t include arguments you can’t prove with evidence from the text.
Avoid complex sentences and fancy vocabulary words unless you use them often. Long, clunky sentences with imprecisely used words are hard to follow.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis: Sample Prompt

The sample prompt below is published online by College Board and is a real example from the 2021 AP Exam. The prompt provides background context, essay instructions, and the text you need to analyze. For sake of space, we’ve included the text as an image you can click to read. After the prompt, we provide a sample high scoring essay and then explain why this AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis essay example works.

Suggested time—40 minutes.

(This question counts as one-third of the total essay section score.)

On February 27, 2013, while in office, former president Barack Obama delivered the following address dedicating the Rosa Parks statue in the National Statuary Hall of the United States Capitol building. Rosa Parks was an African American civil rights activist who was arrested in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Read the passage carefully. Write an essay that analyzes the rhetorical choices Obama makes to convey his message.

In your response you should do the following:

Respond to the prompt with a thesis that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices.
Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning.
Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
Demonstrate an understanding of the rhetorical situation.
Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example

In his speech delivered in 2013 at the dedication of Rosa Park’s statue, President Barack Obama acknowledges everything that Parks’ activism made possible in the United States. Telling the story of Parks’ life and achievements, Obama highlights the fact that Parks was a regular person whose actions accomplished enormous change during the civil rights era. Through the use of diction that portrays Parks as quiet and demure, long lists that emphasize the extent of her impacts, and Biblical references, Obama suggests that all of us are capable of achieving greater good, just as Parks did.

Although it might be a surprising way to start to his dedication, Obama begins his speech by telling us who Parks was not: “Rosa Parks held no elected office. She possessed no fortune” he explains in lines 1-2. Later, when he tells the story of the bus driver who threatened to have Parks arrested when she refused to get off the bus, he explains that Parks “simply replied, ‘You may do that’” (lines 22-23). Right away, he establishes that Parks was a regular person who did not hold a seat of power. Her protest on the bus was not part of a larger plan, it was a simple response. By emphasizing that Parks was not powerful, wealthy, or loud spoken, he implies that Parks’ style of activism is an everyday practice that all of us can aspire to.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example (Continued)

Even though Obama portrays Parks as a demure person whose protest came “simply” and naturally, he shows the importance of her activism through long lists of ripple effects. When Parks challenged her arrest, Obama explains, Martin Luther King, Jr. stood with her and “so did thousands of Montgomery, Alabama commuters” (lines 27-28). They began a boycott that included “teachers and laborers, clergy and domestics, through rain and cold and sweltering heat, day after day, week after week, month after month, walking miles if they had to…” (lines 28-31). In this section of the speech, Obama’s sentences grow longer and he uses lists to show that Parks’ small action impacted and inspired many others to fight for change. Further, listing out how many days, weeks, and months the boycott lasted shows how Parks’ single act of protest sparked a much longer push for change.

To further illustrate Parks’ impact, Obama incorporates Biblical references that emphasize the importance of “that single moment on the bus” (lines 57-58). In lines 33-35, Obama explains that Parks and the other protestors are “driven by a solemn determination to affirm their God-given dignity” and he also compares their victory to the fall the “ancient walls of Jericho” (line 43). By of including these Biblical references, Obama suggests that Parks’ action on the bus did more than correct personal or political wrongs; it also corrected moral and spiritual wrongs. Although Parks had no political power or fortune, she was able to restore a moral balance in our world.

Toward the end of the speech, Obama states that change happens “not mainly through the exploits of the famous and the powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness” (lines 78-81). Through carefully chosen diction that portrays her as a quiet, regular person and through lists and Biblical references that highlight the huge impacts of her action, Obama illustrates exactly this point. He wants us to see that, just like Parks, the small and meek can change the world for the better.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example: Why It Works

We would give the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis essay above a score of 6 out of 6 because it fully satisfies the essay’s 3 rubric categories: Thesis, Evidence and Commentary, and Sophistication . Let’s break down what this student did:

The thesis of this essay appears in the last line of the first paragraph:

“ Through the use of diction that portrays Parks as quiet and demure, long lists that emphasize the extent of her impacts, and Biblical references, Obama suggests that all of us are capable of achieving greater good, just as Parks did .”

This student’s thesis works because they make a clear argument about Obama’s rhetorical choices. They 1) list the rhetorical choices that will be analyzed in the rest of the essay (the italicized text above) and 2) include an argument someone else might disagree with (the bolded text above).

Evidence and Commentary:

This student includes substantial evidence and commentary. Things they do right, per the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis rubric:

They include lots of specific evidence from the text in the form of quotes.
They incorporate 3 different types of evidence (diction, long lists, Biblical references).
After including evidence, they offer an interpretation of what the evidence means and explain how the evidence contributes to their overarching argument (aka their thesis).

Sophistication

This essay achieves sophistication according to the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis essay rubric in a few key ways:

This student provides an introduction that flows naturally into the topic their essay will discuss. Before they get to their thesis, they tell us that Obama portrays Parks as a “regular person” setting up their main argument: Obama wants all regular people to aspire to do good in the world just as Rosa Parks did.
They organize evidence and commentary in a clear and cohesive way. Each body paragraph focuses on just one type of evidence.
They explain how their evidence is significant. In the final sentence of each body paragraph, they draw a connection back to the overarching argument presented in the thesis.
All their evidence supports the argument presented in their thesis. There is no extraneous evidence or misleading detail.
They consider nuances in the text. Rather than taking the text at face value, they consider what Obama’s rhetorical choices imply and offer their own unique interpretation of those implications.
In their final paragraph, they come full circle, reiterate their thesis, and explain what Obama’s rhetorical choices communicate to readers.
Their sentences are clear and easy to read. There are no grammar errors or misused words.

AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay—More Resources

Looking for more tips to help your master your AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay? Brush up on 20 Rhetorical Devices High School Students Should Know and read our Tips for Improving Reading Comprehension . If you’re ready to start studying for another part of the AP English Exam, find more expert tips in our How to Write the AP Lang Synthesis blog post.

Considering what other AP classes to take? Read up on the Hardest AP Classes .

High School Success

Christina Wood

Christina Wood holds a BA in Literature & Writing from UC San Diego, an MFA in Creative Writing from Washington University in St. Louis, and is currently a Doctoral Candidate in English at the University of Georgia, where she teaches creative writing and first-year composition courses. Christina has published fiction and nonfiction in numerous publications, including The Paris Review , McSweeney’s , Granta , Virginia Quarterly Review , The Sewanee Review , Mississippi Review , and Puerto del Sol , among others. Her story “The Astronaut” won the 2018 Shirley Jackson Award for short fiction and received a “Distinguished Stories” mention in the 2019 Best American Short Stories anthology.

2-Year Colleges
Application Strategies
Best Colleges by Major
Best Colleges by State
Big Picture
Career & Personality Assessment
College Essay
College Search/Knowledge
College Success
Costs & Financial Aid
Dental School Admissions
Extracurricular Activities
Graduate School Admissions
High Schools
Law School Admissions
Medical School Admissions
Navigating the Admissions Process
Online Learning
Private High School Spotlight
Summer Program Spotlight
Summer Programs
Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

I am a... Student Student Parent Counselor Educator Other First Name Last Name Email Address Zip Code Area of Interest Business Computer Science Engineering Fine/Performing Arts Humanities Mathematics STEM Pre-Med Psychology Social Studies/Sciences Submit

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities. Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse).

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers. Academic arguments in particular benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

Features for Creative Writers
Features for Work
Features for Higher Education
Features for Teachers
Features for Non-Native Speakers
Learn Blog Grammar Guide Community Events FAQ
Grammar Guide

What Is a Rhetorical Analysis and How to Write a Great One

Helly Douglas

Do you have to write a rhetorical analysis essay? Fear not! We’re here to explain exactly what rhetorical analysis means, how you should structure your essay, and give you some essential “dos and don’ts.”

What is a Rhetorical Analysis Essay?

How do you write a rhetorical analysis, what are the three rhetorical strategies, what are the five rhetorical situations, how to plan a rhetorical analysis essay, creating a rhetorical analysis essay, examples of great rhetorical analysis essays, final thoughts.

A rhetorical analysis essay studies how writers and speakers have used words to influence their audience. Think less about the words the author has used and more about the techniques they employ, their goals, and the effect this has on the audience.

In your analysis essay, you break a piece of text (including cartoons, adverts, and speeches) into sections and explain how each part works to persuade, inform, or entertain. You’ll explore the effectiveness of the techniques used, how the argument has been constructed, and give examples from the text.

A strong rhetorical analysis evaluates a text rather than just describes the techniques used. You don’t include whether you personally agree or disagree with the argument.

Structure a rhetorical analysis in the same way as most other types of academic essays . You’ll have an introduction to present your thesis, a main body where you analyze the text, which then leads to a conclusion.

Think about how the writer (also known as a rhetor) considers the situation that frames their communication:

Topic: the overall purpose of the rhetoric
Audience: this includes primary, secondary, and tertiary audiences
Purpose: there are often more than one to consider
Context and culture: the wider situation within which the rhetoric is placed

Back in the 4th century BC, Aristotle was talking about how language can be used as a means of persuasion. He described three principal forms —Ethos, Logos, and Pathos—often referred to as the Rhetorical Triangle . These persuasive techniques are still used today.

Rhetorical Strategy 1: Ethos

Are you more likely to buy a car from an established company that’s been an important part of your community for 50 years, or someone new who just started their business?

Reputation matters. Ethos explores how the character, disposition, and fundamental values of the author create appeal, along with their expertise and knowledge in the subject area.

Aristotle breaks ethos down into three further categories:

Phronesis: skills and practical wisdom
Arete: virtue
Eunoia: goodwill towards the audience

Ethos-driven speeches and text rely on the reputation of the author. In your analysis, you can look at how the writer establishes ethos through both direct and indirect means.

Rhetorical Strategy 2: Pathos

Pathos-driven rhetoric hooks into our emotions. You’ll often see it used in advertisements, particularly by charities wanting you to donate money towards an appeal.

Common use of pathos includes:

Vivid description so the reader can imagine themselves in the situation
Personal stories to create feelings of empathy
Emotional vocabulary that evokes a response

By using pathos to make the audience feel a particular emotion, the author can persuade them that the argument they’re making is compelling.

Rhetorical Strategy 3: Logos

Logos uses logic or reason. It’s commonly used in academic writing when arguments are created using evidence and reasoning rather than an emotional response. It’s constructed in a step-by-step approach that builds methodically to create a powerful effect upon the reader.

Rhetoric can use any one of these three techniques, but effective arguments often appeal to all three elements.

The rhetorical situation explains the circumstances behind and around a piece of rhetoric. It helps you think about why a text exists, its purpose, and how it’s carried out.

The rhetorical situations are:

1) Purpose: Why is this being written? (It could be trying to inform, persuade, instruct, or entertain.)
2) Audience: Which groups or individuals will read and take action (or have done so in the past)?
3) Genre: What type of writing is this?
4) Stance: What is the tone of the text? What position are they taking?
5) Media/Visuals: What means of communication are used?

Understanding and analyzing the rhetorical situation is essential for building a strong essay. Also think about any rhetoric restraints on the text, such as beliefs, attitudes, and traditions that could affect the author's decisions.

Before leaping into your essay, it’s worth taking time to explore the text at a deeper level and considering the rhetorical situations we looked at before. Throw away your assumptions and use these simple questions to help you unpick how and why the text is having an effect on the audience.

Image showing what to consider when planning a rhetorical essay

1: What is the Rhetorical Situation?

Why is there a need or opportunity for persuasion?
How do words and references help you identify the time and location?
What are the rhetoric restraints?
What historical occasions would lead to this text being created?

2: Who is the Author?

How do they position themselves as an expert worth listening to?
What is their ethos?
Do they have a reputation that gives them authority?
What is their intention?
What values or customs do they have?

3: Who is it Written For?

Who is the intended audience?
How is this appealing to this particular audience?
Who are the possible secondary and tertiary audiences?

4: What is the Central Idea?

Can you summarize the key point of this rhetoric?
What arguments are used?
How has it developed a line of reasoning?

5: How is it Structured?

What structure is used?
How is the content arranged within the structure?

6: What Form is Used?

Does this follow a specific literary genre?
What type of style and tone is used, and why is this?
Does the form used complement the content?
What effect could this form have on the audience?

7: Is the Rhetoric Effective?

Does the content fulfil the author’s intentions?
Does the message effectively fit the audience, location, and time period?

Once you’ve fully explored the text, you’ll have a better understanding of the impact it’s having on the audience and feel more confident about writing your essay outline.

A great essay starts with an interesting topic. Choose carefully so you’re personally invested in the subject and familiar with it rather than just following trending topics. There are lots of great ideas on this blog post by My Perfect Words if you need some inspiration. Take some time to do background research to ensure your topic offers good analysis opportunities.

Image showing considerations for a rhetorical analysis topic

Remember to check the information given to you by your professor so you follow their preferred style guidelines. This outline example gives you a general idea of a format to follow, but there will likely be specific requests about layout and content in your course handbook. It’s always worth asking your institution if you’re unsure.

Make notes for each section of your essay before you write. This makes it easy for you to write a well-structured text that flows naturally to a conclusion. You will develop each note into a paragraph. Look at this example by College Essay for useful ideas about the structure.

1: Introduction

This is a short, informative section that shows you understand the purpose of the text. It tempts the reader to find out more by mentioning what will come in the main body of your essay.

Name the author of the text and the title of their work followed by the date in parentheses
Use a verb to describe what the author does, e.g. “implies,” “asserts,” or “claims”
Briefly summarize the text in your own words
Mention the persuasive techniques used by the rhetor and its effect

Create a thesis statement to come at the end of your introduction.

After your introduction, move on to your critical analysis. This is the principal part of your essay.

Explain the methods used by the author to inform, entertain, and/or persuade the audience using Aristotle's rhetorical triangle
Use quotations to prove the statements you make
Explain why the writer used this approach and how successful it is
Consider how it makes the audience feel and react

Make each strategy a new paragraph rather than cramming them together, and always use proper citations. Check back to your course handbook if you’re unsure which citation style is preferred.

3: Conclusion

Your conclusion should summarize the points you’ve made in the main body of your essay. While you will draw the points together, this is not the place to introduce new information you’ve not previously mentioned.

Use your last sentence to share a powerful concluding statement that talks about the impact the text has on the audience(s) and wider society. How have its strategies helped to shape history?

Before You Submit

Poor spelling and grammatical errors ruin a great essay. Use ProWritingAid to check through your finished essay before you submit. It will pick up all the minor errors you’ve missed and help you give your essay a final polish. Look at this useful ProWritingAid webinar for further ideas to help you significantly improve your essays. Sign up for a free trial today and start editing your essays!

Screenshot of ProWritingAid's web editor

You’ll find countless examples of rhetorical analysis online, but they range widely in quality. Your institution may have example essays they can share with you to show you exactly what they’re looking for.

The following links should give you a good starting point if you’re looking for ideas:

Pearson Canada has a range of good examples. Look at how embedded quotations are used to prove the points being made. The end questions help you unpick how successful each essay is.

Excelsior College has an excellent sample essay complete with useful comments highlighting the techniques used.

Brighton Online has a selection of interesting essays to look at. In this specific example, consider how wider reading has deepened the exploration of the text.

Image showing tips when reading a sample essay

Writing a rhetorical analysis essay can seem daunting, but spending significant time deeply analyzing the text before you write will make it far more achievable and result in a better-quality essay overall.

It can take some time to write a good essay. Aim to complete it well before the deadline so you don’t feel rushed. Use ProWritingAid’s comprehensive checks to find any errors and make changes to improve readability. Then you’ll be ready to submit your finished essay, knowing it’s as good as you can possibly make it.

Try ProWritingAid's Editor for Yourself

rhetorical choices in an argumentative essay

Be confident about grammar

Check every email, essay, or story for grammar mistakes. Fix them before you press send.

Helly Douglas is a UK writer and teacher, specialising in education, children, and parenting. She loves making the complex seem simple through blogs, articles, and curriculum content. You can check out her work at hellydouglas.com or connect on Twitter @hellydouglas. When she’s not writing, you will find her in a classroom, being a mum or battling against the wilderness of her garden—the garden is winning!

Get started with ProWritingAid

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via :

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a rhetorical analysis

What is a rhetorical analysis?

What are the key concepts of a rhetorical analysis, rhetorical situation, claims, supports, and warrants.

Step 1: Plan and prepare
Step 2: Write your introduction
Step 3: Write the body
Step 4: Write your conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions about rhetorical analysis

Rhetorical Analysis

Almost every text makes an argument. Rhetorical analysis is the process of evaluating elements of a text and determining how those elements impact the success or failure of that argument. Often rhetorical analyses address written arguments, but visual, oral, or other kinds of “texts” can also be analyzed.

Rhetorical Features—What to Analyze

Asking the right questions about how a text is constructed will help you determine the focus of your rhetorical analysis. A good rhetorical analysis does not try to address every element of a text; discuss just those aspects with the greatest [positive or negative] impact on the text’s effectiveness.

The Rhetorical Situation

Remember that no text exists in a vacuum. The rhetorical situation of a text refers to the context in which it is written and read, the audience to whom it is directed, and the purpose of the writer.

The Rhetorical Appeals

A writer makes many strategic decisions when attempting to persuade an audience. Considering the following rhetorical appeals will help you understand some of these strategies and their effect on an argument. Generally, writers should incorporate a variety of different rhetorical appeals rather than relying on only one kind.

Ethos (appeal to the writer’s credibility)

What is the writer’s purpose (to argue, explain, teach, defend, call to action, etc.)?
Do you trust the writer? Why?
Is the writer an authority on the subject? What credentials does the writer have?
Does the writer address other viewpoints?
How does the writer’s word choice or tone affect how you view the writer?

Pathos (appeal to emotion or to an audience’s values or beliefs)

Who is the target audience for the argument?
How is the writer trying to make the audience feel (i.e., sad, happy, angry, guilty)?
Is the writer making any assumptions about the background, knowledge, values, etc. of the audience?

Logos (appeal to logic)

Is the writer’s evidence relevant to the purpose of the argument? Is the evidence current (if applicable)? Does the writer use a variety of sources to support the argument?
What kind of evidence is used (i.e., expert testimony, statistics, proven facts)?
Do the writer’s points build logically upon each other?
Where in the text is the main argument stated? How does that placement affect the success of the argument?
Does the writer’s thesis make that purpose clear?

Kairos (appeal to timeliness)

When was the argument originally presented?
Where was the argument originally presented?
What circumstances may have motivated the argument?
Does the particular time or situation in which this text is written make it more compelling or persuasive?
What would an audience at this particular time understand about this argument?

Writing a Rhetorical Analysis Essay

No matter the kind of text you are analyzing, remember that the text’s subject matter is never the focus of a rhetorical analysis. The most common error writers make when writing rhetorical analyses is to address the topic or opinion expressed by an author instead of focusing on how that author constructs an argument.

You must read and study a text critically in order to distinguish its rhetorical elements and strategies from its content or message. By identifying and understanding how audiences are persuaded, you become more proficient at constructing your own arguments and in resisting faulty arguments made by others.

A thesis for a rhetorical analysis does not address the content of the writer’s argument. Instead, the thesis should be a statement about specific rhetorical strategies the writer uses and whether or not they make a convincing argument.

Incorrect: Smith’s editorial promotes the establishment of more green space in the Atlanta area through the planting of more trees along major roads.

This statement is summarizing the meaning and purpose of Smith’s writing rather than making an argument about how – and how effectively – Smith presents and defends his position.

Correct: Through the use of vivid description and testimony from affected citizens, Smith makes a powerful argument for establishing more green space in the Atlanta area.

Correct: Although Smith’s editorial includes vivid descriptions of the destruction of green space in the Atlanta area, his argument will not convince his readers because his claim is not backed up with factual evidence.

These statements are both focused on how Smith argues, and both make a claim about the effectiveness of his argument that can be defended throughout the paper with examples from Smith’s text.

Introduction

The introduction should name the author and the title of the work you are analyzing. Providing any relevant background information about the text and state your thesis (see above). Resist the urge to delve into the topic of the text and stay focused on the rhetorical strategies being used.

Summary of argument

Include a short summary of the argument you are analyzing so readers not familiar with the text can understand your claims and have context for the examples you provide.

The body of your essay discusses and evaluates the rhetorical strategies (elements of the rhetorical situation and rhetorical appeals – see above) that make the argument effective or not. Be certain to provide specific examples from the text for each strategy you discuss and focus on those strategies that are most important to the text you are analyzing. Your essay should follow a logical organization plan that your reader can easily follow.

Go beyond restating your thesis; comment on the effect or significance of the entire essay. Make a statement about how important rhetorical strategies are in determining the effectiveness of an argument or text.

Analyzing Visual Arguments

The same rhetorical elements and appeals used to analyze written texts also apply to visual arguments. Additionally, analyzing a visual text requires an understanding of how design elements work together to create certain persuasive effects (or not). Consider how elements such as image selection, color, use of space, graphics, layout, or typeface influence an audience’s reaction to the argument that the visual was designed to convey.

This material was developed by the KSU Writing Center and is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . All materials created by the KSU Writing Center are free to use and can be adopted, remixed, and shared at will as long as the materials are attributed. Please keep this information on materials you adapt or adopt for attribution purposes.

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

3.7 Rhetorical Modes of Writing

Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; Kirk Swenson; Ann Inoshita; Karyl Garland; Kate Sims; Jeanne K. Tsutsui Keuma; Tasha Williams; Susan Wood; and Terri Pantuso

Rhetorical modes simply mean the ways we can effectively communicate through language. Each day people interact with others to tell a story about a new pet, describe a transportation problem, explain a solution to a science experiment, evaluate the quality of an information source, persuade a customer that a brand is the best, or even reveal what has caused a particular medical issue. We speak in a manner that is purposeful to each situation, and writing is no different. While rhetorical modes can refer to both speaking and writing, in this section we discuss the ways in which we shape our writing according to our purpose or intent. Your purpose for writing determines the mode you choose.

Typically speaking, the four major categories of rhetorical modes are narration, description, exposition, and persuasion.

The narrative essay tells a relevant story or relates an event.
The descriptive essay uses vivid, sensory details to draw a picture in words.
The writer’s purpose in expository writing is to explain or inform. Oftentimes, exposition is subdivided into other modes: classification, evaluation, process, definition, comparison/contrast, and cause/effect.
In the persuasive essay, the writer’s purpose is to persuade or convince the reader by presenting one idea against another and clearly taking a stand on one side of the issue. We often use several of these modes in everyday and professional writing situations, so we will also consider special examples of these modes such as personal statements and other common academic writing assignments.

Whether you are asked to write a cause/effect essay in a history class, a comparison/contrast report in biology, or a narrative email recounting the events in a situation on the job, you will be equipped to express yourself precisely and communicate your message clearly. Learning these rhetorical modes will also help you to become a more effective writer.

Narration means the art of storytelling, and the purpose of narrative writing is to tell stories. Any time you tell a story to a friend or family member about an event or incident in your day, you engage in a form of narration. A narrative can be factual or fictional. A factual story is one that is based on, and tries to be faithful to, actual events as they unfolded in real life. A fictional story is a made-up, or imagined, story. When writing a fictional story, we can create characters and events to best fit our story.

The big distinction between factual and fictional narratives is determined by a writer’s purpose. The writers of factual stories try to recount events as they actually happened, but writers of fictional stories can depart from real people and events because their intentions are not to retell a real-life event. Biographies and memoirs are examples of factual stories, whereas novels and short stories are examples of fictional stories.

Because the line between fact and fiction can often blur, it is helpful to understand what your purpose is from the beginning. Is it important that you recount history, either your own or someone else’s? Or does your interest lie in reshaping the world in your own image—either how you would like to see it or how you imagine it could be? Your answers will go a long way in shaping the stories you tell.

Ultimately, whether the story is fact or fiction, narrative writing tries to relay a series of events in an emotionally engaging way. You want your audience to be moved by your story, which could mean through laughter, sympathy, fear, anger, and so on. The more clearly you tell your story, the more emotionally engaged your audience is likely to be.

The Structure of a Narrative Essay

Major narrative events are most often conveyed in chronological order, the order in which events unfold from first to last. Stories typically have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and these events are typically organized by time. However, sometimes it can be effective to begin with an exciting moment from the climax of the story (“flash-forward”) or a pivotal event from the past (“flash-back”) before returning to a chronological narration. Certain transitional words and phrases aid in keeping the reader oriented in the sequencing of a story.

The following are the other basic components of a narrative:

Plot: The events as they unfold in sequence.
Characters: The people who inhabit the story and move it forward. Typically, there are minor characters and main characters. The minor characters generally play supporting roles to the main character, or the protagonist.
Conflict: The primary problem or obstacle that unfolds in the plot that the protagonist must solve or overcome by the end of the narrative. The way in which the protagonist resolves the conflict of the plot results in the theme of the narrative.
Theme: The ultimate message the narrative is trying to express; it can be either explicit or implicit.
Write the narrative of a typical Saturday in your life.
Write a narrative of your favorite movie.

Description

Writers use description in writing to make sure that their audience is fully immersed in the words on the page. This requires a concerted effort by the writer to describe the world through the use of sensory details.

As mentioned earlier, sensory details are descriptions that appeal to our sense of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. The use of sensory details provides you the greatest possibility of relating to your audience and thus engaging them in your writing, making descriptive writing important not only during your education but also during everyday situations. To make your writing vivid and appealing, avoid empty descriptors if possible. Empty descriptors are adjectives that can mean different things to different people. Good, beautiful, terrific, and nice are examples. The use of such words in descriptions can lead to misreads and confusion. A good day, for instance, can mean far different things depending on one’s age, personality, or tastes.

The Structure of a Description Essay

Description essays typically describe a person, a place, or an object using sensory details. The structure of a descriptive essay is more flexible than in some of the other rhetorical modes. The introduction of a description essay should set up the tone and focus of the essay. The thesis should convey the writer’s overall impression of the person, place, or object described in the body paragraphs.

The organization of the essay may best follow spatial order, which means an arrangement of ideas according to physical characteristics or appearance. Depending on what the writer describes, the organization could move from top to bottom, left to right, near to far, warm to cold, frightening to inviting, and so on. For example, if the subject were a client’s kitchen in the midst of renovation, you might start at one side of the room and move slowly across to the other end, describing appliances, cabinetry, and so on. Or you might choose to start with older remnants of the kitchen and progress to the new installations. Or maybe start with the floor and move up toward the ceiling.

Describe various objects found in your room.
Describe an analog clock.

Classification

The purpose of classification is to break down broad subjects into smaller, more manageable, more specific parts. We classify things in our daily lives all the time, often without even thinking about it. For example, cars can be classified by type (convertible, sedan, station-wagon, or SUV) or by the fuel they use (diesel, petrol, electric, or hybrid). Smaller categories, and the way in which these categories are created, help us make sense of the world. Keep both of these elements in mind when writing a classification essay. It’s best to choose topics that you know well when writing classification essays. The more you know about a topic, the more you can break it into smaller, more interesting parts. Adding interest and insight will enhance your classification essays.

The Structure of a Classification Essay

The classification essay opens with a paragraph that introduces the broader topic. The thesis should then explain how that topic is divided into subgroups and why. Take the following introductory paragraph, for example:

When people think of New York, they often think of only New York City. But New York is actually a diverse state with a full range of activities to do, sights to see, and cultures to explore. In order to better understand the diversity of New York State, it is helpful to break it into these five separate regions: Long Island, New York City, Western New York, Central New York, and Northern New York.

The underlined thesis explains not only the category and subcategory, but also the rationale for breaking the topic into those categories. Through this classification essay, the writer hopes to show the readers a different way of considering the state of New York.

Each body paragraph of a classification essay is dedicated to fully illustrating each of the subcategories. In the previous example, then, each region of New York would have its own paragraph. To avoid settling for an overly simplistic classification, make sure you break down any given topic at least three different ways. This will help you think outside the box and perhaps even learn something entirely new about a subject.

The conclusion should bring all of the categories and subcategories back together again to show the reader the big picture. In the previous example, the conclusion might explain how the various sights and activities of each region of New York add to its diversity and complexity.

Classify your college by majors (i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, etc.).
Classify the variety of fast food places available to you by types of foods sold in each location.

Writers evaluate arguments in order to present an informed and well-reasoned judgment about a subject. While the evaluation will be based on their opinion, it should not seem opinionated. Instead, it should aim to be reasonable and unbiased. This is achieved through developing a solid judgment, selecting appropriate criteria to evaluate the subject, and providing clear evidence to support the criteria.

Evaluation is a type of writing that has many real-world applications. Anything can be evaluated. For example, evaluations of movies, restaurants, books, and technology ourselves are all real-world evaluations.

The Structure of an Evaluation Essay

Evaluation essays are typically structured as follows.

Subject : First, the essay will present the subject. What is being evaluated? Why? The essay begins with the writer giving any details needed about the subject.

Judgement : Next, the essay needs to provide a judgment about a subject. This is the thesis of the essay, and it states whether the subject is good or bad based on how it meets the stated criteria.

Criteria : The body of the essay will contain the criteria used to evaluate the subject. In an evaluation essay, the criteria must be appropriate for evaluating the subject under consideration. Appropriate criteria will help to keep the essay from seeming biased or unreasonable. If authors evaluated the quality of a movie based on the snacks sold at the snack bar, that would make them seem unreasonable, and their evaluation may be disregarded because of it.

Evidence : The evidence of an evaluation essay consists of the supporting details authors provide based on their judgment of the criteria. For example, if the subject of an evaluation is a restaurant, a judgment could be “Kay’s Bistro provides an unrivaled experience in fine dining.” Some authors evaluate fine dining restaurants by identifying appropriate criteria in order to rate the establishment’s food quality, service, and atmosphere. The examples are the evidence.

Another example of evaluation is literary analysis; judgments may be made about a character in the story based on the character’s actions, characteristics, and past history within the story. The scenes in the story are evidence for why readers have a certain opinion of the character.

Job applications and interviews are more examples of evaluations. Based on certain criteria, management and hiring committees determine which applicants will be considered for an interview and which applicant will be hired.

Evaluate a restaurant. What do you expect in a good restaurant? What criteria determines whether a restaurant is good?
List three criteria that you will use to evaluate a restaurant. Then dine there. Afterwards, explain whether or not the restaurant meets each criteria, and include evidence (qualities from the restaurant) that backs your evaluation.
Give the restaurant a star rating. (5 Stars: Excellent, 4 Stars: Very Good, 3 Stars: Good, 2 Stars: Fair, 1 Star: Poor). Explain why the restaurant earned this star rating.

The purpose of a process essay is to explain how to do something (directional) or how something works (informative). In either case, the formula for a process essay remains the same. The process is articulated into clear, definitive steps.

Almost everything we do involves following a step-by-step process. From learning to ride a bike as a child to starting a new job as an adult, we initially needed instructions to effectively execute the task. Likewise, we have likely had to instruct others, so we know how important good directions are—and how frustrating it is when they are poorly put together.

The Structure of a Process Essay

The process essay opens with a discussion of the process and a thesis statement that states the goal of the process. The organization of a process essay typically follows chronological order. The steps of the process are conveyed in the order in which they usually occur, and so your body paragraphs will be constructed based on these steps. If a particular step is complicated and needs a lot of explaining, then it will likely take up a paragraph on its own. But if a series of simple steps is easy to understand, then the steps can be grouped into a single paragraph. Words such as first, second, third, next, and finally are cues to orient readers and organize the content of the essay.

Finally, it’s a good idea to always have someone else read your process analysis to make sure it makes sense. Once we get too close to a subject, it is difficult to determine how clearly an idea is coming across. Having a peer read over your analysis will serve as a good way to troubleshoot any confusing spots.

Describe the process for applying to college.
Describe the process of your favorite game (board, card, video, etc.).

The purpose of a definition essay may seem self-explanatory: to write an extended definition of a word or term. But defining terms in writing is often more complicated than just consulting a dictionary. In fact, the way we define terms can have far-reaching consequences for individuals as well as collective groups. Take, for example, a word like alcoholism. The way in which one defines alcoholism depends on its legal, moral, and medical contexts. Lawyers may define alcoholism in terms of its legality; parents may define alcoholism in terms of its morality; and doctors will define alcoholism in terms of symptoms and diagnostic criteria. Think also of terms that people tend to debate in our broader culture. How we define words, such as marriage and climate change, has an enormous impact on policy decisions and even on daily decisions. Debating the definition of a word or term might have an impact on your relationship or your job, or it might simply be a way to understand an unfamiliar phrase in popular culture or a technical term in a new profession.

Defining terms within a relationship, or any other context, can be difficult at first, but once a definition is established between two people or a group of people, it is easier to have productive dialogues. Definitions, then, establish the way in which people communicate ideas. They set parameters for a given discourse, which is why they are so important.

When writing definition essays, avoid terms that are too simple, that lack complexity. Think in terms of concepts, such as hero, immigration, or loyalty, rather than physical objects. Definitions of concepts, rather than objects, are often fluid and contentious, making for a more effective definition essay. For definition essays, try to think of concepts in which you have a personal stake. You are more likely to write a more engaging definition essay if you are writing about an idea that has value and importance to you.

The Structure of a Definition Essay

The definition essay opens with a general discussion of the term to be defined. You then state your definition of the term as your thesis. The rest of the essay should explain the rationale for your definition. Remember that a dictionary’s definition is limiting, so you should not rely strictly on the dictionary entry. Indeed, unless you are specifically addressing an element of the dictionary definition (perhaps to dispute or expand it), it is best to avoid quoting the dictionary in your paper. Instead, consider the context in which you are using the word. Context identifies the circumstances, conditions, or setting in which something exists or occurs. Often words take on different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. For example, the ideal leader in a battlefield setting could likely be very different from a leader in an elementary school setting. If a context is missing from the essay, the essay may be too short or the main points could be vague and confusing.

The remainder of the essay should explain different aspects of the term’s definition. For example, if you were defining a good leader in an elementary classroom setting, you might define such a leader according to personality traits: patience, consistency, and flexibility. Each attribute would be explained in its own paragraph. Be specific and detailed: flesh out each paragraph with examples and connections to the larger context.

Define what is meant by the word local.
Define what is meant by the word community.

Comparison and Contrast

Comparison in writing discusses elements that are similar, while contrast in writing discusses elements that are different. A compare-and-contrast essay, then, analyzes two subjects by examining them closely and comparing them, contrasting them, or both. The key to a good compare-and-contrast essay is to choose two or more subjects that connect in a meaningful way. The purpose of conducting the comparison or contrast is not to state the obvious but rather to illuminate subtle differences or unexpected similarities. For example, if you wanted to focus on contrasting two subjects you would not pick apples and oranges; rather, you might choose to compare and contrast two types of oranges or two types of apples to highlight subtle differences. For example, Red Delicious apples are sweet, while Granny Smiths are tart and acidic. Drawing distinctions between elements in a similar category will increase the audience’s understanding of that category, which is the purpose of the compare-and-contrast essay.

Similarly, to focus on comparison, choose two subjects that seem at first to be unrelated. For a comparison essay, you likely would not choose two apples or two oranges because they share so many of the same properties already. Rather, you might try to compare how apples and oranges are quite similar. The more divergent the two subjects initially seem, the more interesting a comparison essay will be.

The Structure of a Comparison-and-Contrast Essay

The compare-and-contrast essay starts with a thesis that clearly states the two subjects that are to be compared, contrasted, or both, and the reason for doing so. The thesis could lean more toward comparing, contrasting, or both. Remember, the point of comparing and contrasting is to provide useful knowledge to the reader. Take the following thesis as an example that leans more toward contrasting.

Thesis statement: Organic vegetables may cost more than those that are conventionally grown, but when put to the test, they are definitely worth every extra penny.

Here the thesis sets up the two subjects to be compared and contrasted (organic versus conventional vegetables), and it makes a claim about the results that might prove useful to the reader. You may organize compare-and-contrast essays in one of the following two ways:

According to the subjects themselves, discussing one and then the other.
According to individual points, discussing each subject in relation to each point.

The organizational structure you choose depends on the nature of the topic, your purpose, and your audience.

Compare two types of fruit, then
Contrast how they are different from each other

Cause and Effect

It is often considered human nature to ask, “why?” and “how?” We want to know how our child got sick so we can better prevent it from happening in the future, or why our colleague received a pay raise because we want one as well. We want to know how much money we will save over the long term if we buy a hybrid car. These examples identify only a few of the relationships we think about in our lives, but each shows the importance of understanding cause and effect.

A cause is something that produces an event or condition; an effect is what results from an event or condition. The purpose of the cause-and-effect essay is to determine how various phenomena relate in terms of origins and results. Sometimes the connection between cause and effect is clear, but often determining the exact relationship between the two is very difficult. For example, the following effects of a cold may be easily identifiable: a sore throat, runny nose, and a cough. But determining the cause of the sickness can be far more difficult. A number of causes are possible, and to complicate matters, these possible causes could have combined to lead to the sickness. That is, more than one cause may be responsible for any given effect. Therefore, cause-and effect discussions are often complicated and frequently lead to debates and arguments.

Indeed, you can use the complex nature of cause and effect to your advantage. Often it is not necessary, or even possible, to find the exact cause of an event or to name the exact effect. So, when formulating a thesis, you can claim one of a number of causes or effects to be the primary, or main, cause or effect. As soon as you claim that one cause or one effect is more crucial than the others, you have developed a thesis.

The Structure of a Cause-and-Effect Essay

The cause-and-effect essay opens with a general introduction to the topic, which then leads to a thesis that states the main cause, main effect, or various causes and effects of a condition or event. The cause-and-effect essay can be organized in one of the following two primary ways:

Start with the cause and then talk about the effects.
Start with the effect and then talk about the causes.

For example, if your essay were on childhood obesity, you could start by talking about the effect of childhood obesity and then discuss the cause, or you could start the same essay by talking about the cause of childhood obesity and then move to the effect.

Regardless of which structure you choose, be sure to explain each element of the essay fully and completely. Explaining complex relationships requires the full use of evidence, such as scientific studies, expert testimony, statistics, and anecdotes . Be careful of resorting to empty speculation. In writing, speculation amounts to unsubstantiated guessing. Writers are particularly prone to such trappings in cause-and-effect arguments due to the complex nature of finding links between phenomena. Be sure to have clear evidence to support the claims that you make. Because cause-and-effect essays determine how phenomena are linked, they make frequent use of certain words and phrases that denote such linkage.

Discuss the cause/effect relationship between studying and good grades
Discuss the cause/effect impact of sleep deprivation

The purpose of persuasion in writing is to convince, motivate, or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion. The act of trying to persuade automatically implies that more than one opinion on the subject can be argued. The idea of an argument often conjures up images of two people yelling and screaming in anger. In writing, however, an argument is very different. An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue in writing is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way. Written arguments often fail when they employ ranting rather than reasoning.

Most of us feel inclined to try to win the arguments we enter. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your opinion as a valid one, not simply the right one.

The Structure of a Persuasive Essay

The following five features make up the structure of a persuasive essay:

Introduction and thesis
Opposing and qualifying ideas
Strong evidence in support of claim
Style and tone of language
A compelling conclusion

Creating an Introduction and Thesis

The persuasive essay begins with an engaging introduction that presents the general topic. The thesis typically appears somewhere in the introduction and clearly states the writer’s point of view.

Acknowledging Opposing Ideas and Limits to Your Argument

Because an argument implies differing points of view on the subject, you must be sure to acknowledge those opposing ideas. Avoiding ideas that conflict with your own gives the reader the impression that you may be uncertain, fearful, or unaware of opposing ideas. Thus it is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.

Try to address opposing arguments earlier rather than later in your essay. Rhetorically speaking, ordering your positive arguments last allows you to better address ideas that conflict with your own because it allows you to focus on countering those arguments. This way, you leave your reader thinking about your argument rather than someone else’s. You have the last word.

Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. Readers will know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space. It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish. In effect, you are conceding early on that your argument is not the ultimate authority on a given topic. Such humility can go a long way toward earning credibility and trust with an audience (“ethos”). Audience members will know from the beginning that you are a reasonable writer, and they will trust your argument as a result. For example, in the following concessionary statement, the writer advocates for stricter gun control laws, but she admits it will not solve all of our problems with crime:

Although tougher gun control laws are a powerful first step in decreasing violence in our streets, such legislation alone cannot end these problems since guns are not the only problem we face.

Such a concession will be welcome by those who might disagree with this writer’s argument in the first place. To effectively persuade their readers, writers need to be realistic in their goals and humble in their approach to get readers to listen to their ideas.

Write a paragraph where you persuade readers to drink water rather than soda
Write a paragraph persuading your professors to adopt Open Educational Resources (free textbooks) for all classes

This section contains material from:

Crowther, Kathryn, Lauren Curtright, Nancy Gilbert, Barbara Hall, Tracienne Ravita, and Kirk Swenson. Successful College Composition . 2nd edition. Book 8. Georgia: English Open Textbooks, 2016. http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Inoshita, Ann, Karyl Garland, Kate Sims, Jeanne K. Tsutsui Keuma, Tasha Williams, and Susan Wood. “Evaluation.” In English Composition: Connect, Collaborate, Communicate , by Ann Inoshita, Karyl Garland, Kate Sims, Jeanne K. Tsutsui Keuma, and Tasha Williams. Honolulu, 2019. http://pressbooks.oer.hawaii.edu/englishcomposition/chapter/evaluation/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

The highest or most intense point in a sequence of events that lead to some resolution, settlement, judgement, or ending; the peak or culmination. In fiction, the climax of a story usually occurs when the characters make the decisions, fight the battle, or enter into the romantic relationship that will impact the ending of that story.

The feeling or attitude of the writer which can be inferred by the reader, usually conveyed through vocabulary, word choice, and phrasing; associated with emotion.

A statement, usually one sentence, that summarizes an argument that will later be explained, expanded upon, and developed in a longer essay or research paper. In undergraduate writing, a thesis statement is often found in the introductory paragraph of an essay. The plural of thesis is theses .

The standards or rules of judgement, grading, or other types of scrutiny.

The sequence of events that occur linearly or consecutively in time.

The explanation, justification, or motivation for something; the reasons why something was done.

Delicate, faint, or mild; requiring discernment, perception, or awareness to detect.

To be different, diverse, or dissimilar; to deviate from a plan or practice.

A remarkable or notable occurrence or event, especially one that is rare or exceptional in nature. The plural of phenomenon is phenomena .

A short account or telling of an incident or story, either personal or historical; anecdotal evidence is frequently found in the form of a personal experience rather than objective data or widespread occurrence.

To produce, seemingly out of thin air, an object, idea, or being.

3.7 Rhetorical Modes of Writing Copyright © 2022 by Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; Kirk Swenson; Ann Inoshita; Karyl Garland; Kate Sims; Jeanne K. Tsutsui Keuma; Tasha Williams; Susan Wood; and Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Academic Argument

Rhetorical Strategies: Building Compelling Arguments

Rhetoric pertains to how authors use and manipulate language in order to persuade an audience.

To be rhetorically effective (and thus persuasive), an author must engage the audience in a variety of compelling ways. We can classify these as Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

Logos: Appeal to Logic

Logic. Reason. Rationality. Logos is brainy and intellectual, cool, calm, collected, objective.

Logically sound writing often includes many examples to support a point – and those examples come from citation of credible data and statistics, reference to sound theories, reference valid research conducted by credible organizations.

Logical appeals rest on rational modes of thinking, such as

Comparison : you compare one thing (with regard to your topic) to another, similar thing to help support your claim. It is important that the comparison is fair and valid – the things being compared must share significant traits of similarity.
Cause/effect thinking : you argue that X has caused Y, or that X is likely to cause Y to help support your claim. Be careful with the latter – it can be difficult to predict that something “will” happen in the future.
Deductive reasoning : you start with a general claim/example and then use it to justify a in a smaller claim
Inductive reasoning : you use several specific examples or cases and use them to make a larger generalization
Exemplification : use of many examples to support a single point

Pathos: Appeal to Emotions

Pathos is deeply human – an author using pathetic appeals wants the audience to feel something: anger or pride or joy or rage or happiness. Pathetic appeals rest on emotion-based modes of communication . To engage the audience on an emotional level, the author may

add expressive descriptions of people, places or events that helps the reader to feel or experience those events
include vivid imagery of people, places or events that helps the reader to feel like he or she is seeing those events
share personal stories that help the reader feel connected to the person being described
use vocabulary or sentence structure that revolves around a particular emotion : sadness, happiness, fear, joy, anger, disgust, horror.
try to include any information that will evoke an emotional response from the audience . This could involve making the audience feel empathy or disgust for the person/group/event being discussed, or perhaps connection to or rejection of the person/group/event being discussed.

Pathos-based strategies are any strategies that get the audience to “open up” to the topic or to the author. Emotions can make us vulnerable, and rhetors can use this vulnerability to get the audience on his or her side.

Ethos: Appeal to Values/Trust

Ethical appeals have two facets.

One the one hand, an ethical appeal taps into the values that the audience holds, for example, patriotism, tradition, justice, equality, dignity for all humankind, self preservation, or other specific social, religious or philosophical values (Christian values, socialism, capitalism, feminism, etc). These values can sometimes feel very close to emotions, but they are felt on a social level rather than only on a personal level. If an author can evoke the values that the audience cares about in his or her argument, then he or she has a chance of persuading that audience because the audience will feel that the author is making an argument that is “right” (in the sense of moral “right”-ness).

This sense of referencing what is “right” in an ethical appeal connects to the moral character of the speaker/author. The author may draw attention to who he or she is as a way to engage the audience (i.e., “Because I support this – and you all you trust me because we share the same values! – you should, too”). If an author can present his or her moral character, one that the audience trusts because they (author and audience) share values, then he or she has a chance of persuading that audience. In this sense, the audience will feel that the author is the right person to make this argument and should therefore be believed.

In building ethical appeals, we see authors

referring either directly or indirectly to the values that matter to the intended audience
using reasoning or logic that relies on these values
using language, phrasing, imagery or other writing style common to people who hold those values – tapping into the discourse community of people with those values
doing anything else that shows the audience that the author understands and shares their values

English 102: Reading, Research, and Writing by Emilie Zickel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Find what you need to study

Rhetorical Analysis Essay How-To

7 min read • november 18, 2021

Kathryn Howard

Attend a live cram event

Review all units live with expert teachers & students

What is the Rhetorical Analysis Essay?

According to the college board:.

“The rhetorical analysis free-response essay question presents students with a passage of nonfiction prose of approximately 600 to 800 words. Students are asked to write an essay that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices . This question assesses students’ ability to do the following:

Respond to the prompt with a thesis that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices .

Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning .

Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning .

Demonstrate an understanding of the rhetorical situation .

Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument."

Essentially, you are being asked to analyze someone’s writing and what strategies they used to help them achieve their purpose.

Rhetorical Analysis Rubric for Scoring

The rhetorical analysis frq is out of 6 points.

https://i.ibb.co/5symGXr/thesis-statement-woody.jpg

To get this point you need to clearly write a defensible thesis about the rhetorical choices the author makes. Do not take a stance on the argument the author is making if he/she is making one. You are only talking about rhetorical strategies.

🎥 Watch: AP Language - How to Find Rhetorical Strategies

Evidence and Commentary (4 points)

To get the four points you need to not only present evidence but explain why it supports your thesis and how it contributes to the author’s message.

Sophistication (1 point)

To get to this point you have to demonstrate a complex understanding of both what that purpose was, and how the rhetorical analysis devices aided the author’s purpose.

There are a few ways that you can earn the sophistication point :

Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer’s rhetorical choices (given the rhetorical situation ).

Explaining a purpose or function of the passage’s complexities or tensions.

Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.

You have 40 minutes to complete the rhetorical analysis essay for AP Lang:

12 minutes: Read the text and plan out your essay. (TOBI)

6 minutes: Write your introduction paragraph.

18 minutes: Write 2-3 body paragraphs.

2 minutes: Write a quick conclusion.

2 minutes: Proofread and revise your essay.

🎥 Watch: AP Language - Rhetorical Analysis Organization and Timing

How to Maximize Your Time

Outline your rhetorical analysis essay before writing! A great tool for this is a TOBI:

TOBI stands for thesis , outline , and big idea.

TOBI Outline

BI -Big Idea

Here is an example of how to use TOBI given a rhetorical analysis prompt:

https://i.ibb.co/hBMWsnj/Screen-Shot-2020-03-08-at-12-44-23-PM.png

From CollegeBoard AP Lang 2017 Exam, FRQ Question 2

T: Luce uses many rhetorical strategies including pathos , antithesis , and a humorous tone to soften up her audience before introducing her true reasons for being there.

- Pathos Appeal

(“There is no audience more forgiving”)

- Antithesis

(“I am happy, I am less happy”)

- Humorous tone

(“consequently, no audience is more forgiving, I hope”)

BI: Today, just like for Luce, it is very difficult to give criticism to your peers.

Note: It is a good idea to make the TOBI about the size of your hand to make sure you don’t spend too much of your precious essay writing time on it.

What if I can't find any rhetorical devices that I recognize?

You can always go back and rely on tone as every piece of literature has one, even if it is just informative. If you know what they are doing, but not the name of the term, you can still just describe it and get the points. Additionally, make sure that you are familiar with all the rhetorical devices that are a part of AP Lang!

🎥 Watch: AP Language - Reading with an Analytical Mind

If it’s not an argumentative essay, what do you put in your thesis?

You state the most important writing choices the author made in order to impact the audience of the work.

Other Tips and Tricks

The big idea should show how this prompt applies to today. This will help you write your conclusion. In most language arts classes they teach you to simply restate your points, but not in AP Lang!

The first thing you are going to want to do is carefully read through and highlight any strategies you see.

Even if TOBI doesn’t work for you, it is a good idea to outline the essay. Even though it takes time, it will end up saving you time in the end because it gives you direction.

One of the most useful tools for the introduction is something called Soapstones. In this intro you are introducing the S peaker, O ccasion, A udience, P urpose, S ubject, T one, and S tyle. (Keep in mind: You do not need to include EVERY ONE). But, most successful essays include a few of them.

DON’T SKIM! It will only hurt you in the long run, even if you think it might be saving you time.

If you need to, review strategy names, but if you don’t remember, do your best to describe what is going on and how the author is using it.

Rhetorical Analysis Example Essay Prompt

The speech below was given at the site of the battle of Gettysburg by president Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln went on to describe his desire to save the union. Read the passage carefully and then in a well-developed essay, analyze the writing choices Lincoln makes to share his message with others. Support your analysis of his rhetoric with specific references from the text.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Key Terms to Review ( 20 )

Complex Understanding

Defendable Thesis

FRQ (Free-Response Question)

Grammar and Punctuation

Humorous Tone

Line of Reasoning

Passage's Complexities or Tensions

Pathos Appeal

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Rhetorical Analysis Rubric

Rhetorical Choices

Rhetorical Situation

Significance or Relevance

Sophistication Point

TOBI (Thesis, Outline, Big Idea)

Vivid and Persuasive Style

Writer's Rhetorical Choices

Stay Connected

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Emotions
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Acquisition
Language Variation
Language Families
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Lexicography
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Linguistic Anthropology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Religion
Music and Culture
Music and Media
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Politics
Law and Society
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Oncology
Medical Toxicology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Clinical Neuroscience
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Ethics
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Security
Computer Games
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Strategy
Business History
Business Ethics
Business and Government
Business and Technology
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic Systems
Economic Methodology
Economic History
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Theory
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Politics and Law
Public Administration
Public Policy
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

52 Rhetoric and Argumentation

Frans H. van Eemeren, Professor Emeritus, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam, Director, International Institute of Pragma-Dialectics, Zhejiang University

Published: 03 March 2014
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter explains that argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary, approach that combines descriptive and normative insights. The chapter points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation theory the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic, captured in Aristotle’s term antistrophos , is lost. The chapter argues that this relationship, which is to be considered crucial to a full-fledged argumentation theory, has been recovered in extended pragma-dialectics with the help of the theoretical notion of strategic maneuvering.

Argumentation Theory

Because argumentation involves justifying our views to others, and we happen to do so virtually from the moment we get up in the morning until we have our last communication of the day, it is a social phenomenon everyone is familiar with. Argumentation is not only involved in our exchanges with family and friends but also can, for instance, be encountered in professional meetings, legal procedures, political debates, and international negotiations. The significance of argumentation for conducting our lives is therefore evident.

More often than not, the propositions that are justified by means of argumentation are evaluative or prescriptive rather than purely descriptive. If the truth of a statement can easily be established (“Albany is the capital of New York State”), giving persuasive arguments will generally not suffice because a definitive proof will be demanded. Argumentation is required when conclusive evidence cannot be easily provided and a justification is called for as to why a certain standpoint should be accepted on reasonable grounds. This is particularly the case when an evaluative view (“ Lost in Translation is not a good movie”) or a prescriptive view (“You should definitely lose a couple of pounds”) is at issue.

The observation that argumentation is prototypically used when the acceptability of a standpoint on reasonable grounds is at stake and a binding verdict cannot be given played an important role in the rebirth of argumentation theory in the twentieth century. In their theoretical proposals for a renewed argumentation theory, Stephen Toulmin and Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca strongly emphasized that argumentation, rather than logical proof of a standpoint, is an effort to make a standpoint in a reasonable way acceptable to people who are in doubt. They thus returned to a theoretical tradition of dealing with argumentation that started in antiquity, had been continued for a very long time, but had been abandoned in modern times. According to the views propounded by Toulmin and the “New Rhetoricians,” the formal logical treatment of argumentation was to be replaced by a discipline with a broader and different scope. In their zeal to declare logic irrelevant to the study of argumentation, these authors may have somewhat overstated their case, but they certainly succeeded in bringing argumentation into the limelight again in its full magnitude.

Since argumentation can never be completely covered by approaching it from a single disciplinary angle, be it logic, linguistics, psychology, or any other discipline, argumentation theory is by definition a multidisciplinary or—if the required constituents can be joined together—interdisciplinary enterprise. It is an enterprise calling for the development of descriptive as well as normative insights. Because the various kinds of argumentative practices that are to be studied represent an empirical reality, descriptive research is necessary to make clear how exactly these practices work. But because argumentation theorists are also out to determine to what extent argumentative practices can stand the test of criticism, normative research is also required to reach well-considered judgments concerning the quality of argumentation. Ideally, the descriptive and the normative research carried out in the realm of argumentation theory should, of course, be attuned to each other.

Argumentation theorists aim to develop the theoretical instruments necessary for adequately describing and standardizing the various kinds of “moves” that are instrumental in the great variety of argumentative practices (see van Eemeren et al. 2012 ). In this endeavor they pay systematic attention to factors pertinent to the production of argumentative moves as well as to factors pertinent to their analysis and evaluation.

In analyzing argumentative discourse it is, for instance, important to realize that for a variety of reasons argumentative moves are in practice often performed in an implicit or even indirect way. “Shouldn’t you bring along an umbrella? Or do you want to get wet?” may then be said instead of, “I think you should take an umbrella with you, because otherwise you will get wet.” Such complications make it necessary that in the analysis a systematic reconstruction takes place of the argumentative moves that are made in the exchange concerned.

In evaluating argumentative discourse it is also important to realize that the argumentative moves that are made in a particular discourse do not always have to agree with the standards of soundness that need to be maintained in a reasonable exchange. If, for instance, in “You should reduce your intake of sweets, otherwise you will never lose weight” the person addressed in the argumentation cuts short the exchange by retorting, “Hear who is talking, potbelly!” then there is something wrong, because by giving this response the interlocutor is silenced as a discussion partner. His advice might well be valid, of course, however fat he himself is. In judging argumentative moves, reasonable moves are to be distinguished systematically from moves that are fallacious.

Separate Renaissances of Two Related Paradigms

Argumentation research started in ancient Greece and reached its apex in Aristotle’s writings. In his treatment of dialectic and rhetoric Aristotle discussed primarily the use of syllogistic and other forms of reasoning in argumentation. In antiquity the term dialectic was used in various ways, pertaining to different kinds of theoretical projects, but Aristotle used it to refer to argumentative discourse in critical dialogues between the protagonist of a thesis and an antagonist who is to be convinced. The term rhetoric refers to the argumentative use of logos (along with ēthos and pathos ) as a means of persuasion in political, legal, and ceremonial speeches.

Aristotle appears to have envisioned a division of labor between the dialectical and rhetorical perspectives on argumentation, the one complementing the other. According to Hanns Hohmann, Aristotle views it as “a coordinate relationship … emphasizing the parallels between the two fields” (2002: 43). Other classical and post-classical authors seem to envisage a competition between dialectic and rhetoric. In some cases the dialectical perspective is the preferred one, in other cases the rhetorical. Cicero, for example, puts rhetoric first by subordinating dialectical insights to rhetorical ones, while Boethius sees dialectic as crucial because it provides the required methods of inference. Michael Leff summarizes these developments as follows: “The historical record is one of constant change as the identity, function, structure, and mutual relationship [of the arts of dialectic and rhetoric] become issues of argumentative contestation” (2002: 53).

Eventually, the competition between dialectic and rhetoric leads, at the end of the Middle Ages, to the annexation of important parts of rhetoric by the dialecticians, most notably invention ( inventio ) and arrangement ( dispositio )—simply by transferring them to dialectic. In this way rhetoric was reduced to the style ( elocutio ) and delivery ( actio ) of argumentative texts in the oratio . In the sixteenth century the development that had started with the medieval takeover of parts of rhetoric by dialectic culminates in Peter Ramus’s division of the field of activity into two separate disciplines. Rhetoric becomes exclusively the domain of the humanities, while dialectic is included in the exact sciences. When the Ramist division of the field comes to be viewed as ideological, the dialectical and rhetorical views of argumentation are regarded as different paradigms representing entirely different, and incompatible, conceptions of argumentation (cf. Toulmin 2001 ).

In this way, dialecticians and rhetoricians have become part of different academic communities, each with its own specific infrastructure of scholarly societies, conferences, journals, and book series. As a consequence of their separate development, the distinct intellectual contexts in which they operate, and the ideological division between them, a yawning gap between dialectic and rhetoric has come into being that prevents a constructive exchange of ideas. According to the dialecticians, the rhetoricians’ concentration on individual cases and their synthetic approach do not lead to systematic theorizing about argumentation. According to the rhetoricians, the generic, procedural, and often formal approach of the dialecticians, abstracting from vital characteristics of actual communication, does not result in worthwhile insights concerning argumentative practice. Even when both dialectic and rhetoric experienced modern renaissances that led to the resurgence of argumentation theory as a field of study, the two perspectives on argumentation remained completely isolated from each other.

Due to the reshaping of logic by mathematics around the turn of the twentieth century, the dialectical study of critical exchanges disappeared from sight for some time, not only outside but also inside formal logic. In the 1960s and 1970s, however, several developments sparked a resurgence of interest in dialectic (bearing in mind that modern dialectic is only in a general sense related to classical dialectic). What these developments have in common is the idea that dialectic involves having a regulated critical exchange aimed at systematically testing the tenability of a standpoint.

First, in Germany Paul Lorenzen and other members of the Erlangen School instigated a dialogical approach to logic. In this approach, logical derivations are viewed as critical dialogues in which a proponent defends a conclusion presented as a thesis against the critical doubts of an opponent who accepts certain premises as concessions ( Lorenzen and Lorenz 1978 ). Second, in an epoch-making monograph, Fallacies , Charles Hamblin (1970) developed in Australia proposals for critical discussion procedures, which he named “formal dialectic.” Subsequently, in the Netherlands, Else Barth and Erik Krabbe (1982) exploited both Lorenzen’s and Hamblin’s ideas in their study, From Axiom to Dialogue , to create a formal theory of argumentation, also referred to as formal dialectic.

Barth and Krabbe’s formal dialectic consists of systems of procedural rules for critical dialogues aimed at determining whether a thesis can be maintained in the light of the concessions of a doubting opponent. The rules of formal dialectic lay down which discussion moves are allowed, when a thesis is successfully defended by the proponent, and when it is successfully attacked by the opponent (see Walton and Krabbe 1995 ). Inspired by the theoretical example of formal dialectic, Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (2004) developed in the 1970s and 1980s their “pragma-dialectical” argumentation theory. The dialectical dimension is given shape in a model of a critical discussion that serves as the point of departure when dealing with argumentative discourse, the pragmatic dimension in a characterization of the argumentative moves made in the discourse as speech acts performed in natural language. The model of a critical discussion specifies which types of speech acts and discussion rules are instrumental in resolving a difference of opinion in a reasonable way.

Opting for a dialectical perspective means that the reasonableness of an argumentative exchange is made central: to be acceptable, argumentative moves need to comply with the standards of soundness applying to a critical discussion. This means that the point of departure is, in principle, normative (see Johnson 2000 ; Finocchiaro 2005 ). The possibility of nailing down the fallacies is generally seen as the litmus test of a dialectical procedure: if a dialectical procedure enables us to distinguish systematically between sound argumentative moves and fallacious moves, the procedure is considered dialectically adequate. Exactly which standards will be applied may vary from one dialectical argumentation theory to the other, but dialecticians are likely to agree that the retort, “Hear who is talking, potbelly,” given in response to the advice, “You should reduce your intake of sweets, otherwise you will never lose weight,” is a variant of the ad hominem fallacy known as tu quoque —“you too!”

A major impetus to the revival of the study of argumentation from a rhetorical perspective in Europe was given by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s monograph, Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique , published in 1958, the same year that Toulmin published The Uses of Argument . After an English translation was published in 1969, the influence of the “New Rhetoric” extended to North America as well.

Just as in classical rhetoric, in the New Rhetoric the notion of audience plays a pivotal role. It is postulated that argumentation is always designed to have an effect on those for whom it is intended. Argumentation is persuasive if it succeeds in securing the approval of a “particular audience,” consisting of a particular person or group, and convincing if it may lay claim to the approval of the “universal audience,” consisting of all reasonable people. The discursive techniques used in persuading or convincing the audience must in all cases be attuned to the intended audience. The New Rhetoric is calculated to provide a systematic survey of all elements in argumentative discourse that play a part in the discursive techniques used to bring about acceptance of the claims defended.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) present an overview of the various kinds of starting points—facts, truths, presumptions, values, value hierarchies, and loci—that, if they are acceptable to the audience, can be used as the point of departure of argumentation. They also discuss the argumentative schemes that can be employed to make standpoints acceptable to the audience on the basis of these starting points. If the use of a discursive technique succeeds in connecting an acceptable premise by means of a particular argument scheme with the standpoint at issue, the acceptability of the premise concerned is transferred to the standpoint. The New Rhetoric distinguishes three types of argument schemes that can be employed in such associative discursive techniques: quasi-logical argument, argument based on the structure of reality, and argument establishing the structure of reality. If, for instance, the standpoint that Paul will like cheese is defended by means of the argument that he is Dutch, the unexpressed premise that the Dutch like cheese points to the exploitation of a scheme of argumentation based on the structure of reality.

Alongside the associative techniques just discussed, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca distinguish the technique of dissociation, which is used to give certain words a new content that agrees better with the argumentative purposes of the speaker or writer. The process of dissociation involves differentiating a concept from the concept it was originally part of and entails the introduction of a division. Such a division is, for instance, achieved in the following dissociation: “What you seem to think of as de-Christianization is in fact secularization .”

The New Rhetoric is, in principle, a descriptive theory of argumentation. It does not provide, from a critical angle, standards of reasonableness to which arguers ought to adhere. According to Perelman, the New Rhetoric can be seen as an attempt at creating a framework that unites all forms of nonanalytic thinking directed toward convincing people in ways that lay claim to rationality (see van Eemeren et al. 2012 , ch. 5).

Modern Rhetorical Approaches to Argumentation

Although in the course of time the rhetorical perspective on argumentation has been constantly redefined, starting in ancient Greece with the sophists, Plato, and Aristotle, the focus has always been on effective persuasion of an audience. In the same spirit as the New Rhetoric, modern rhetoricians also tend to concentrate on the effectiveness of argumentative discourse. However, following Aristotle’s view, rhetoric is considered to concentrate not on examining the actual achievement of persuasive effects but on identifying the means of persuasion that may be effective in a given case.

Most definitions given in handbooks confirm that rhetoric is about communication as a way of influencing people. According to Herbert Simons, “Most neutrally, perhaps,” rhetoric is “the study and practice of persuasion” (1990: 5). This does not mean, however, that rhetoric as it is currently practiced is always about argumentation. In The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies , Jan Swearingen and Edward Schiappa observe that American rhetorical theories have extended their scope in the twentieth century “to the point that everything, or virtually everything, can be described as ‘rhetorical’” ( Lunsford, Wilson, and Eberly 2009 : 2). Andrea Lunsford, Kirt Wilson, and Rosa Eberly therefore describe rhetoric as “a plastic art that moulds itself to varying times, places and situations” (xix).

Even when the term “argumentation” is used, in American rhetoric its meaning is often much broader than in argumentation theory. It may involve justifying not only a standpoint on reasonable grounds by giving reasons in its support but also any characteristic of communication that can have a persuasive effect on the audience. This more diffuse conception of argumentation may be a consequence of the influence of the Isocratean rhetorical tradition. The inclusion, next to logos , of ēthos and pathos in the rhetorical study of argumentation is also part of the explanation. The fact that the meaning of the words argument and argumentation in English is rather undetermined in pertinent respects compared to that of their counterparts in other European languages may also play a part in this broadening of scope.

Due perhaps to a combination of holding on to cultural tradition and a democratic ideology requiring every citizen to be capable of taking part in public debate, rhetoric has survived in the United States much more robustly than in Europe. Kenneth Burke’s claim that “wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric—and wherever there is ‘meaning,’ there is ‘persuasion’” (1969: 172) instigated an unprecedented broadening of the scope of rhetoric (“Big Rhetoric”). “Identification,” for example, came to be regarded as a rhetorical phenomenon. New angles of research were pursued, such as feminist rhetoric. Scholars such as Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault (who never labeled themselves in this way) were without much ado incorporated into rhetoric ( Foss, Foss, and Trapp 1985 ). According to Schiappa, few American scholars would nowadays object to categorizing a narrative analysis of George W. Bush’s discourse about the Persian Gulf War, a psychoanalytic reading of the movie Aliens , and an analysis of visual iconography in the advertisement of “Heroin Chic” under the rubric “rhetorical perspective on argumentative discourse” (2002: 67).

In spite of the dilution of rhetoric, in the past decades interesting rhetorical analyses of argumentative discourse have been made, also, or even particularly, in the United States. These analyses are usually grafted onto the classical and post-classical tradition. In some cases they are accompanied by an in-depth exposition of the rhetorical framework in which the analysis takes place. A case in point is Jeanne Fahnestock’s (1999) study, Rhetorical Figures in Science . Fahnestock explains convincingly how structural options available in a language can lead to specific lines of argument. Concentrating on the linguistic constructions called figures of speech, which in her view epitomize lines of argument with great applicability and durability, she provides a well-grounded rhetorical analysis of the use of antithesis, incrementum , gradatio , antimetabole, plokē , and polyptoton in historical cases of scientific argumentative discourse.

Another American scholar who has contributed high-quality rhetorical analysis of argumentative discourse is Michael Leff. He explains that the Aristotelian classification of deliberative, forensic, and ceremonial oratory is not simply empirical but also “establishes logically proper functions for audiences in different contexts and implies normative standards of obligation connected with the activity of rhetoric itself” ( Leff 2002 : 55). In “Lincoln at Cooper Union,” Leff and G. P. Mohrmann (1974) had already illustrated how such rhetorical insights can be exploited in the analysis of argumentative discourse. Making use of the rhetorical notions of enactment, embodiment, and evocation, Leff (2003) demonstrates, in his analysis of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” just how illuminating an analysis that methodically exploits rhetorical insights can be.

Remarkably thorough and sustained case-based analyses of public argumentative discourse in the modern American rhetorical tradition are carried out by David Zarefsky, who supplements classical rhetorical insights with modern rhetorical insights whenever this seems functional. In President Johnson’s War on Poverty , for example, Zarefsky (1986) examines how public policy can be put in a strategic perspective by discursive means. He concentrates on Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to promote his “Great Society” by declaring “unconditional war” on poverty. The central question is how Johnson’s anti-poverty program as laid down in the Economic Opportunity Act first gained such strong support and fell so far later on. Instead of blaming the negative effect of the war in Vietnam for this, as others did, Zarefsky looks for the answer to this question in the discourse concerning the war on poverty.

Zarefsky’s thesis is that the rhetorical choices ensuing from the decision to call the struggle for abolishing poverty a “war” were instrumental in obtaining the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act but also in bringing about its destruction. He focuses primarily on the executive branch’s attempt to persuade Congress to initiate and sustain the program (see Campbell and Jamieson , ch. 50). The symbolic choice made by calling the anti-poverty policy a war, and the symbolic choices that go with it (“soldiers,” “enemy,” “battle plan”), suggest a view of the world that puts all measures proposed in a specific perspective. This is why these choices play an important role in the process of public persuasion: since the symbols used define the issues in a way that highlights some aspects of the issues while diminishing others, they “evoke support or opposition by virtue of their association with an audience’s prior experience and belief” ( Zarefsky 1986 : 5). As Zarefsky explains, in the case of the “unconditional war on poverty” the rhetorical choices that were made stimulated by their symbolic value both short-term rhetorical success and long-term rhetorical failure.

Reconciling the Rhetorical and the Dialectical Perspectives

In the second half of the twentieth century the dialectical and the rhetorical approaches to argumentation have completely and independently of each other been brought to flourish again. In practice, the watershed between the dialectical perspective, which is mainly chosen by logicians in philosophy departments, and the rhetorical perspective, which has virtually become the prerogative of departments of (speech) communication, is almost absolute. One harmful consequence of this gap is that problems for which a contribution from both disciplines is required cannot be resolved. Since a full analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse can be given only if both its effectiveness and its reasonableness are taken into account, it is of vital importance that rhetorical and dialectical insights are systematically linked together. Recently, some important steps have been taken in this direction.

Perhaps simply because of inertia, most dialecticians and rhetoricians seem inclined to maintain the status quo: dialecticians generally stick to their dialectical approach without paying much attention to rhetorical considerations and the same applies, mutatis mutandis , to rhetoricians. All the same, there are now some rhetorical and dialectical scholars who acknowledge that the relationship between the two perspectives deserves our attention. Key figures in argumentation theory such as Perelman certainly did not object to combining rhetorical and dialectical insights, but their own efforts usually remained limited to emphasizing that both disciplines play a part in theorizing about techniques of argument and employing such techniques to convince or persuade people.

Some rhetoricians are in favor of cooperation but are reluctant to allow too much space to the counterpart approach for fear of seeing their own approach be taken in. Hohmann, for one, is afraid that rhetoric might become the “handmaiden” (2002: 41) of dialectic if the two disciplines were theoretically in any way combined. Leff, on the other hand, does not share this remarkable lack of confidence in the power of survival of rhetoric. Holding on to the historical division of labor between rhetoric and dialectic, he sees clear advantages both to rhetoric and to dialectic in reestablishing the old ties. Leff imagines that rhetoric and dialectic can correct each other’s “vices” ( Leff 2003 : 62). As far as rhetoric is concerned, “effective persuasion must be disciplined by dialectical rationality,” in particular when it comes to the detection of fallacies (62). In turn, rhetoric could preserve dialectic from fruitless circularity and infinite regress. Because in rhetoric argumentation is studied as it is situated in the specific communicative and interactional context in which it takes place, the application of dialectical rules can be connected with concrete points of departure so that the danger that the discussion may get “bogged down” can be averted.

In their approach to argumentation some scholars already combine the use of rhetorical and dialectical insights. Christopher Tindale (2004) , for one, considers—in a Ciceronian way—the rhetorical perspective to be primary and aims at integrating dialectical (and logical) insights into the theoretical framework of rhetoric. Along the lines of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, others think that to create a framework for a critical analysis of argumentative practice it is recommendable to start from a dialectical perspective. According to the pragma-dialecticians, the latter option, for methodological reasons, is also to be preferred because it makes it possible to include the application of rhetorical insights in a more general and systematic theoretical framework. As van Eemeren (2010) explains in Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse , the introduction of the notion of strategic maneuvering allows for a functional integration of rhetorical insights into the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.

The need for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse arises from the argumentative predicament that in every argumentative move that is made, aiming for effectiveness and maintaining reasonableness may be presumed to go together ( van Eemeren 2010 : 40–1). Analytically, in all argumentative moves three aspects of strategic maneuvering can be distinguished, which are realized simultaneously in argumentative practice: a selection from the “topical potential” of moves available at a particular point in the discourse; an adaptation to “audience demand”; and a choice of “presentational design” (93–6). The strategic design of the discourse can be systematically taken into account in analysis and evaluation by methodically integrating rhetorical insights concerning the aiming for effectiveness with dialectical insights concerning the reasonableness of argumentative discourse. The strategic maneuvering that takes place in argumentative discourse is directed at maintaining the delicate balance between effectiveness and reasonableness. If the balance is distorted because one or more of the standards of reasonableness incorporated in the rules for critical discussion is violated, a fallacy has been committed and the strategic maneuvering “derails” (196–200).

In Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery , Zarefsky’s rhetorical study of the Lincoln–Douglas debates in 1858, he concludes that these debates should first of all be appreciated “for the mastery that they reflect of the strategy and tactics of argumentation” (1990: 246). With the help of the pragma-dialectical theory as extended for dealing methodically with strategic maneuvering, it can be made clear what exactly this strategic argumentative acting involves in terms of the simultaneous pursuit of effectiveness and the maintenance of reasonableness. Instead of considering the rhetorical dimension independently, it is in this approach intrinsically connected with the dialectical dimension. What is gained in this way is not only that in analyzing argumentative discourse rhetorical considerations concerning the effectiveness of argumentative moves are now systematically interwoven with dialectical considerations concerning reasonableness in resolving differences of opinion but also that a firmer theoretical basis is created for a critical appreciation of the argumentative quality of the discourse. By thus bringing general dialectical principles of reasonableness to bear in dealing rhetorically with the effectiveness of actual argumentative practices, we have provided an interpretation of the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic that may come close to what Aristotle envisioned when, in the first sentence of his Rhetoric , he called the two disciplines each other’s counterparts.

Barth, Else , and Erik Krabbe . 1982 . From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation . Berlin: de Gruyter.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Burke, Kenneth. 1969 . A Rhetoric of Motives . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. 1999 . Rhetorical Figures in Science . New York: Oxford University Press.

Finocchiaro, Maurice. 2005 . Arguments about Arguments. Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays in Logical Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foss, Sonja , Karen Foss , and Robert Trapp . 1985 . Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Hamblin, Charles. 1970 . Fallacies . London: Methuen.

Hohmann, Hanns. 2002 . “Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 53–64. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Johnson, Ralph. 2000 . Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Leff, Michael , and G. P. Mohrmann . 1974 . “ Lincoln at Cooper Union: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Text. ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 60: 346–358.

Leff, Michael. 2002 . “The Relation between Dialectic and Rhetoric in a Classical and a Modern Perspective.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 53–64.

Leff, Michael. 2003 . “Rhetoric and Dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.’” In Anyone Who Has a View , edited by Frans H. van Eemeren , Anthony Blair , Charles Willard , and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , 255–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Lorenzen, Paul , and Kuno Lorenz . 1978 . Dialogische Logik . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Lunsford, Andrea , Kirt Wilson , and Rosa Eberly . 2009 . “Introduction: Rhetorics and Roadmaps.” In The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies , edited by Andrea Lunsford , Kirt Wilson , and Rosa Eberly , xi–xxix. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Perelman, Chaïm. 1970 . “The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning.” In The Great Ideas Today , Part 3, 273–312. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Perelman, Chaïm , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca . 1969 . The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Schiappa, Edward. 2002 . “Evaluating Argumentative Discourse from a Rhetorical Perspective: Defining ‘Person’ and ‘Human Life’ in Constitutional Disputes over Abortion.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 5–80.

Simons, Herbert , ed. 1990 . The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Swearingen, C. J. , and Edward Schiappa . 2009 . “Historical Studies in Rhetoric: Revisionist Methods and New Directions.” In The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies , edited by Andrea Lunsford , Kirt Wilson , and Rosa Eberly , 1–13. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Tindale, Christopher. 2004 . Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice . London: SAGE.

Toulmin, Stephen. 2001 . Return to Reason . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Toulmin, Stephen. 1958 . The Uses of Argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010 . Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst . 2004 . A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, Frans H. , Bart Garssen , Erik Krabbe , Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , Bart Verheij , and Jean Wagemans . 2012 . Handbook of Argumentation Theory . Dordrecht: Springer.

Walton, Douglas , and Erik Krabbe . 1995 . Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Zarefsky, David. 1990 . Lincoln, Douglas and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Zarefsky, David. 1986 . President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, the 20 most useful rhetorical devices.

General Education

Rhetoric is the art of effective communication; if you communicate with others at all, rhetorical devices are your friends!

Rhetorical devices help you make points more effectively, and help people understand you better. In this article, I'll be covering some important rhetorical devices so you can improve your own writing!

What Are Rhetorical Devices?

A lot of things that you would think of as just regular everyday modes of communicating are actually rhetorical devices That’s because ‘rhetorical devices’ is more or less a fancy way of saying ‘communication tools.’

Most people don’t plan out their use of rhetorical devices in communication, both because nobody thinks, “now would be a good time to use synecdoche in this conversation with my grocery clerk,” and because we use them so frequently that they don’t really register as “rhetorical devices.”

How often have you said something like, “when pigs fly!” Of those times, how often have you thought, “I’m using a rhetorical device!” That’s how ubiquitous they are!

However, being aware of what they are and how to use them can strengthen your communication , whether you do a lot of big speeches, write persuasive papers, or just argue with your friends about a TV show you all like.

Rhetorical devices can function at all levels: words, sentences, paragraphs, and beyond. Some rhetorical devices are just a single word, such as onomatopoeia. Others are phrases, such as metaphor, while still others can be sentence-length (such as a thesis), paragraph-length (hypophora), or go throughout the entire piece, such as a standard five-paragraph essay.

Many of these (such as the thesis or five-paragraph essay) are so standard and familiar to us that we may not think of them as devices. But because they help us shape and deliver our arguments effectively, they're important to know and understand.

The Most Useful Rhetorical Devices List

It would be impossible to list every single rhetorical device in one blog post. Instead, I've collected a mixture of extremely common devices you may have heard before and some more obscure ones that might be valuable to learn.

Amplification

Amplification is a little similar to parallelism: by using repetition, a writer expands on an original statement and increases its intensity .

Take this example from Roald Dahl’s The Twits :

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it. A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

In theory, we could have gotten the point with the first sentence. We don’t need to know that the more you think ugly thoughts, the uglier you become, nor that if you think good thoughts you won’t be ugly—all that can be contained within the first sentence. But Dahl’s expansion makes the point clearer, driving home the idea that ugly thoughts have consequences.

Amplification takes a single idea and blows it up bigger, giving the reader additional context and information to better understand your point. You don’t just have to restate the point— use amplification to expand and dive deeper into your argument to show readers and listeners how important it is!

Anacoluthon

Anacoluthon is a fancy word for a disruption in the expected grammar or syntax of a sentence. That doesn’t mean that you misspoke—using anacoluthon means that you’ve deliberately subverted your reader’s expectations to make a point.

For example, take this passage from King Lear :

“I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things, What they are, yet I know not…”

In this passage, King Lear interrupts himself in his description of his revenge. This has multiple effects on the reader: they wonder what all the world shall do once he has his revenge (cry? scream? fear him?), and they understand that King Lear has interrupted himself to regain his composure. This tells us something about him—that he’s seized by passion in this moment, but also that he regains control. We might have gathered one of those things without anacoluthon, but the use of this rhetorical device shows us both very efficiently.

Anadiplosis

Anadiplosis refers to purposeful repetition at the end of one sentence or clause and at the beginning of the next sentence or clause. In practice, that looks something like a familiar phrase from Yoda:

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Note the way that the ending word of each sentence is repeated in the following sentence. That’s anadiplosis!

This rhetorical device draws a clear line of thinking for your reader or listener—repetition makes them pay closer attention and follow the way the idea evolves. In this case, we trace the way that fear leads to suffering through Yoda’s purposeful repetition.

Antanagoge is the balancing of a negative with a positive. For example, the common phrase, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” is antanagoge—it suggests a negative (lots of lemons) and follows that up with a positive (make lemonade).

When writing persuasively, this can be a great way to respond to potential detractors of your argument. Suppose you want to convince your neighborhood to add a community garden, but you think that people might focus on the amount of work required. When framing your argument, you could say something like, “Yes, it will be a lot of work to maintain, but working together will encourage us all to get to know one another as well as providing us with fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers.”

This is a little like procatalepsis, in that you anticipate a problem and respond to it. However, antanagoge is specifically balancing a negative with a positive, just as I did in the example of a garden needing a lot of work, but that work is what ultimately makes the project worth it.

Apophasis is a form of irony relating to denying something while still saying it. You’ll often see this paired with phrases like, “I’m not saying…” or “It goes without saying…”, both of which are followed up with saying exactly what the speaker said they weren’t going to say.

Take this speech from Iron Man 2 :

"I'm not saying I'm responsible for this country's longest run of uninterrupted peace in 35 years! I'm not saying that from the ashes of captivity, never has a phoenix metaphor been more personified! I'm not saying Uncle Sam can kick back on a lawn chair, sipping on an iced tea, because I haven't come across anyone man enough to go toe to toe with me on my best day! It's not about me."

Tony Stark isn’t saying that he’s responsible for all those things… except that’s exactly what he is saying in all of his examples. Though he says it’s not about him, it clearly is—all of his examples relate to how great he is, even as he proclaims that they aren’t.

A scene like this can easily be played for humor, but apophasis can also be a useful (albeit deceptive) rhetorical tool. For example, this argument:

Our neighborhood needs a community garden to foster our relationships with one another. Not only is it great for getting to know each other, but a community garden will also provide us with all kinds of fresh fruit and vegetables. It would be wrong to say that people who disagree aren’t invested in others’ health and wellness, but those who have the neighborhood’s best interests in mind will support a community garden.

That last sentence is all apophasis. Not only did I imply that people who don’t support the community garden are anti-social and uncaring (by outright stating that I wouldn’t say that, but I also implied that they’re also not invested in the neighborhood at all. Stating things like this, by pretending you’re not saying them or saying the opposite, can be very effective.

Assonance and Alliteration

Assonance adds an abundance of attractive accents to all your assertions. That’s assonance—the practice repeating the same vowel sound in multiple words in a phrase or sentence, often at the beginning of a word, to add emphasis or musicality to your work. Alliteration is similar, but uses consonant sounds instead of vowel sounds.

Let’s use Romeo and Juliet as an example again:

“From forth the fatal loins of these two foes; A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life.”

Here, we have repetition of the sounds ‘f’ and ‘l’ in ‘from forth...fatal...foes,’ and ‘loins...lovers...life.’

Even if you don’t notice the repetition as you’re reading, you can hear the effects in how musical the language sounds. Shakespeare could easily have just written something like, “Two kids from families who hate one another fell in love and died by suicide,” but that’s hardly as evocative as the phrasing he chose.

Both assonance and alliteration give your writing a lyrical sound, but they can do more than that, too. These tools can mimic associated sounds, like using many ‘p’ sounds to sound like rain or something sizzling, or ‘s’ sounds to mimic the sounds of a snake. When you’re writing, think about what alternative meanings you can add by emphasizing certain sounds.

Listen, asterismos is great. Don’t believe me? How did you feel after I began the first sentence with the word ‘listen?’ Even if you didn’t feel more inspired to actually listen, you probably paid a bit more attention because I broke the expected form. That’s what asterismos is—using a word or phrase to draw attention to the thought that comes afterward.

‘Listen’ isn’t the only example of asterismos, either. You can use words like, ‘hey,’ ‘look,’ ‘behold,’ ‘so,’ and so on. They all have the same effect: they tell the reader or listener, “Hey, pay attention—what I’m about to say is important.”

Dysphemism and Euphemism

Euphemism is the substitution of a more pleasant phrase in place of a familiar phrase, and dysphemism is the opposite —an un pleasant phrase substituted in place of something more familiar. These tools are two sides of the same coin. Euphemism takes an unpleasant thing and makes it sound nicer—such as using 'passed away' instead of 'died'—while dysphemism does the opposite, taking something that isn't necessarily bad and making it sound like it is.

We won’t get into the less savory uses of dysphemism, but there are plenty that can leave an impression without being outright offensive. Take ‘snail mail.’ A lot of us call postal mail that without any real malice behind it, but ‘snail’ implies slowness, drawing a comparison between postal mail and faster email. If you’re making a point about how going electronic is faster, better for the environment, and overall more efficient, comparing email to postal mail with the phrase ‘snail mail’ gets the point across quickly and efficiently.

Likewise, if you're writing an obituary, you probably don't want to isolate the audience by being too stark in your details. Using gentler language, like 'passed away' or 'dearly departed' allows you to talk about things that might be painful without being too direct. People will know what you mean, but you won't have to risk hurting anyone by being too direct and final with your language.

You’ve no doubt run into epilogues before, because they’re a common and particularly useful rhetorical device! Epilogues are a conclusion to a story or work that reveals what happens to the characters in the story. This is different from an afterword, which is more likely to describe the process of a book’s creation than to continue and provide closure to a story.

Many books use epilogues to wrap up loose ends, usually taking place in the future to show how characters have changed as a result of their adventures. Both Harry Potter and The Hunger Games series use their epilogues to show the characters as adults and provide some closure to their stories—in Harry Potter , the main characters have gotten married and had children, and are now sending those children to the school where they all met. This tells the reader that the story of the characters we know is over—they’re adults and are settled into their lives—but also demonstrates that the world goes on existing, though it’s been changed forever by the actions of the familiar characters.

Eutrepismus

Eutrepismus is another rhetorical device you’ve probably used before without realizing it. This device separates speech into numbered parts, giving your reader or listener a clear line of thinking to follow.

Eutrepismus is a great rhetorical device—let me tell you why. First, it’s efficient and clear. Second, it gives your writing a great sense of rhythm. Third, it’s easy to follow and each section can be expanded throughout your work.

See how simple it is? You got all my points in an easy, digestible format. Eutrepismus helps you structure your arguments and make them more effective, just as any good rhetorical device should do.

You’ve probably used hypophora before without ever thinking about it. Hypophora refers to a writer or speaker proposing a question and following it up with a clear answer. This is different from a rhetorical question—another rhetorical device—because there is an expected answer, one that the writer or speaker will immediately give to you.

Hypophora serves to ask a question the audience may have (even if they’re not entirely aware of it yet) and provide them with an answer. This answer can be obvious, but it can also be a means of leading the audience toward a particular point.

Take this sample from John F. Kennedy’s speech on going to the moon:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

In this speech, Kennedy outright states that he’s asking questions others have asked, and then goes on to answer them. This is Kennedy’s speech, so naturally it’s going to reflect his point of view, but he’s answering the questions and concerns others might have about going to the moon. In doing so, he’s reclaiming an ongoing conversation to make his own point. This is how hypophora can be incredibly effective: you control the answer, leaving less room for argument!

Litotes is a deliberate understatement, often using double negatives, that serves to actually draw attention to the thing being remarked upon. For example, saying something like, “It’s not pretty,” is a less harsh way to say “It’s ugly,” or “It’s bad,” that nonetheless draws attention to it being ugly or bad.

In Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave , he writes:

“Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others.”

Notice the use of “not uncommon.” Douglass, by using a double negative to make readers pay closer attention, points out that some slaves still sought superiority over others by speaking out in favor of their owners.

Litotes draws attention to something by understating it. It’s sort of like telling somebody not to think about elephants—soon, elephants becomes all they can think about. The double negative draws our attention and makes us focus on the topic because it’s an unusual method of phrasing.

Onomatopoeia

Onomatopoeia refers to a sound represented within text as a mimicry of what that sound actually sounds like. Think “bang” or “whizz” or “oomph,” all of which can mean that something made that kind of a sound—”the door banged shut”—but also mimic the sound itself—”the door went bang .”

This rhetorical device can add emphasis or a little bit of spice to your writing. Compare, “The gunshot made a loud sound,” to “The gun went bang .” Which is more evocative?

Parallelism

Parallelism is the practice of using similar grammar structure, sounds, meter, and so on to emphasize a point and add rhythm or balance to a sentence or paragraph.

One of the most famous examples of parallelism in literature is the opening of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities :

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

In the beginning, every phrase begins with “It was,” which is itself a parallelism. But there are also pairs of parallelism within the sentence, too; “It was the ___ of times, it was the ___ of times,” and “it was the age of ___, it was the age of ___.”

Parallelism draws your reader deeper into what you’re saying and provides a nice sense of flow, even if you’re talking about complicated ideas. The ‘epoch of incredulity’ is a pretty meaty phrase, but Dickens’ parallelism sets up a series of dichotomies for us; even if we don’t know quite what it means, we can figure it out by comparing it to ‘belief.’

Personification

Personification is a rhetorical device you probably run into a lot without realizing it. It’s a form of metaphor, which means two things are being compared without the words like or as—in this case, a thing that is not human is given human characteristics.

Personification is common in poetry and literature, as it’s a great way to generate fresh and exciting language, even when talking about familiar subjects. Take this passage from Romeo and Juliet , for example:

“When well-appareled April on the heel Of limping winter treads.”

April can’t wear clothes or step on winter, and winter can’t limp. However, the language Shakespeare uses here is quite evocative. He’s able to quickly state that April is beautiful (“well-appareled”) and that winter is coming to an end (“limping winter”). Through personification, we get a strong image for things that could otherwise be extremely boring, such as if Shakespeare had written, “When beautiful April comes right after winter.”

Procatalepsis

Procatalepsis is a rhetorical device that anticipates and notes a potential objection, heading it off with a follow-up argument to strengthen the point. I know what you’re thinking—that sounds really complicated! But bear with me, because it’s actually quite simple.

See how that works? I imagined that a reader might be confused by the terminology in the first sentence, so I noted that potential confusion, anticipating their argument. Then, I addressed that argument to strengthen my point—procatalepsis is easy, which you can see because I just demonstrated it!

Anticipating a rebuttal is a great way to strengthen your own argument. Not only does it show that you’ve really put thought into what you’re saying, but it also leaves less room for disagreement!

Synecdoche is a rhetorical device that uses a part of something to stand in for the whole. That can mean that we use a small piece of something to represent a whole thing (saying ‘let’s grab a slice’ when we in fact mean getting a whole pizza), or using something large to refer to something small. We often do this with sports teams–for example, saying that New England won the Super Bowl when we in fact mean the New England Patriots, not the entirety of New England.

This style of rhetorical device adds an additional dimension to your language, making it more memorable to your reader. Which sounds more interesting? “Let’s get pizza,” or “let’s grab a slice?”

Likewise, consider this quote from Percy Bysshe Shelly’s “Ozymandias”:

“Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them.”

Here, Shelly uses ‘the hand’ to refer to the sculptor. The hand did not sculpt the lifeless things on its own; it was a tool of the sculptor. But by using just the hand, Shelly avoids repeating ‘the sculptor,’ preserves the poem’s rhythm, and narrows our focus. If he had referred to the sculptor again, he’d still be a big important figure; by narrowing to the hand, Shelly is diminishing the idea of the creator, mirroring the poem’s assertion that the creation will outlast it.

Tautology refers to using words or similar phrases to effectively repeat the same idea with different wording. It’s a form of repetition that can make a point stronger, but it can also be the basis of a flawed argument—be careful that your uses of tautology is the former, not the latter!

For example, take this section of “The Bells” by Edgar Allen Poe:

“Keeping time, time, time, In a sort of Runic rhyme… From the bells, bells, bells, bells.”

Poe’s poetry has a great deal of rhythm already, but the use of ‘time, time, time’ sets us up for the way that ‘bells, bells, bells, bells’ also holds that same rhythm. Keeping time refers to maintaining rhythm, and this poem emphasizes that with repetition, much like the repetitive sound of ringing bells.

An example of an unsuccessful tautology would be something like, “Either we should buy a house, or we shouldn’t.” It’s not a successful argument because it doesn’t say anything at all—there’s no attempt to suggest anything, just an acknowledgment that two things, which cannot both happen, could happen.

If you want to use tautology in your writing, be sure that it’s strengthening your point. Why are you using it? What purpose does it serve? Don’t let a desire for rhythm end up robbing you of your point!

That thing your English teachers are always telling you to have in your essays is an important literary device. A thesis, from the Greek word for ‘a proposition,’ is a clear statement of the theory or argument you’re making in an essay. All your evidence should feed back into your thesis; think of your thesis as a signpost for your reader. With that signpost, they can’t miss your point!

Especially in longer academic writing, there can be so many pieces to an argument that it can be hard for readers to keep track of your overarching point. A thesis hammers the point home so that no matter how long or complicated your argument is, the reader will always know what you’re saying.

Tmesis is a rhetorical device that breaks up a word, phrase, or sentence with a second word, usually for emphasis and rhythm . We often do this with expletives, but tmesis doesn’t have to be vulgar to be effective!

Take this example from Romeo and Juliet :

“This is not Romeo, he’s some other where.”

The normal way we’d hear this phrase is “This is not Romeo, he’s somewhere else.” But by inserting the word ‘other’ between ‘some’ and ‘where,’ it not only forces us to pay attention, but also changes the sentence’s rhythm. It gets the meaning across perfectly, and does so in a way that’s far more memorable than if Shakespeare had just said that Romeo was somewhere else.

For a more common usage, we can turn to George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion , which often has Eliza Doolittle using phrases like “fan-bloody-tastic” and “abso-blooming-lutely.” The expletives—though mild by modern standards—emphasize Eliza’s social standing and make each word stand out more than if she had simply said them normally.

What’s Next?

Rhetorical devices and literary devices can both be used to enhance your writing and communication. Check out this list of literary devices to learn more !

Ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos are all modes of persuasion—types of rhetorical devices— that can help you be a more convincing writer !

No matter what type of writing you're doing, rhetorical devices can enhance it! To learn more about different writing styles, check out this list !

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the parts of a speech or text to understand how it produces its persuasive effect., what is rhetorical analysis.

Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive communication, and analysis is the act of taking something apart to understand it. Therefore, rhetorical analysis is the act of investigating the elements of a speech or other communication to understand how it produces its persuasive effect.

Writing the Rhetorical Analysis

For most rhetorical analysis assignments, you’ll want a thesis, a clear and specific statement that lets readers know what the main point of your paper is. To do this you might ask yourself two questions:

What effect does this piece of communication have on me?
How (or with what rhetorical choices) did the creator make that happen?

You can start on either end, with the “what” or the “how.” For example, maybe Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” speech inspires you to action against systems of prejudice and oppression. Great! You’ve got the what —now it's time to go looking for the how . What rhetorical strategies does Martin Luther King Jr. use to make you feel that way? Repetition? Symbolism?

Or, maybe you love the catchy rhythm of Lincoln's “Four score and seven years ago. . .” which reads almost like a line of poetry. What effect might opening the Gettysburg Address in this way have had on Lincoln’s audience? Perhaps it grabbed their attention to prepare them to meditate on his serious topic? If so, how?

Developing the Body

After you’ve crafted your thesis, it’s time to develop your analysis. A typical body paragraph may look like this:

Step 1: Identify the rhetorical choice
Step 2: Explain why the author made the choice
Step 3: Show the choice in action
Step 4: Add commentary to explain how the choice might accomplish its overall purpose

Example : “Martin Luther King Jr. encourages us to fight for racial equality by giving us his optimistic outlook, telling us, in essence, that if he can find hope in the challenging fight against racism, we can too: ‘So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow,’ King says, ‘I still have a dream.’ Perhaps this emotional optimism, this shared courage, is exactly what we need to move the fight forward."

What are Rhetorical Devices?

Rhetorical devices are the “parts” of rhetorical communication. Just as you might attempt to understand how a car works by taking apart an engine and learning about the function of each part, like pistons and ball bearings, you can understand a speech, an essay, or an advertisement by breaking it into its parts (elements, pieces) and finding their function.

For example, Julius Caesar once said the famous quote, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” This three-part construction is called a tricolon: A tricolon is a figure of speech in which the speaker or writer uses a list of three parts that are identical in syllabic length (Veni, vidi, vici, in the original Latin). What’s the function of the tricolon? Rhythm, for one.

Martin Luther King Jr. uses the rhetorical choice of repetition in his famous “I have a dream” speech, in which he repeated “I have a dream” eight times. He could have stated the phrase once, but by using the rhetorical technique of poetic repetition, King added a poetic and memorable pattern to his speech. Again, why might King do something like this? To give his audience something to remember, among other goals.

Repetition, alliteration, metaphor, procatalepsis, anacoluthon—rhetorical choices go by many names, some more difficult than others. Your professor probably doesn’t expect you to know all of them, or even to use their technical names, but looking for devices may help you understand how a rhetorical text is constructed.

For a great list of rhetorical devices and figures of speech, check this website out .

Final Considerations

It’s OK to be unsure about whether you have the “right” interpretation of a speech or other piece of communication. Analysis is subjective, and there often isn’t just one right answer—there are usually multiple good or reasonable ones.

"Spotify is Killing Beethoven."

Here are some great questions to discuss with your consultant.

Do you understand the rhetorical tools my paper is attempting to analyze?
Have I sufficiently analyzed “why” the speaker or writer used those tools?
Have I adequately explained “how” those tool might have work in the text or speech?
Where do you need more analysis?

Check out these resources!

Again, BYU professor Gideon Burton’s website, Silva Rhetoricae, is a helpful guide to rhetorical devices
This Merriam-Webster list is a little shorter, highlighting the best and most common rhetorical devices

9.3 Glance at Genre: Rhetorical Strategies

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Identify key rhetorical strategies that authors use to persuade readers.
Analyze texts to demonstrate understanding of key rhetorical concepts.
Identify genre conventions and explain how they are shaped by purpose, culture, and expectation.

Rhetorical analysis is the genre , or type of writing, that examines the way writers and speakers use language to influence readers. Rather than describing or summarizing content—the what of characters or themes—rhetorical analysis focuses on the individual parts of a text to show how language works to create the effects the writer wants. In other words, in addition to content, writers use rhetorical strategies to deliver and strengthen their ideas and thus influence their readers. A rhetorical analysis should, therefore, address the rhetorical situation , or conditions of communication that surround the rhetoric. These consist of the author (who), message (what), readers (to whom), purpose (why), means (how), context (where and when), and culture (community).

Culture refers to the way of life that a defined group of people establish. Their beliefs, laws, customs, and habits represent them as a group and may provide a signature to identify who they are and what they have accomplished. Rhetorical analysis must take these factors into full consideration, especially because cultural patterns are constantly changing and evolving with new knowledge and behaviors. Moreover, culture will vary greatly from group to group. Subgroups within a larger culture—for example, minorities within a majority population—may have distinct expressions of culture. When rhetorical analysis approaches language of a particular culture, questions may arise about who is best equipped to do the analysis and on what criteria, based on time and place.

Writers of rhetorical analyses consider these elements carefully and ask questions based on them. What are the goals of the author of the text? What factors are at play in the author’s choice of strategies used to make a rhetorical impact? What may occur in the interaction between the writer and reader? Will readers approach the piece neutrally, with no previous opinions? Are they likely to agree because they are of the same opinion, or are they hostile and ready to reject the arguments? Have they heard or read the ideas before? Will the ideas be too radical or too familiar? Are readers likely to see the author as sharing the field with them or as a stranger who must win their confidence?

The Workings of Rhetorical Analysis

The aim of rhetorical analysis is not to find agreement with or praise for the writer, although either may be implied or stated. The essential task of analyzing requires a detachment that will convince the readers of the validity and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the writing by identifying the writer’s tools and what they accomplish.

As you formulate your rhetorical analysis, be aware of the following approaches and strategies that writers use to persuade an audience. Your goal will be to identify them in your analysis, explain their use, and evaluate their effectiveness.

Establishing credibility. Writers include their credentials or experience with the subject to ensure that readers will take them seriously as someone who knows what they’re talking about. To reinforce their authority, they cite reliable sources as support for their points.
Sharing personal experience. Sharing a personal experience related to the subject enhances credibility and may also appeal to readers’ emotions.
Targeting emotional concerns. By specifically addressing those incidents or outcomes that readers may fear or desire, the author can rally them to take a particular position. Emotional concerns also include appeals to the five senses and to broader sentiments such as love, loyalty, anger, justice, or patriotism.
Using devices that draw attention to claims. These include literary devices such as parallelism, repetition, and rhetorical questions that writers and speakers use to emphasize points and unify a text.
Supporting claims with convincing evidence. Ways of supporting claims include quoting, summarizing, or paraphrasing expert opinions; relating anecdotes and examples; and citing appropriate statistics and facts.
Acknowledging the opposition. If a writer makes a point of explaining other groups’ positions carefully and respectfully, readers from those groups, as well as the target audience, are more likely to be responsive to the writer. By acknowledging the opposition, writers show they have considered opposing views and can then demonstrate that their position is preferable.
Questioning the motivation of the opposition. By exposing others’ possibly conflicting interests, the writer can undermine the credibility of an opponent’s character or argument.

In addition to these, writers may use more questionable rhetorical devices to persuade readers. While the techniques of each strategy differ, all lead away from the actual argument and seek to persuade through means other than reasonable, logical thought. Such strategies include bandwagon, ad hominem (name-calling), bait and switch, and more. Recall the roommates’ use of some of these in their efforts at persuasion in Breaking the Whole into Its Parts .

Rhetorical Strategies in Advertising and Public Policy

The strategies and other devices of rhetorical writing that are open to analysis are present in many types of communication, including multimodal examples such as advertisements that combine visuals with carefully crafted texts, dialogue, and voice-over.

Look at the M&Ms commercial, for example, in this collection of Super Bowl ads. Starting at minute 4:57, the prize-winning ad for M&Ms initially shows the widely recognizable candy in its multiple colors as both speaking cartoon figures and symbols of human behavior. The simple pitch: when people have offended others in one of a range of interpersonal blunders, the candy is offered as a peace offering. For example, the first image shows a man on a plane bumping into another passenger’s seat, causing him to spill his drink. The offender then offers the passenger a package of M&Ms. What is the rhetorical strategy behind the situation and the gesture? The ad appeals to pathos in the sense that people feel the need to be liked. Despite the humorous twist in the comment that he kicked the seat on purpose, the offending man nonetheless doesn’t want to be disliked. Nor do the others who commit other blunders. The sense of taste—sweetness—also comes into play, appealing to the senses, as does the sense of sight in the images of the colorful candy.

Furthermore, placing the ad during the Super Bowl targets an audience of game watchers whose ages, interests, and habits have been studied. They may be in a snacking frame of mind, so the appeal of candy is timely (kairos). The ad combines sophistication, appropriate adult behavior, and childishly amusing animation and personification. Seeing the product makes it more memorable. On the other hand, note the subtle use of the bandwagon fallacy: different people in different situations are doing the same thing—offering M&Ms. The bandwagon implication is that if you do something you’re sorry for or should be sorry for (or even if you don’t), giving out M&Ms is the way to apologize and be likable. Because travelers, businesspeople, the religiously observant, and others from different walks of life are doing it, so should you.

Figure 9.4 is an image from the U.S. Forest Service that also reflects the use of rhetorical strategies. Smokey Bear is a symbol created in 1944 to raise awareness of the danger of forest fires. Images of this gentle, personified bear are often accompanied by the slogan “Remember . . . only you can prevent forest fires” or a variation of it. The image shows Smokey dressed in rolled-up jeans, a name belt, and a ranger’s hat. He is reading letters delivered by a mail truck and sent to his own ZIP code, 20252, from children and adults promising to cooperate with his environmental efforts. The entire image is among the most recognizable of American cultural symbols.

The continuing identification of the bear and his appeal over decades is an example of the powerful use of rhetorical devices that speak without seeming to become dated and lose impact. First, a wild and dangerous animal is personified and made credible so that the credibility (ethos) of Smokey as a domesticated father figure with a fuzzy, playful cub climbing on the family mailbox removes any sense of danger and instead makes him into a believable voice for safety. No humans are emphasized in the illustration; the mail truck is seen only in the distance after having delivered another stack of fan mail. Other small animals are present in the background, as are familiar household items such as a shovel, a mailbox, an American flag, a boat on crystal clear water, and the playful images of the ranger’s hat and rolled-up jeans on crossed legs. The drawing features bright primary colors and the dark forest green of bountiful nature. The print medium in the center of the illustration, the sign reading “Prevent forest fires,” unifies the visual.

Because the images are emotionally accessible to children as well as adults, they appeal to widely shared pathos. The unspoken implication is that preventing forest fires will allow these young animals and forest plants to live rather than die in a carelessly started—and deadly—fire. In addition, it will allow human life to continue safely and pleasurably, as viewers can see, far in the background, people sailing and enjoying the water. If children’s wisdom and receptivity to images are present, this idealized picture has great appeal. Rather than a harsh rebuke for adult negligence, the lesson of Smokey relies on the power of rhetoric to modify behavior with specific, carefully crafted appeals. Yet the most frequently used slogan, “Only you can prevent forest fires,” is an example of hyperbole. Certainly “you” are not the sole person responsible for starting or preventing fires. Other people and other factors are at work aside from yourself.

More explicit, however, is this earlier image:

The rhetorical strategy again is pathos, appealing to a sense of guilt. If these children can help prevent fires, then surely adults can do the same, as they are likely more knowledgeable and care for the safety and health of their children.

Rhetorical Analysis: Key Terms

Rhetorical appeals.

When doing a rhetorical analysis, notice these appeals writers use to persuade their audiences.

Ethos : believable, authoritative voice that elicits credibility and audience trust.
Kairos : sense of appropriate timing when attempting to persuade.
Logos : credible information—facts, reasons, or examples—presented as evidence that moves toward a sensible and acceptable conclusion.
Pathos : the use of appeals to feelings and emotions shared by an audience. Some of the general categories are fear, guilt, anger, love, loyalty, patriotism, and duty.

Rhetorical Devices and Language Use

When doing a rhetorical analysis, notice these devices writers use to organize and emphasize their writing.

Figurative language : similes and metaphors. Comparing one aspect of things that in other ways are completely different is an essential part of rhetorical language. Simile example: “The treasure chest of nature’s wonders shone like a pirate’s gold tooth.” Metaphor example: “The pizza was a disk of saucy sunlight.”
Numerical data : statistics and figures. When accurate, numerical data can strengthen an argument.
Parallel structure : repetition of the same pattern of words to show that ideas are equally significant. Parallel structure, or parallelism, calls attention to these ideas, achieves balance, and makes the statements more memorable. Example: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
Personification : giving an inanimate or nonhuman object human characteristics to make it seem alive and relatable. Examples: “The virus packed its bags and spread across the ocean”; “Twitter erupted in outrage.”
Repetition : repeating a single word or group of words to build emphasis. Example: “The first underline cause end underline is poverty; the second underline cause end underline is poor health; the third underline cause end underline is discrimination. These underline causes end underline have been studied, but to what effect?”
Rhetorical question : a question that is not expected to be answered, one for which there is no answer, or one that creates a dramatic effect. Examples: “Has it occurred to you to ask why the economy is so unstable? A first point to consider is . . .”; “Do you think poverty will go away by itself?”
Understatement : presenting something as less important than it is as a way of distancing from the truth. Understatement is often used sarcastically or ironically. Example: “It may not have occurred to politicians that poverty leads to a host of health-related issues.”

Rhetorical Fallacies

When doing a rhetorical analysis, notice these fallacies writers may use to unethically persuade their audiences.

Ad hominem : logical fallacy that attempts to discredit a person, not an argument. Ad hominem , meaning “against the man,” is often termed name-calling . Examples: “She’s just a leftover from another era who can’t accept change”; “He’s a stupid bully and an outright thief.”
Bait and switch : logical fallacy that introduces a point about one thing that is likely to be accepted and then changes the terms once initial agreement occurs. Example: “Buy these phones at this price before they’re all gone!” When you go to buy one, moments later, the phones are gone—and they’re far more expensive.
Bandwagon : logical fallacy often used in advertising and propaganda. It tries to make people do something or think a certain way because everyone is doing it, and if they don’t go along, they will be excluded. Example: “Everyone is buying these sneakers; get yours now before you’re left out.” Negative example: “This style is so dated; no one wears things like this now.”
Causal fallacy : the faulty logic of claiming or believing that an event that follows another event is the result of it. For example, losing your keys after going to a concert does not mean the events are connected causally; going to the concert did not cause you to lose your keys.
Hyperbole : exaggeration. Hyperbole is one of the staples of advertising language. Examples: “Season’s Best Peppermint Glazed Delights”; “I have a ton of homework.”

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/9-3-glance-at-genre-rhetorical-strategies

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

17 Rhetorical Modes for Paragraphs & Essays

Questions to Ponder

Before you read this chapter, discuss with partners:

What are rhetorical modes (also called “patterns of organization” and “methods of development”)? Can you list some examples?
Why are rhetorical modes important in writing? Jot down your ideas.

Now read the graphic below. Can you add to the list of rhetorical modes that you created with your partners?

Flow Chart. Central idea: Choosing Paragraph Patterns. Radiating from top right: Narration - introduction, to tell a story that makes a point, to give background on people or event, to show sequence of events. Process - to show steps of action, to explain how to do something. Example/Illustration - to clarify a point or concept, to give a picture or specific instance, to make the abstract real. Analogy - to compare scenarios, to compare to a settled outcome, to compare one event to another very different one. Definition - to clarify meaning, to set foundation of argument, to give background. Comparison/contrast - to draw distinction between items, to find common ground. Description - to give details, to create a picture. Cause/effect - to lead from one item to another, to argue logic of evidence of action. Classification/Division - to put items in categories, to clarify comparison of items in a category, to divide items by characteristics.

Rhetorical Modes

Rhetorical modes are also called patterns of organization or methods of development ; they are the ways that authors and speakers organize their ideas to communicate effectively. The rhetorical modes that are covered here are best used as ways to look at what’s already happening in your draft and to consider how you might emphasize or expand on any existing patterns. You might already be familiar with some of these patterns because instructors will sometimes assign them as the purpose for writing an essay. For example, you might have been asked to write a cause and effect essay or a comparison and contrast essay.

Patterns of organization or methods of developing content usually happen naturally as a consequence of the way the writer engages with and organizes information while writing. That is to say, most writers don’t sit down and say, “I think I’ll write a cause and effect essay today.” Instead, a writer might be more likely to be interested in a topic, say, the state of drinking water in the local community, and as the writer begins to explore the topic, certain cause and effect relationships between environmental pollutants and the community water supply may begin to emerge . And in fact, many times, one essay may incorporate two or more rhetorical modes, as the author makes an argument for their point of view.

Activity A ~ Brainstorming Rhetorical Modes

Pause here to brainstorm ideas with your partner. Using the chart above (“ Choosing Paragraph Patterns “), discuss some of the topics below. Which mode(s) might you use in an essay about these topics? Would you need to explore more than one rhetorical mode for each topic?

Gender roles
Race in America
The value of art in society
Travel as part of a well-rounded education
Drugs and alcohol
Advice to new parents
Advice to teachers
The value of making mistakes
How you’d spend a million dollars
What a tough day at work taught you about yourself or others
My family history
Your idea: ___________

Keep reading to consider some of the ways that these strategies can help you as you revise a draft.

Cause/Effect

Do you see a potential cause-and-effect relationship developing in your draft? The cause/effect pattern may be used to identify one or more causes followed by one or more effects or results. Or you may reverse this sequence and describe effects first and then the cause or causes. For example, the causes of water pollution might be followed by its effects on both humans and animals. Use the signal words cause , effect , and result , to cue the reader about your about the relationships that you’re establishing.

Here’s an example article from T he New York Times , “ Rough Times Take Bloom Off a New Year’s Rite, the Rose Parade ,” that explores the cause and effect relationship (from 2011) between Pasadena’s budgetary challenges and the ability of their Rose Parade floats to deck themselves out in full bloom.

Problem/Solution

At some point does your essay explore a problem or suggest a solution? The problem/solution pattern is commonly used in identifying something that’s wrong and in contemplating what might be done to remedy the situation. For example, the problem of water pollution could be described, followed by ideas of new ways to solve the problem. There are probably more ways to organize a problem/solution approach, but here are three possibilities:

Describe the problem, followed by the solution
Propose the solution first and then describe the problems that motivated it
Explain a problem, followed by several solutions, and select one solution as the best

Emphasize the words problem and solution to signal these sections of your paper for your reader.

Here’s an example article from T he New York Times , “ Monks Embrace Web to Reach Recruits ,” that highlights an unexpected approach by a group of Benedictine monks in Rhode Island; they’ve turned to social media to grow their dwindling membership.

Compare/Contrast

Are you trying to define something? Do you need your readers to understand what something is and what it is not? The compare-and-contrast method of development is particularly useful in extending a definition, or anywhere you need to show how a subject is like or unlike another subject. For example, the statement is often made that drug abuse is a medical problem instead of a criminal justice issue. An author might attempt to prove this point by comparing drug addiction to AIDS, cancer, or heart disease to redefine the term “addiction” as a medical problem. A statement in opposition to this idea could just as easily establish contrast by explaining all the ways that addiction is different from what we traditionally understand as an illness. In seeking to establish comparison or contrast in your writing, some words or terms that might be useful are by contrast , in comparison , while , some , and others .

Here’s an example article from T he New York Times “ Who Wants to Shop in a Big Box Store, Anyway? ” The author explores some interesting differences between the average American and average Indian consumer to contemplate the potential success of big box stores in India and also to contemplate why these giant big box corporations, like Walmart or Target, might have to rethink their business model.

yellow umbrella on surface of water at daytime

These three methods of development—cause/effect, problem/solution, and compare/contrast—are just a few ways to organize and develop ideas and content in your essays. It’s important to note that they should not be a starting point for writers who want to write something authentic, to discuss something that they care deeply about. Instead, they can be a great way to help you look for what’s already happening with your topic or in a draft, to help you to write more, or to help you reorganize some parts of an essay that seem to lack connection or feel disjointed.

Sometimes writers incorporate a variety of modes in any one essay. For example, under the umbrella of an argument essay, and author might choose to write paragraphs showing cause and effect, description, and narrative. The rhetorical mode writers choose depends on the purpose for writing. Rhetorical modes are a set of tools that will give you greater flexibility and effectiveness in communicating with your audience and expressing ideas.

In addition to cause/effect , problem/solution , and compare/contrast , there are many other types of rhetorical modes:

Classification and division , often used in science, takes large ideas and divides them into manageable chunks of information, classifying and organizing them into types and parts.
Definition clarifies the meaning of terms and concepts, providing context and description for deeper understanding of those ideas.
Description provides detailed information using adjectives that appeal to the five senses (what people see, hear, smell, taste, and touch) as well as other vivid details that help readers visualize or understand an item or concept.
Evaluation analyzes and judges the value and merit of an essay, a concept, or topic.
Illustration provides examples and evidence in detail to support, explain, and analyze a main point or idea.
Narrative uses fictional or nonfictional stories in a chronological sequence of events, often including detailed descriptions and appeals to the senses and emotions of readers while storytelling to reveal a theme or moment.
Persuasion (i.e., argumentation) logically attempts to convince readers to agree with an opinion or take an action; the argument also acknowledges opposing viewpoints and accommodates and/or refutes them with diplomatic and respectful language, as well as provides precise and accurate evidence and other expert supporting details.
Process analysis describes and explains, step by step, chronologically, in detail, and with precision and accuracy, how to do something or how something works.

Assignment prompts for college essays may require a specific rhetorical mode, or you may be able to choose the best mode(s) to express your ideas clearly. Either way, be sure to ask your instructor if you are not sure which rhetorical mode(s) to use.

Key Takeaways

Why are rhetorical modes important?

As readers, understanding an author’s rhetorical mode helps us to understand the text, and to read and think critically.
Knowing the rhetorical mode helps us to identify the author’s main ideas, which helps us to summarize the author’s work.
As writers, we use rhetorical modes to make our writing clearer; they help us signal our topic and direction to our readers.
Rhetorical modes also help us to develop support and keep our readers interested.

Activity B ~ Identifying Rhetorical Modes

Read a printed or online essay or article. A letter to the editor or an editorial from a newspaper would be perfect. Then, with a partner, identify the modes of writing found in the article. (Use the lists above to help.) Analyze the different choices the writer has made about language and organization to express a point of view. Notice how the author may combine rhetorical modes (for example, a problem-solution article that uses cause-and-effect organization in some paragraphs, or a definition pattern that uses narrative or compare and contrast paragraphs to develop similarities or differences).
Select, read, and annotate a sample student essay in a specific style as provided in “ Readings: Examples of Essays ” from Saylor Academy . Note in the margins or on another sheet of paper what rhetorical mode each paragraph uses, how those modes and paragraphs support the overall rhetorical mode of the essay, and whether each paragraph does so successfully or not. Discuss in small groups and summarize your findings to report to the rest of the class.

If you want to learn more about three common rhetorical modes, read what the New York Times has to say in their learning blog article, “ Compare-Contrast, Cause-Effect, Problem Solution: Common ‘Text Types’ in The Times .”

Note: links open in new tabs.

This chapter was modified from the following Open Educational Resources:

“Patterns of Organization and Methods of Development ” from The Word on College Reading and Writing by Carol Burnell, Jaime Wood, Monique Babin, Susan Pesznecker, and Nicole Rosevear, which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

“ Introduction ” from English Composition by Karyl Garland, Ann Inoshita, Jeanne K. Tsutsui Keuma, Kate Sims, and Tasha Williams, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

“ Chapter 10: The Rhetorical Modes ” and “ Chapter 15: Readings: Examples of Essays ,” from Writing for Success from Saylor Academy, which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0.

to think about

to write quickly

to come out, to be revealed

to decorate themselves

to fix; to make right

getting smaller

ENGLISH 087: Academic Advanced Writing Copyright © 2020 by Nancy Hutchison is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7: Rhetoric and Argumentation

picture of empty United Nations General Assembly Hall

This chapter is about rhetoric and argumentation and is divided into three sections. The first introduces key terminology related to “argumentation” including syllogism and enthymeme , Monroe’s Motivated Sequence , presumption and burden of proof , and audiences of argument. The second section introduces the Toulmin Model . Whereas the Toulmin Model focuses on the structure of individual claims, the third section of the chapter introduces the Logical Dependency model, which may be used to scaffold an entire speech or essay. This section also discusses fallacies or the characteristic errors of argumentative reasoning.

Watching the video clips embedded in the chapters may add to the projected “read time” listed in the headers. Please also note that the audio recording for this chapter covers the same tested content as is presented in the chapter below.

Chapter Recordings

Part 1: Key Terms and Definitions (Video, ~15m)
Part 2: The Toulmin Model (Video, ~20m)
Part 3: Dependency and Fallacies (Video, ~20m)

Part 1: Key Terms and Definitions

This first section is about key terms for argument. This will include two definitions of argument and how they relate to the terms fact , value , and policy . It means we’re gonna be talking about structures of argument including the syllogism and the enthymeme as well as Alan Monroe’s motivated sequence . We’re gonna be talking also about presumption, the burden of proof , kinds of argument-audience , and spaces of argument . These describe the audiences for whom arguments circulate and the places or the locations where arguments may be found.

Defining Argument

In the above clip, Kelly Kapoor (played by Mindy Kaling) invents a distinction between two different kinds of argument: trash talk and smack talk. Trash talk is hypothetical and doesn’t describe a real-world situation. Smack talk is happening right now because the evidence is in front of us. The example resembles argumentation because a major way that arguments are built is by drawing divisions or distinctions. Generally, we should also think of argumentation as a practice of reason-giving in which a speaker provides reasons to support a given claim. We can also think of arguments in two additional ways: as things and as relationships.

Arguments as Things

When we talk about arguments as things, we’re talking about speech that we exchange between different participants in an argument. And one person presents a claim and then supports it with evidence to gain assent to the claim or to get other people to believe that the claim is true. We’ve already thought about arguments as things all the way back in Chapter 1. There, we drew upon Aristotle’s three rhetorical genres: forensic, epideictic, and deliberative.

Fact -based claims are forensic because they are concerned with what is and isn’t the case, and prove the truth or falsehood of a claim. These are also known as arguments that fall within the forensic genre of rhetoric.
Value -based claims are epideictic because they either praise or blame . These are also known as arguments that fall within the epideictic genre of rhetoric.
Policy claims are deliberative because they are concerned with what we should or shouldn’t do as a course of future action. These are also known as arguments that fall within the deliberative genre of rhetoric.

When we talk about arguments as things, we’re talking about speech that we exchange with one another as well as discrete claims that we make about the true and the false ( forensic ), praise and blame ( epideictic ), and what we either should or should not pursue as a course of action ( deliberative ).

Arguments as Relationships

When we think about arguments as forms of interaction, we’re thinking about how people interact. Argument-based relationships are modulated by three factors: culture, ritual, and learning.

A cultural context exercises a strong influence over the kinds of relationships created by argument. In some contexts, arguments are thought of as “heated disputes,” which leads people to avoid arguing at all costs. In others, arguments are a routine part of group interactions and are part of normal social behavior. Different cultural contexts for argument define different rules for when and how arguments can be made. Often, departing from one’s family or familiar home environment challenges these rules. A person who goes to a department store and attempts to negotiate the price of the items there may be more familiar with a cultural context in which arguments are part of buying and selling rituals.
Rituals of argument may also define distinct kinds of relationships. Families, courts of law, and graduate school each create unique rituals around argument: whether or not to allow them, when to accept them, and how they should be made. Often, arguments are ritualistically made in self-defense or in support of candidates for jobs. The defining feature for such rituals is that arguments are made in a consistent way and that participating in them is part of defining oneself as a member of a larger group.
Learning is a final way that relationships develop around arguments. One circumstance in which arguments are leveraged is an educational setting, in which people have the opportunity to test claims and arrive at well-thought-out conclusions. Whether through the classroom or the process of peer review, different arguers engage with one another in order to facilitate a greater common interest. When experts or authorities make arguments, we also learn how to make claims. When we see someone on television using an argument that connects rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to global warming, we may learn how to make similar claims. Using arguments and warrants makes them more available to others.

Syllogisms and Enthymeme

When we think about arguments as things, most often we are thinking of them as structures or organizations of information that allow us to convey an argument to someone else. The earliest forms or structures of argument that allow us to think of an argument as things are the syllogism and the enthymeme.

The syllogism is long-form logical reasoning. A way of reasoning that first developed in philosophy in which a statement is offered, a second statement is offered, and a conclusion is provided that is a permutation of these two statements. Syllogisms are statements in which a conclusion is inferred from the truth of two premises.

Major premise: all pandas are mortal
Minor premise: John is a Panda
Conclusion: John is mortal.

Characteristically, with syllogisms all work is shown, you can see all of the steps taken. The enthymeme is a similar form of reason, but unlike the syllogism, some element is left out for the audience to fill-in. By leaving some part of the argument out, what this allows is rhetorical persuasion or the feeling that the audience is “in” in the act of logical reasoning. Instead, the audience’s inference supplies a missing premise, allowing persuasion to occur in the mind of the audience.

The 1990s ad Be Like Mike featured Michael Jordan for instance drinking copious amounts of Gatorade, followed by the sign “Be Like Mike” that aired at the very end. What the audience would fill in is the idea that drinking Gatorade would allow them to “be like Mike.”

For many watchers/listeners, the tri-tone jingle of this advertisement is instantly recognizable. The number they provide (like 867-5309 ) is embedded in the memory of MILLIONS and the company name functions like a punchline to the tune. This resembles the enthymeme because the audience is part of the persuasion. They participate in the message because they are “in” on the reasoning of the advertisement.

Alan Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

A related way of structuring arguments comes to us from Alan Monroe who in the 1950s developed a sequence of arguments that allowed salespeople to put their products on display in an easy and accessible manner. Monroe’s motivated sequence lives on today because we can see it in patterns of speech that appear on television advertisements. It has the following steps:

Attention: A flashy opening, something that takes the audience by surprise or gets them to tune in.
Need: Establish that the audience needs something or that something is lacking from their lives.
Satisfaction: Satisfy the need with a product. Presumably, this consists in an explanation of how the product fills the need.
Visualization: Allow the audience to see how their lives would be changed or different by acquiring the product.
Call to action: Specific steps or instructions to take to acquire this new magical thing that was going to transform everything.

Here are two classic examples:

In the second ad, the late Billy Mays first gets our attention with his signature self-introduction. He then establishes a need : tough-to-clean stains. The solution that satisfies this need? Oxi-Clean, which cleans, brightens, and eliminates odors all at once. Mays then provides a range of visualizations to allow the viewer to envision how they would use this product. In conclusion, Mays provides the call to action: to purchase Oxi-Clean, presumably at an all-time low price. This sequence, the syllogism, and the enthymeme are arguments as things. They are discernable structures people have used to leverage claims, exchange capital, and gain others’ attention.

Presumption and the Burden of Proof

Presumption and the burden of proof describe distinct obligations or the responsibilities given to arguers who engage in a debate . In debates, arguers typically take on one of two roles: the affirmative (who proposes a policy) and a negative (who defends the status quo ). Alternatively, in a forensic, courtroom setting, these arguers either take the role of the plaintiff (the accuser who brings forth a case) or the defendant (the accused who defends against this case). They are usually oppositional in nature and so they have different roles or different tasks that they have to fulfill.

The affirmative and the defendant share the characteristic of presumption . Presumption means that we should believe that a given set of facts or information is true unless proven otherwise. A defendant in a courtroom should have the presumption of innocence, which means that we would presume that what they say is true unless contravening evidence arises. Likewise, for the affirmative in a debate, there is often a presumption that their plan will work unless the negative proves otherwise.

The companion to presumption is the burden of proof , which traditionally belongs to the person in a debate who brings forth the charges: the plaintiff and the negative. The role of a negative in a policy case is to generate uncertainty about the affirmative, to prove that their case will not work as planned, or that their evidence rests on shaky ground. As the plaintiff in a court case, you would have the responsibility to offer reasons that would overcome the defendant’s presumption, thereby casting significant doubt upon it. However, not all burdens of proof are the same, as illustrated by this video on the distinction between criminal and civil courtroom trials:

Presumption and the burden of proof, therefore, describe two different roles and responsibilities given to the participants in the debate: one of them is the affirmative/defendant who is given presumption, and the other is the negative/plaintiff, who receives the burden of proof.

The Audiences of Argument

The audiences of an argument can be divided into two categories: the universal and the particular audience. These concepts answer the question: “to whom is an argument addressed”?

The universal audience is the audience of all reasoning, beings, and humanity. If everyone were presumed to be rational, capable of reasoning, then the universal audience would be the audience to whom this message was addressed. In other words, if we needed to get emergency information to COVID-19 out to the public, it would be addressed to a presumed universal audience: all people who are capable of reasoning or all people who are capable of taking in a message. Likewise, when we dispose of nuclear waste, it has become a problem for scientists to develop messaging that wouldn’t just last for ten years or twenty years, but hundreds or thousands of years into the future. Making them imagine a universal audience for whom a single message would still be intelligible. The question is, what would it take to communicate with all of humanity? How would it be possible to create a message that would be available to literally everyone?

The particular audience is the actual audience we engage in the real world. Particular audiences are varied and have their own dispositions, judgments, values, attitudes, opinions, rituals, and traditions. Particular audiences remind us that it is not possible to just send one message to all people and expect the same response or reasoning. Particular audiences require arguers to tailor their messages. Just as you would not send one letter to every potential future employer, a particular audience is a “someone” rather than an “everyone,” they must be addressed with a message specifically for them, rather than with one message that you’re sending out to the public.

Spheres of Argument

The spheres of argument describe the places where it is that arguments can be found. From smallest to largest, the personal, the technical, and then the public are the places where these arguments circulate.

The personal sphere is the place of limited circulation and informal reasoning. Meaning people aren’t using syllogisms, they are using enthymemes more often than not, and the arguments that are made are intuitive to the people that belong to that personal sphere. The participants are ley participants, are non-experts, and so the concerns of this community largely regard the members of that community. It is the place where the most informal arguments occur among a small number of people, involving limited demands of proof, and are often about private topics.
The technical sphere , by contrast, has expert participants who use formal reasoning and the participants in this sphere can vet each other’s arguments because they all belong to the same shared community. However, like the personal sphere, the arguments that circulate in this sphere have limited circulation. It is an argument sphere that has explicit rules for argument and is judged by those with specific expertise in the subject.
Finally, the public sphere is the largest or widest sphere of argument circulation. In terms of the other terms we’ve just discussed, it is most like the universal audience. It is the argument sphere that exists to handle disagreements transcending personal and technical disputes. When arguments escape the personal sphere or escape the technical sphere, they go into the public sphere where they can be interpreted, misinterpreted, and negotiated. Twitter is a good (albeit small) example of a public sphere because of the way that personal disputes or technical information can escape and then become part of a larger discussion (although, of course, that doesn’t always happen and sometimes arguments also stay in their respective spheres).

Part 2: The Toulmin Model

The Toulmin Model has several specific features:

First, it imagines arguments as objects of verbal exchange. This places it into the category of arguments as things, discussed in the previous lecture—or as objects that are transacted between arguers.
Second, the Toulmin Model is useful for individual claims that you would set out to prove in a paragraph or less. When thinking about how to apply the Toulmin Model to your own writing, this would be a way of organizing individual paragraphs or sentences, rather than a way of thinking about how to build out the structure of an essay as a whole. (We’ll talk more about how essay argument scaffolding is better understood in terms of the logical dependency model in the next major section).
Finally, the Toulmin Model is a way to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual arguments. For example, if the evidence is not sufficient in a given argument or if the reasoning is not strong, the Toulmin Model points to these elements as specific ways to address the weakness of arguments.

The Toulmin Model has six components. The primary elements are the claim , the data (or evidence ) and the warrant (or reasoning ). A claim is a contestable statement based on the data/evidence. The warrant is the logical connection between the data and the claim. The secondary elements are the qualifier, the rebuttal , and the backing. The qualifier softens the claim by making it conditional. The rebuttal offers likely counterarguments to the major claim. And the backing is evidence that the warrant is itself sound. The images below shows the full Toulmin Model, including all six of its separate elements, as well as an example drawn from Colin Powell’s 2003 speech to the United Nations .

Data, Claim, Warrant

The most fundamental part of the Toulmin Model is the warrant, the data, and the claim. All claims require data. The previous section discussed three kinds of claims: fact , value , and policy. The three parts of the Toulmin Model may be phrased in the following way: on the basis of this information (the data), you should reach this conclusion (the claim) if you use this logical reasoning or connection (the warrant). For example:

data: Russia has violated 50 of 52 international agreements, claim: Russia would violate the proposed ban on nuclear weapons testing, warrant: Past violations are symptomatic of probable future violations

This claim is connected to data by way of a logical warrant. In this case, the data or the evidence is that Russia has violated fifty of fifty-two international agreements. Because of this information, we should conclude that Russia would violate a proposed ban on nuclear weapons testing that we are considering right now. The connection between these two elements is the following warrant; that the past is a predictor of the future. Since past violations are symptomatic of probable future violations, we can assume that the claim is true. All of these elements taken together would read in the following way:

On the basis of the information that Russia has violated fifty of fifty-two existing international agreements, we should conclude that Russia would violate the proposed ban on nuclear weapons testing. We should reach this conclusion using the reasoning that past violations are symptomatic of probable future violations .

In the real world, it’s important to note that warrants often go unstated. They’re usually assumed, or the logical connection between the data and the claim simply is not set out correctly.

Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal

The secondary elements of the Toulmin Model are the backing , the qualifier , and the rebuttal .

annotated example of Toulmin model from "The Uses of Argument"

The backing refers to the support for the warrant. It describes the assurance that the warrant is authoritative or current. We can know for instance that the past isn’t just true for Russian treaty agreements, it’s true under other circumstances as well.
The qualifier is a statement that reduces the strength of the claim. It indicates the strength conferred by the warrant, and claims can be qualified with terms like usually, possibly, likely, in all probability, presumably, and always. The qualifier specifically reduces the strength of the claim that we’ve been considering by making it conditional or probabilistic.
The rebuttal is a counterargument that invalidates the claim. This counterargument might be certain circumstances in which the general authority of a warrant should be set aside. If for instance, there has never been a historical precedent for what we’re up against today, the past might not be a good predictor of the future.

If we think about all of these different elements working together, using the example through the previous slide, it might look something like this.

On the basis of the evidence that Russia has violated fifty out of fifty-two of its past agreements, we should conclude it would violate the treaty that is in front of it right now. This is good reasoning because we know the past is a good predictor of the future. We know that the past is the predictor of the future because there are many other instances of history repeating itself. Of course, it is possible that Russia might not violate the treaty, but if so, this would only be the third time that Russia would have complied with an international agreement.

Because Harry was born in Bermuda, we can conclude that Harry is a British subject, since a person born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject. Moreover, we can know that a person born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject on account of existing statutes and other legal provisions. So presumably, Harry is a British subject, unless, of course, both his parents were aliens or he has become a naturalized American.

Next, let’s consider warrants more closely. There are many kinds. Warrants are the connection between a data and a claim, between evidence and the argument that we’re making.

Deductive reasoning argues from general or well-accepted premises to concrete cases. The syllogism, discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, is an example of deductive reasoning because it begins with a major premise that is presumed to be generally true. It then leverages a hypothesis (the minor premise) to reach a conclusion. Although deduction is often associated with the scientific method of hypothesis-testing, deductive reasoning need not begin from a science-based major premise. To engage in deductive reasoning, one may start from a major premise based in fact, value, or law to make a claim about a particular, as-yet unexplained case. Deduction, in a nutshell, argues from what is already understood to be true or factual and moves from this true statement to a particular circumstance in which the truth of that major premise may be evaluated and refined. When we talk about deductive warrants , we are describing a logical move of argumentation that takes us from something well established to a particular circumstance that supports the truth of this well established claim.

Major Premise: Gravity acts upon all bodies with mass.
Minor Premise: Photons (light) do not have mass.
Conclusion: Gravity does not act upon photons (light).

Ultimately, the deductive conclusion provided above is not completely correct. Gravity does have an effect upon light , although this is not because light has mass! This has led to a refinement of the major premise: Because light has no mass, gravity does not affect light directly. instead, gravity affects the space-time through which photons travel. This results in the ‘warping’ or ‘bending’ of light through space, even though gravity does not act upon photons themselves.

Inductive reasoning argues from specific cases to general conclusions. When you’re faced with a situation in which you have knowledge or information about a specific number of cases, but you lack an understanding of the “global” or “overaching” factors that might unite those cases, inductive reasoning is what allows you to make that leap. If deductive reasoning is “top down” (from the most general to the most specific) then inductive reasoning is “bottom up” (from the most specific to the most general). If you live someplace with a view of the street and you see that 8/10 people walking on the street are wearing facemasks, inductive reasoning would allow you to reach the conclusion that mask compliance in your town is approximately 80%. Inductive reasoning would allow you to reach that conclusion, even if it is note entirely reliable (unless, of course, you live in a very small town).

This kind of causal logic is a causal generalization. This example is about medical care at the university. It is a well-accepted premise that reducing the choice of medication for generic brands will create negative health outcomes, and so here at this particular university, a transition to a health plan with less coverage will negatively impact graduate students on campus. Because we widely know that the transition of generic drugs has negative health outcomes, in this particular circumstance at this university, we can infer that the same cause-effect relationship would hold in place, making this a deductive cause. As causal correlation, the logic of cause can be inductive, showing from a specific case how a more general consequence will follow, and as a deductive case, showing how a general pattern of cause and effect will show up in local or particular circumstances.

correlation vs causation twitter screenshot

I’d like to talk very briefly about the relationship between signs and causes as different kinds of warrants and to distinguish them from one another a little bit more closely. Signs and causes are easy to confuse, they fall often into the same sort of category, and they do differ depending on the kind of evidence that is being brought to bear on a given claim. On the exam, you can expect to see a question that provides data, claim, and a warrant, and you’ll be asked to identify what the warrant is. And so, a sign is the logic that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. How do we know that there’s a problem there? What is the sign, what is the symptom that is out there that shows us that a problem exists? When we’re talking about causes, we’re talking about the origin of the problem. Where did it start from, where it began. And so if our claim is about dinosaur extinction, we could say that, on the one hand, a very big asteroid caused an enormous shock, that created their extinction, or on the other hand, we could say that we know that the dinosaurs went extinct, because we have geological evidence from the crater impact zone, which is like the smoke from the fire, the thing that reminds us of what happened there, as opposed to the thing that happened. If our claim was about the ballooning national deficit, the thing that caused that deficit is multiple increases in the national debt ceiling. Whereas the sign of a ballooning national deficit is lower bond returns and a widening gap between the lower and middle class. Again, these are symptoms, rather than the cause of the looming national deficit.

If we’re talking about how the cause of a specific pandemic disease is ultimately a virus, a fungus, or a bacteria that has not been contained, but we know that it’s out there, we know that there’s smoke that is showing us that it’s out there, that, based on population levels, and symptoms of illness.

Inductive Warrants: Example, Analogy, and Causal Correlation

Two kinds of inductive warrants include example and analogy .

Examples are inductive warrants in which what is true of the specific is true of the general.

For instance, consider the claim “the people of ancient cultures believed in an afterlife.” The data is that the Egyptians believed in an afterlife, which is shown by their funeral preparations. Plato’s writings also indicate that the ancient Greeks believed in an afterlife. And so the connection between the general belief in an afterlife is supported by two pieces of data: the Egyptians and Plato. What is true of the specific is true of the general: two cases indicate that ancient peoples believed in an afterlife, so more generally, people of ancient cultures must have believed in it as well.

Analogies are inductive warrants in which if two things are alike in most respects, they will be alike in a general sense.

Consider the following claim: If exposed to Nerve Agent 274, then 90% of all humans will die because a similar proportion of rats died in experimental trials. The data for this claim is that rats are mammals and possess a nervous system that resembles a human’s in most respects. The relationship between the claim about humans potentially dying from this nerve agent, and the evidence, (a comparison between rats and humans) is that if these two things are alike in most respects, they will be alike in this respect. And thus, it forms a connective logic that takes specific cases and draws a general conclusion.

Causal correlations are inductive warrants in which “if an increase in X leads to an increase in Y, then a decrease in X should lead to a decrease in Y.”

For instance, if an increasing in indoor masking and vaccination leads to an increase in the number of people who have natural immunity to a given infectious disease, then causal correlation would tell us that a decrease in indoor masking and vaccination status would lead to a decrease in this same immunity. Correspondingly, if an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leads to higher global temperatures, then a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to a decrease in global temperatures. The warrant from causal correlation is inductive because a particular link between X and Y allows us to reach a more general conclusion: namely, other related linkages between these two variables.

Deductive Warrants: Sign and Causal Generalization

Two kinds of deductive warrants include signs and causes.

Signs are deductive warrants where evidence is a verified general indicator of something beyond itself.

The logic of the sign resembles the “index” discussed in the chapter on “the symbol.” The claim that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” relies on a sign: the smoke is a verified, general indicator of something beyond itself: fire. Similarly, economists long ago pointed to positive purchasing trends in low-cost food items ( such as Kraft Macaroni and Cheese ) as a sign of imminent economic downturn. Mass purchases of Mac n’ Cheese indicate something beyond the evidence: that a recession is on the horizon. A final example is if your instructor comes into class flustered, it may signal that they are underprepared for class. It may or may not be true – your instructors may be having a difficult day due to family, job, or health problems – but the logical conclusion is deductive because you, as an observer, are making a claim based on what you perceive to be general indicators.

Causal Generalizations are deductive warrants when, given a recognizable cause, we can infer a particular effect or consequence.

When it is deductive , this kind of causal logic is called a causal generalization . For instance, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are a clear cause of the “greenhouse effect,” which leads to global warming. Because carbon dioxide levels verifiably lead to this consequence, we can make the causal generalization that an observable increase in these gasses will yield a predictable result.

Another example of causal generalizations might be about medical care at the university. It is a well accepted premise that narrowing the availability of generic brand medication causes greater negative health outcomes. At our particular university, a transition to a health plan with less coverage of generic brands will negatively impact the health of students on campus. Because this cause-effect relationship is verifiable and generally true, it would make it true att our university, making it a deductive causal generalization.

Separating Signs from Causes

It is easy to confuse signs with causal generalizations, although they are different kinds of warrants. Ultimately, the deductive logic of the sign is asking about a confirmed symptom: “where there is smoke (the symptom) there is fire (the disease). The deductive logic of causal generalization refers to an origin: where did a given thing-in-the-world start or begin? Let’s consider a few examples:

Let’s say that we are considering a claim about dinosaur extinction.

A causal generalization might argue that a very big asteroid was the origin of a catastrophic global shock that resulted in extinction. Because we know that A (the asteroid) causes B (global extinction events) we can say that this cause resulted in that effect for the dinosaurs.
A sign might point to geological evidence from the crater impact zone that indicates an inhabitable environment for oxygen-breathing creatures, such as residues of ancient carbon monoxide. Because we know that this sign (carbon signatures) are an indicator of something beyond itself (an unbreathable environment) we can say that this evidence points to the reason megafauna no longer walk the earth.

Another way to separate signs from causes is to consider the ballooning national deficit.

A causal generalizatio n might point to repeated increases in the national debt ceiling, which is the literal, most immediate ’cause’ of this debt.
A sign-based argument might point to lower bond returns and a widening gap between the lower and middle class as indicators that debt has gotten out of control.

A third example is pandemic diseases.

There are limited general causes for a pandemic disease: a virus, a fungus, or a bacteria.
The signs of a pandemic disease are literal symptoms as well as changes in employment, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Finally, let’s consider different warrants related to becoming internet-famous.

We might say that the general cause of that internet fame is that you had a very viral post, and then someone confirmed or with many followers retweeted you, and then that spiraled out of control.
The sign that you’re internet famous might be that people you don’t know on campus come up to you, tweet at you, or start talking to you out of the blue.

The difference between sign and causal generalization is the difference between symptoms and origins. A sign points to an indicator of the claim that you’re trying to make, whereas a causal generalization points to a cause-effect relationship.

Complicating Toulmin, Anticipating Rebuttals

Ultimately, the Toulmin Model is useful not just because it lets us map our arguments, but because it helps us to anticipate how others will respond to our claims based on the intrinsic weakness of an argument. Recall, arguments are designed to be contestable even though they often begin from well-established or proven grounds . As indicated in the diagram below, there are a number of standard ways to respond to a given claim:

A claim may be either too extreme or unclear.
A warrant may make too big of a leap, it may lack backing, or it may just be the wrong warrant for the kind of claim being made.
Evidence may not have been collected correctly, there may be too much evidence to reach a good conclusion, or there may be too little evidence to support the claim.

Clearly, this can get complicated. The point is that the Toulmin Model is a way to diagnose and strengthen your individual arguments, to anticipate what others will find wrong with them, and how to respond before someone raises an objection.

Part 3: Logical Dependency and Fallacies

This final section is about large-scale structures of argument that span the length f an entire book or essay. These include the logically independent and dependent structures. The last section of this essay is about bad arguments and fallacies and how to diagnose when arguments go wrong.

The Dependency Model is an alternative to the Toulmin Model. Dependency establishes two kinds of relationship between the thesis and the sub-claims of a speech or an essay. Whereas the Toulmin Model posits the warrant as the connection between a claim and it’s evidence, the logical Dependency Model posits two kinds of connection between a thesis and supporting claims . Like the Toulmin Model, logical dependency offers a way to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of an argument based on its overall structure, or how the different arguments are linked together.

Logically Dependent and Independent Arguments

The two kinds of dependency are logically dependent and logically independent . The dependency structures can be imagined as a circuit because they arrange claims either in a series (dependent) or in parallel (independent):

The logically dependent argument begins next to the plus or minuses: the thesis or “source”. It then moves from argument to argument, one building after the other, toward the conclusion. The thesis in a logically dependent structure is a condensed version of the entire argument as it unfolds from paragraph to paragraph. If one of the “lights” (supporting arguments) along the circuit fails, then the entire circuit (the thesis/total argument) ceases to function.

In the logically dependent example provided above, the thesis is that “koalas are a dangerous species.” To arrive at this conclusion, we have to go through a series of steps: First, koalas thrive on eucalyptus; second, because eucalyptus is an invasive species of plant, it can lead to koala overpopulation; and finally, koala overpopulation spells danger for a larger ecosystem. However, if one of the claims is proven false (e.g. eucalyptus is NOT an invasive species) then the entire argument fails.

In the logically independent model the thesis still starts at the source, but then offers three separate criteria or pieces of evidence that support the original claim. The thesis statement is like an umbrella. When we look at it as a drawn out argument, the thesis is a general claim that can be supported by any number of sub-claims that are separate (independent) from it. If one of the “lights” (supporting claims) along the circuit fails, the others may still function.

In the logically independent example provided above, there are three separate independent reasons that support the claim that koalas are dangerous. Unlike the dependent structure, these supporting arguments do not ‘build’ upon one another; instead, they stand alone. The first supporting argument is that that koalas eat their young. The second is that koalas wage war on other marsupials. Finally, koalas are carriers of disease. Each offers a different rationale for why koalas pose a real danger. However, if one of the arguments is invalidated (e.g. koalas clearly cannot ‘wage war’) the other two supporting claims may still stand.

When it comes to writing an essay, the structure of logical dependency can help you to scaffold arguments at the level of the topic sentence. A thesis should appear in the first paragraph of your essays, laying out your major claim as well as the purpose and overall structure of the paper. Each paragraph can then be organized in either a dependent or independent manner, building one claim atop another from paragraph to paragraph or, alternatively, providing separate reasons why the thesis should be supported.

Both structures have unique strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the logically dependent series is that it allows the arguer to go into depth with a single claim, by providing a stage-by-stage account of its validity. However the logically dependent series also has a key weakness. If any one stage or piece of the argument is falsified or invalidated, the entire argument may be dismissed.

The most defensible claims use a hybrid structure: one that uses both dependent and independent forms of argument. To return to an example from earlier in this chapter, Colin Powell’s argument to the UN was organized as a hybrid dependent/independent structure:

diagram of logical independent and dependent arguments in Colin Powell's speech

The major claim that runs across the top of this page is dependent. Each part builds one part atop another, and each ‘step’ is required for the ultimate claim (the UN Security Council should authorize the use of force). If one of these top-level claims is invalidated, then the whole argument falls apart.

The substructure below this top line is independent. There are a series of separable reasons provided for each claim as a redundancy measure for the dependent claim. For example: the second “step” (“Iraq cannot prove it has disarmed”) is supported by two independent supporting claims: (“Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD] programs are continuing” and “Iraqi denials cannot be trusted”). These claims, in turn, are backed by their own supporting claims (We can know that WMD programs are continuing in the areas of “biological,” “chemical,” and “nuclear” weapons creation).

It is important to note that just because a claim is complex does not mean it is true. Ultimately, Powell was incorrect about the stockpiling of WMDs in Iraq: investigators found no evidence that this was ever occurring. Additionally, the UN Security Council did not find Powell’s claims compelling because they were based on uncertainties about Iraq rather than obvious evidence. In the end, even Powell said that his speech was “ a great intelligence failure ” based on unsupported evidence and inadequate sourcing.

Fallacies of Reason

Next, we are going to talk about logical fallacies. Once again, please remember that all the powerpoints displayed in this lecture are available on canvas if you experience poor video quality. There are several videos in this next section. The first thing that I want to show you here is the ad hominem fallacy, one of the most common fallacies that we know of. This video will explain not only what it is, but also sub variants and sub categories of the ad hominem fallacy.

Beyond the ad hominem, fallacies are generally incorrect forms of reasoning. Typically, when someone uses a fallacies, it is grounds to call them out for using a bad warrant, or incorrectly making a connection between claims and evidence.

There are many fallacies of reason. Here are few common variations:

The argument ad hominem , which we just explored, is an attack on the person rather than engagement with the argument. It’s a deflection from the claim by talking about the character of the people who are making the claims.
The argument ad populum employ the bandwagon fallacy. It establishes that if a majority of people are doing something, we should do it too.
The straw man argument is a reduction of an opposing argument. It takes issue with a very narrow or specific piece of someone’s argument and then blows it up as if it is the entire argument that the person is making. So by reducing the position to a non-representative claim or to a single sentence or single word in an arguer’s argument, the straw man fallacy allows the arguer to take up a position of strength by making an over claim about what the opponent is actually saying.
The slippery slope fallacy is a way of connecting evidence through an unbacked causal chain. A leads to B leads to C leads to D, but the connection between these points is assumed rather than proven. Because the causal chain is very weak, one thing rests upon another thing, rests upon another thing, rests upon another thing so that ultimately it leads to some devastating consequence.
The non-sequiter fallacy is one in which the claim does not follow from the evidence. Non-sequiter literally means “does not follow,” in which the connection between an argument and its data is absurd, satirical, or nonsensical.
The false dilemma is an option of A or B. It forces a choice between two options as though there is no option except for these two. In fact, there may be a third or a fourth option. Here is an example of the false dilemma in action:

Fallacies are arguments that are made in a way that makes us want to believe them, but at the same time, use shortcuts or use connections between evidence that are inappropriate or not as rigorous as they should be. But even though we can see arguments as bad in this way, they are more and more common. This is especially in advertisements, which use fallacies as a recognizable form of reason, thereby allowing the audience to be part of the persuasion.

The Non-Sequiter

This Doritos ad employs the non-sequitur because it descends into absurdity when demonstrating the lengths to which people will go for their chips.

The Slippery Slope

In this case, the viewing audience can identify with the reasoning, even as we recognize that it is flawed. The slippery slope allows one thing to lead to another and another until “you” end up with an eye patch. As a technique for advertising, we are all in on the joke. The commercial doesn’t try to sell us on the product as much as it tries to create a shared experience of absurdity for the seller and the viewer.

The point here is that advertisements in general allow us to identify with bad reasoning. Fallacies are indeed flawed arguments, but insofar as they are common modes of reasoning, they can also allow us to connect with the message on the basis that we are all in the know. They are not just ways to dismiss incorrect claims; they are ways of leveraging claims that are recognizable to a wide audience.

Additional Resources

Besel, Richard D. “Accommodating climate change science: James Hansen and the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming.” Science in Context 26.1 (2013): 137-152.
Besel, Richard D. “Opening the “black box” of climate change science: Actor-network theory and rhetorical practice in scientific controversies.” Southern Communication Journal 76.2 (2011): 120-136.
Bone, Jennifer Emerling. “When publics collide: Margaret Sanger’s argument for birth control and the rhetorical breakdown of barriers.” Women’s Studies in Communication 33.1 (2010): 16-33.
Browne, Stephen H. “Rhetorical criticism and the challenges of bilateral argument.” Philosophy & rhetoric 40.1 (2007): 108-118.
Carr, M. Kelly. “Amicus Briefs as Argumentative Scene in Bakke .” The rhetorical invention of diversity: Supreme Court opinions, public arguments, and affirmative action . MSU Press, 2018: 65-106.
Eckstein, Justin. “Designing soundscapes for argumentation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 51.3 (2018): 269-292.
Endres, Danielle. “The rhetoric of nuclear colonialism: Rhetorical exclusion of American Indian arguments in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste siting decision.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6.1 (2009): 39-60.
Farrell, Thomas B. “Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory.” Quarterly journal of Speech 62.1 (1976): 1-14.
Greene, Ronald Walter, and Darrin Hicks. “Lost convictions: Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens.” Cultural studies 19.1 (2005): 100-126.
Goodnight, G. Thomas. “The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association 18.4 (1982): 214-227.
Goodnight, G. Thomas, and John Poulakos. “Conspiracy rhetoric: From pragmatism to fantasy in public discourse.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 45.4 (1981): 299-316.
Goodnight, G. Thomas, and Sandy Green. “Rhetoric, risk, and markets: The dot-com bubble.” Quarterly journal of speech 96.2 (2010): 115-140.
Goodnight, G. Thomas. “Gabrielle Giffords: A study in civil courage.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 17.4 (2014): 679-710.
Olson, Kathryn M., and G. Thomas Goodnight. “Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80.3 (1994): 249-276.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. “Justifying the war in Iraq: What the Bush administration’s uses of evidence reveal.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10.2 (2007): 249-273.
Kelley-Romano, Stephanie. “Trust no one: The conspiracy genre on American television.” Southern Communication Journal 73.2 (2008): 105-121.
Palczewski, Catherine Helen, et al. “Chapter 4 Argument.” Rhetoric in Civic Life , Strata Pub., State College, PA, 2012: 99–127.

Share This Book

Calculate for all schools

Your chance of acceptance, your chancing factors, extracurriculars, understanding rhetorical choices.

Hey guys, I'm having a hard time understanding the concept of 'rhetorical choices' in English. How can I identify and analyze them in a text? Could you give me some examples? Thank you!

Hey there! Rhetorical choices are the deliberate decisions a writer or speaker makes in order to create a persuasive or convincing message. Some key rhetorical choices to be aware of when analyzing a text include: diction (word choice), tone (author's attitude), syntax (sentence structure), and rhetorical devices (figurative language, repetition, etc.). Identifying and analyzing these choices can help you understand the author's purpose and the strategies they employ to achieve it.

Here's a step-by-step process for identifying and analyzing rhetorical choices:

1. Start by identifying the author's purpose: What does the author hope to achieve by writing this piece? Are they trying to persuade, inform, inspire or entertain?

2. Highlight specific words and phrases throughout the text that stand out to you. These could be words with strong connotations, repetition of a certain idea, or figurative language such as metaphors or similes.

3. Analyze the diction. What effect do the chosen words have on the reader? Are the words formal, informal, emotional, technical, or neutral? How does this word choice contribute to the overall message and tone?

4. Examine the syntax. Are the sentences long and complex or short and simple? How does the sentence structure emphasize certain ideas or provide clarity?

5. Identify any rhetorical devices or techniques the author uses. Look for figurative language, repetition, parallelism, irony, or rhetorical questions. Consider how these devices help convey the author's message and contribute to their purpose.

For example, let's say you're analyzing Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. The main purpose of the speech is to inspire and rally support for civil rights. Some rhetorical choices to consider would be:

- Diction: King uses words like "justice," "freedom," and "equality," which have strong emotional connotations that connect with his audience's desire for change.

- Tone: King's tone is passionate and visionary, which helps inspire his listeners to believe in a brighter future for America.

- Syntax: King uses parallelism, like in the line "Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children," which creates a rhythmic flow and emphasizes his main points.

- Rhetorical devices: King employs repetition in phrases such as "I have a dream" and "Let freedom ring," creating a strong emotional impact and making his ideas memorable.

By identifying and analyzing these rhetorical choices, you can gain a deeper understanding of the text and the author's intended message. Good luck with your analysis!

About CollegeVine’s Expert FAQ

CollegeVine’s Q&A seeks to offer informed perspectives on commonly asked admissions questions. Every answer is refined and validated by our team of admissions experts to ensure it resonates with trusted knowledge in the field.

Rhetorical Questions in Essays: 5 Things you should Know

Rhetorical questions can be useful in writing. So, why shouldn’t you use rhetorical questions in essays?

In this article, I outline 5 key reasons that explain the problem with rhetorical questions in essays.

Despite the value of rhetorical questions for engaging audiences, they mean trouble in your university papers. Teachers tend to hate them.

There are endless debates among students as to why or why not to use rhetorical questions. But, I’m here to tell you that – despite your (and my) protestations – the jury’s in. Many, many teachers hate rhetorical questions.

You’re therefore not doing yourself any favors in using them in your essays.

Rhetorical Question Examples

A rhetorical question is a type of metacommentary . It is a question whose purpose is to add creative flair to your writing. It is a way of adding style to your essay.

Rhetorical questions usually either have obvious answers, or no answers, or do not require an answer . Here are some examples:

Are you seriously wearing that?
Do you think I’m that gullible?
What is the meaning of life?
What would the walls say if they could speak?

I understand why people like to use rhetorical questions in introductions . You probably enjoy writing. You probably find rhetorical questions engaging, and you want to draw your marker in, engage them, and wow them with your knowledge.

1. Rhetorical Questions in Academic Writing: They Don’t belong.

Rhetorical questions are awesome … for blogs, diaries, and creative writing. They engage the audience and ask them to predict answers.

But, sorry, they suck for essays. Academic writing is not supposed to be creative writing .

Here’s the difference between academic writing and creative writing:

Supposed to be read for enjoyment first and foremost.
Can be flamboyant, extravagant, and creative.
Can leave the reader in suspense.
Can involve twists, turns, and surprises.
Can be in the third or first person.
Readers of creative writing read texts from beginning to end – without spoilers.

Rhetorical questions are designed to create a sense of suspense and flair. They, therefore, belong as a rhetorical device within creative writing genres.

Now, let’s look at academic writing:

Supposed to be read for information and analysis of real-life ideas.
Focused on fact-based information.
Clearly structured and orderly.
Usually written in the third person language only.
Readers of academic writing scan the texts for answers, not questions.

Academic writing should never, ever leave the reader in suspense. Therefore, rhetorical questions have no place in academic writing.

Academic writing should be in the third person – and rhetorical questions are not quite in the third person. The rhetorical question appears as if you are talking directly to the reader. It is almost like writing in the first person – an obvious fatal error in the academic writing genre.

Your marker will be reading your work looking for answers , not questions. They will be rushed, have many papers to mark, and have a lot of work to do. They don’t want to be entertained. They want answers.

Therefore, academic writing needs to be straight to the point, never leave your reader unsure or uncertain, and always signpost key ideas in advance.

Here’s an analogy:

When you came onto this post, you probably did not read everything from start to end. You probably read each sub-heading first, then came back to the top and started reading again. You weren’t interested in suspense or style. You wanted to find something out quickly and easily. I’m not saying this article you’re reading is ‘academic writing’ (it isn’t). But, what I am saying is that this text – like your essay – is designed to efficiently provide information first and foremost. I’m not telling you a story. You, like your teacher, are here for answers to a question. You are not here for a suspenseful story. Therefore, rhetorical questions don’t fit here.

I’ll repeat: rhetorical questions just don’t fit within academic writing genres.

2. Rhetorical Questions can come across as Passive

It’s not your place to ask a question. It’s your place to show your command of the content. Rhetorical questions are by definition passive: they ask of your reader to do the thinking, reflecting, and questioning for you.

Questions of any kind tend to give away a sense that you’re not quite sure of yourself. Imagine if the five points for this blog post were:

Are they unprofessional?
Are they passive?
Are they seen as padding?
Are they cliché?
Do teachers hate them?

If the sub-headings of this post were in question format, you’d probably – rightly – return straight back to google and look for the next piece of advice on the topic. That’s because questions don’t assist your reader. Instead, they demand something from your reader .

Questions – rhetorical or otherwise – a position you as passive, unsure of yourself, and skirting around the point. So, avoid them.

3. Rhetorical Questions are seen as Padding

When a teacher reads a rhetorical question, they’re likely to think that the sentence was inserted to fill a word count more than anything else.

>>>RELATED ARTICLE: HOW TO MAKE AN ESSAY LONGER >>>RELATED ARTICLE: HOW TO MAKE AN ESSAY SHORTER

Rhetorical questions have a tendency to be written by students who are struggling to come to terms with an essay question. They’re well below word count and need to find an extra 15, 20, or 30 words here and there to hit that much-needed word count.

In order to do this, they fill space with rhetorical questions.

It’s a bit like going into an interview for a job. The interviewer asks you a really tough question and you need a moment to think up an answer. You pause briefly and mull over the question. You say it out loud to yourself again, and again, and again.

You do this for every question you ask. You end up answering every question they ask you with that same question, and then a brief pause.

Sure, you might come up with a good answer to your rhetorical question later on, but in the meantime, you have given the impression that you just don’t quite have command over your topic.

4. Rhetorical Questions are hard to get right

As a literary device, the rhetorical question is pretty difficult to execute well. In other words, only the best can get away with it.

The vast majority of the time, the rhetorical question falls on deaf ears. Teachers scoff, roll their eyes, and sigh just a little every time an essay begins with a rhetorical question.

The rhetorical question feels … a little ‘middle school’ – cliché writing by someone who hasn’t quite got a handle on things.

Let your knowledge of the content win you marks, not your creative flair. If your rhetorical question isn’t as good as you think it is, your marks are going to drop – big time.

5. Teachers Hate Rhetorical Questions in Essays

This one supplants all other reasons.

The fact is that there are enough teachers out there who hate rhetorical questions in essays that using them is a very risky move.

Believe me, I’ve spent enough time in faculty lounges to tell you this with quite some confidence. My opinion here doesn’t matter. The sheer amount of teachers who can’t stand rhetorical questions in essays rule them out entirely.

Whether I (or you) like it or not, rhetorical questions will more than likely lose you marks in your paper.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Some (possible) Exceptions

Personally, I would say don’t use rhetorical questions in academic writing – ever.

But, I’ll offer a few suggestions of when you might just get away with it if you really want to use a rhetorical question:

As an essay title. I would suggest that most people who like rhetorical questions embrace them because they are there to ‘draw in the reader’ or get them on your side. I get that. I really do. So, I’d recommend that if you really want to include a rhetorical question to draw in the reader, use it as the essay title. Keep the actual essay itself to the genre style that your marker will expect: straight up the line, professional and informative text.

“97 percent of scientists argue climate change is real. Such compelling weight of scientific consensus places the 3 percent of scientists who dissent outside of the scientific mainstream.”

The takeaway point here is, if I haven’t convinced you not to use rhetorical questions in essays, I’d suggest that you please check with your teacher on their expectations before submission.

Don’t shoot the messenger. Have I said that enough times in this post?

I didn’t set the rules, but I sure as hell know what they are. And one big, shiny rule that is repeated over and again in faculty lounges is this: Don’t Use Rhetorical Questions in Essays . They are risky, appear out of place, and are despised by a good proportion of current university teachers.

To sum up, here are my top 5 reasons why you shouldn’t use rhetorical questions in your essays:

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

31 Useful Rhetorical Devices

What is a rhetorical device and why are they used.

As with all fields of serious and complicated human endeavor (that can be considered variously as an art, a science, a profession, or a hobby), there is a technical vocabulary associated with writing. Rhetoric is the name for the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion, and though a writer doesn’t need to know the specific labels for certain writing techniques in order to use them effectively, it is sometimes helpful to have a handy taxonomy for the ways in which words and ideas are arranged. This can help to discuss and isolate ideas that might otherwise become abstract and confusing. As with the word rhetoric itself, many of these rhetorical devices come from Greek.

Ready, set, rhetoric.

The repetition of usually initial consonant sounds in two or more neighboring words or syllables

wild and woolly, threatening throngs

Syntactical inconsistency or incoherence within a sentence especially : a shift in an unfinished sentence from one syntactic construction to another

you really should have—well, what do you expect?

Repetition of a prominent and usually the last word in one phrase or clause at the beginning of the next

rely on his honor—honor such as his?

A literary technique that involves interruption of the chronological sequence of events by interjection of events or scenes of earlier occurrence : flashback

Repetition of a word or expression at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground

The repetition of a word within a phrase or sentence in which the second occurrence utilizes a different and sometimes contrary meaning from the first

we must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately

The usually ironic or humorous use of words in senses opposite to the generally accepted meanings

this giant of 3 feet 4 inches

The use of a proper name to designate a member of a class (such as a Solomon for a wise ruler) OR the use of an epithet or title in place of a proper name (such as the Bard for Shakespeare)

The raising of an issue by claiming not to mention it

we won't discuss his past crimes

An expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty especially for rhetorical effect

to be, or not to be: that is the question

Harshness in the sound of words or phrases

An inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases

working hard, or hardly working?

A disjunctive conclusion inferred from a single premise

gravitation may act without contact; therefore, either some force may act without contact or gravitation is not a force

The substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one

greasy spoon is a dysphemism for the word diner

Repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

of the people, by the people, for the people

Emphatic repetition [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

An interchange of two elements in a phrase or sentence from a more logical to a less logical relationship

you are lost to joy for joy is lost to you

A transposition or inversion of idiomatic word order

judge me by my size, do you?

Extravagant exaggeration

mile-high ice-cream cones

The putting or answering of an objection or argument against the speaker's contention [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

Understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary

not a bad singer

The presentation of a thing with underemphasis especially in order to achieve a greater effect : UNDERSTATEMENT

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them ( Metaphor vs. Simile )

drowning in money

A figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated

crown as used in lands belonging to the crown

The naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it

A combination of contradictory or incongruous words

cruel kindness

The use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense : REDUNDANCY

I saw it with my own eyes

A figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by "like" or "as"

cheeks like roses

The use of a word in the same grammatical relation to two adjacent words in the context with one literal and the other metaphorical in sense

she blew my nose and then she blew my mind

A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships ), the whole for a part (such as society for high society ), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin ), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man ), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage )

The use of a word to modify or govern two or more words usually in such a manner that it applies to each in a different sense or makes sense with only one

opened the door and her heart to the homeless boy

MORE TO EXPLORE: Rhetorical Devices Used in Pop Songs

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries. Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Usage Notes

Prepositions, ending a sentence with, hypercorrections: are you making these 6 common mistakes, a comprehensive guide to forming compounds, can ‘criteria’ ever be singular, singular nonbinary ‘they’: is it ‘they are’ or ‘they is’, grammar & usage, primary and caucus: what is the difference, words commonly mispronounced, merriam-webster’s great big list of words you love to hate, more commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, 12 words for signs of spring, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 13 unusually long english words, the words of the week - apr. 26, 9 superb owl words.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why Losing Political Power Now Feels Like ‘Losing Your Country’

A man with his head bowed is wearing a red hat with only the words “great again” visible in the light.

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Is partisan hostility so deeply enmeshed in American politics that it cannot be rooted out?

Will Donald Trump institutionalize democratic backsliding — the rejection of adverse election results, the demonization of minorities and the use of the federal government to punish opponents — as a fixture of American politics?

The literature of polarization suggests that partisan antipathy has become deeply entrenched and increasingly resistant to amelioration.

“Human brains are constantly scanning for threats to in-groups,” Rachel Kleinfeld , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a September 2023 essay, “ Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says .”

“As people affectively polarize, they appear to blow out-group threats out of proportion, exaggerating the out-group’s dislike and disgust for their own group, and getting ready to defend their in-group, sometimes aggressively,” Kleinfeld argued.

Kleinfeld acknowledged that “a number of interventions have been shown in lab settings, games and short experiments to reduce affective intervention in the short term,” but, she was quick to caution, “reducing affective polarization through these lab experiments and games has not been shown to affect regular Americans’ support for antidemocratic candidates, support for antidemocratic behaviors, voting behavior or support for political violence.”

Taking her argument a step further, Kleinfeld wrote:

Interventions to reduce affective polarization will be ineffective if they operate only at the individual, emotional level. Ignoring the role of polarizing politicians and political incentives to instrumentalize affective polarization for political gain will fail to generate change while enhancing cynicism when polite conversations among willing participants do not generate prodemocratic change.

Yphtach Lelkes , a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, succinctly described by email the hurdles facing proposed remedies for polarization and antidemocratic trends:

I don’t think any bottom-up intervention is going to solve a problem that is structural. You could reduce misperceptions for a day or two or put diverse groups together for an hour, but these people will be polarized again as soon as they are exposed once more to campaign rhetoric.

The reality, Lelkes continued, is that “a fish rots from the head, and political elites are driving any democratic backsliding that is occurring in America. Most Republican voters do not support the antidemocratic policies and practices of their elected officials.”

In their March 2024 paper, “ Uncommon and Nonpartisan: Antidemocratic Attitudes in the American Public ,” Lelkes, Derek E. Holliday and Shanto Iyengar , both of Stanford, and Sean J. Westwood of Dartmouth found that public opposition to antidemocratic policies is not adequate to prevent their adoption:

More ominous implications of our results are that 1) public support is not a necessary precondition for backsliding behavior by elites, and 2) Americans, despite their distaste for norm violations, continue to elect representatives whose policies and actions threaten democracy. One explanation is that when partisanship is strong, voters place party and policy goals over democratic values. Indeed, one of the least-supported norm violations — removing polling places in outparty-dominated areas — has already been violated by elected officials in Texas, and there are concerns about pending similar laws in other states. Such unconstrained elite behavior suggests that threats to democracy could well manifest themselves in both parties in the future.

The level of public support for democratic institutions will be a crucial factor in the 2024 elections. President Biden is campaigning on the theme that Trump and his MAGA allies are intent on strengthening authoritarian leadership at the expense of democracy.

Political scientists and reform groups seeking to restore collegiality to political debate and elections have experimented with a wide variety of techniques to reduce partisan hostility and support for antidemocratic policies.

These efforts have raised doubts among other election experts, both about their effectiveness and durability. Such experts cite the virulence of the conflicts over race, ethnicity and values and the determination of Trump and other politicians to keep divisive issues in the forefront of campaigns.

I have written before about the largest study of techniques to lessen polarization, which was conducted by Jan G. Voelkel and Robb Willer , sociologists at Stanford, along with many other colleagues. Voelkel and Willer are the primary authors of “ Megastudy Identifying Effective Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes .” Given the heightened importance of the coming election and the potential effects of polarization on it, their study is worth re-evaluating.

Voelkel, Willer and 83 others

conducted a megastudy (n=32,059) testing 25 interventions designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find nearly every intervention reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting sympathetic and relatable individuals with different political beliefs. We also identify several interventions that reduced support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence, most strongly by correcting misperceptions of outpartisans’ views — showing that antidemocratic attitudes, although difficult to move, are not intractable.

Their own data and their responses to my inquiries suggest, however, that the optimism of their paper needs to be tempered.

In the case of the “six interventions that significantly reduced partisan animosity,” the authors reported that two weeks later “the average effect size in the durability survey amounted to 29 percent of the average effect size in the main survey.”

I asked Voelkel to explain this further, posing the question: “If the initial reduction in the level of partisan animosity was 10 percentage points, does the 29 percent figure indicate that after two weeks the reduction in partisan animosity was 2.9 percentage points?” Voelkel wrote back to say yes.

In an email responding to some of my follow-up questions about the paper, Voelkel wrote:

I do not want to overstate the success of the interventions that we tested in our study. Our contribution is that we identify psychological strategies for intervening on partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes in the context of a survey experiment. We still need to test how big the effects could be in a large-scale campaign in which the psychological mechanisms for reducing partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes get triggered not once (as in our study) but ideally many times and over a longer period.

Voelkel cautioned that “one-time interventions might not be enough to sustainably reduce affective polarization in the mass public. Thus, successful efforts would need to be applied widely and repeatedly to trigger the psychological mechanisms that are associated with reductions in affective polarization.”

Willer sent a detailed response to my queries by email:

First, to be clear, we do not claim that the interventions we tested have large enough effects that they would cure the problems they target. We do not find evidence for that. Far from it. I would characterize the results of the Strengthening Democracy Challenge in a more measured way. We find that many of the interventions we tested reliably, meaningfully and durably reduce both survey and behavioral indicators of partisan animosity.

Willer wrote that “the interventions we tested were pretty effective in reducing animosity toward rival partisans, particularly in the short term. However, we found that the interventions we tested were substantially less effective in reducing antidemocratic attitudes, like support for undemocratic practices and candidates.”

Other scholars were more skeptical.

I asked Lilliana Mason , a political scientist at Johns Hopkins and a leading scholar of affective polarization: “Are there methods to directly lessen polarization? Are they possible on a large, populationwide scale?”

“If we knew that,” she replied by email, “we would have definitely told people already.”

There is evidence, Mason continued, that

it is possible to correct misperceptions about politics by simply providing correct information. The problem is that this new correct information doesn’t change people’s feelings about political candidates or issues. For example, you can correct a lie told by Donald Trump, and people will believe the new correct information, but that won’t change their feelings about Trump at all.

“We think of affective polarization as being extremely loyal to one side and feeling strong animosity toward the other side,” Mason wrote, adding:

This can be rooted in substantive disagreements on policy, identity-based status threat, safe versus dangerous worldview, historical and contemporary patterns of oppression, violations of political norms, vilifying rhetoric, propagandistic media and/or a number of other influences. But once we are polarized, it’s very difficult to use reason and logic to convince us to think otherwise.

Similarly, “there are methods that reduce polarization in academic research settings,” Westwood, an author of the March paper cited above, wrote by email. He continued:

The fundamental problems are that none “cure” polarization (i.e., move the population from negative to neutral attitudes toward the opposing party), none last more than a short period of time and none have a plausible path to societywide deployment. It is impossible to reach every American in need of treatment, and many would balk at the idea of having their political attitudes manipulated by social scientists or community groups.

More important, in Westwood’s view, is that

whatever techniques might exist to reduce citizen animosity must be accompanied by efforts to reduce hostility among elected officials. It doesn’t matter if we can make someone more positive toward the other party if that effect is quickly undone by watching cable news, reading social media or otherwise listening to divisive political elites.

Referring to the Voelkel-Willer paper, Westwood wrote:

It is a critically important scientific study, but it, like nearly all social science research, does not demonstrate that the studied approaches work in the real world. Participants in this study were paid volunteers, and the effects were large but not curative. (They reduced partisan hatred and did not cure it.) To fix America’s problems, we need to reach everyone from fringe white nationalists to single moms in Chicago, which is so costly and logistically complicated that there isn’t a clear path toward implementation.

One problem with proposals designed to reduce partisan animosity and antidemocratic beliefs, which at least three of the scholars I contacted mentioned, is that positive effects are almost immediately nullified by the hostile language in contemporary politics.

“The moralized political environment is a core problem,” Peter Ditto , a professor of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, wrote by email:

Unless we can bring the temperature down in the country, it is going to be hard to make progress on other fronts, like trying to debias citizens’ consumption of political information. The United States is stuck in this outrage spiral. Partisan animosity both fuels and is fueled by a growing fact gap between red and blue America.

Ditto argued that there is “good evidence for the effectiveness of accuracy prompts (correcting falsehoods) to reduce people’s belief in political misinformation,” but “attempting to reduce political polarization with accuracy prompts alone is like trying to start a mediation during a bar fight.”

Attempts to improve political decision making, Ditto added, “are unlikely to have a substantial effect unless we can tamp down the growing animosity felt between red and blue America. The United States has gone from a politics based on disagreement to one based on dislike, distrust, disrespect and often even disgust.”

Citing the Voelkel-Willer paper, Jay Van Bavel , a professor of psychology and neural science at N.Y.U., emailed me to express his belief that “there are solid, well-tested strategies for reducing affective polarization. These are possible on a large scale if there is sufficient political will.”

But Van Bavel quickly added that these strategies “are up against all the other factors that are currently driving conflict and animosity, including divisive leaders like Donald Trump, gerrymandering, hyperpartisan media (including social media), etc. It’s like trying to bail out the Titanic.”

Simply put, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to counter polarization at a time when partisan sectarianism is intense and pervasive.

Bavel described polarization as

both an illness from various problems in our political system and an outcome. As a result, the solution is going to be extremely complex and involve different leadership (once Trump and his inner circle leave the scene, that will help a lot), as well as a number of structural changes (removing gerrymandering and other incentive structures that reinforce extremism).

Affective polarization, Bavel added,

is really just a disdain for the other political party. Political sectarianism seems to be an even worse form because now you see the other party as evil. Both of these are, of course, related to ideological polarization. But affective polarization and political sectarianism are different because they can make it impossible to cooperate with an opponent even when you agree. That’s why they are particularly problematic.

Stanley Feldman , a political scientist at Stony Brook University, pointed to another characteristic of polarization that makes it especially difficult to lower the temperature of the conflict between Republicans and Democrats: There are real, not imaginary, grounds for their mutual animosity.

In an email, Feldman wrote:

There is a reality to this conflict. There has been a great deal of social change in the U.S. over the past few decades. Gay marriage is legal, gender norms are changing, the country is becoming more secular, immigration has increased.

Because of this, Feldman added:

it’s a mistake to suggest this is like an illness or disease. We’re talking about people’s worldviews and beliefs. As much as we may see one side or the other to be misguided and a threat to democracy, it’s still important to try to understand and take seriously their perspective. And analogies to illness or pathology will not help to reduce conflict.

There are, in Feldman’s view,

two major factors that have contributed to this. First, national elections are extremely competitive now. Partisan control of the House and Senate could change at every election. Presidential elections are decided on razor-thin margins. This means that supporters of each party constantly see the possibility of losing power every election. This magnifies the perceived threat from the opposing party and increases negative attitudes toward the out-party.

The second factor?

The issues dividing the parties have changed. When the two parties fought over the size of government, taxes and social welfare programs, it was possible for partisans to imagine a compromise that is more or less acceptable even if not ideal. Compromise on issues like abortion, gender roles, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the role of religion is much more difficult, so losing feels like more of a threat to people’s values. Feldman continued:

From a broader perspective, these issues, as well as immigration and the declining white majority, reflect very different ideas of what sort of society the United States should be. This makes partisan conflict feel like an existential threat to an “American” way of life. Losing political power then feels like losing your country. And the opposing parties become seen as dangers to society.

These legitimately felt fears and anxieties in the electorate provide a fertile environment for elected officials, their challengers and other institutional forces to exacerbate division.

As Feldman put it:

It’s also important to recognize the extent to which politicians, the media, social media influencers and others have exacerbated perceptions of threat from social change. Take immigration, for example. People could be reminded of the history of immigration in the U.S.: how immigrants have contributed to American society, how second and third generations have assimilated, how previous fears of immigration have been unfounded. Instead there are voices increasing people’s fear of immigration, suggesting that immigrants are a threat to the country, dangerous and even less than human. Discussions of a “great replacement” theory, supposed attacks on religion, dangers of immigration and changing gender norms undermining men’s place in society magnify perceptions of threat from social change. Cynical politicians have learned that they can use fear and partisan hostility to their political advantage. As long as they think this is a useful strategy, it will be difficult to begin to reduce polarization and partisan hostility.

In other words, as long as Trump is the Republican nominee for president and as long as the prospect of a majority-minority country continues to propel right-wing populism, the odds of reducing the bitter animosity that now characterizes American politics remain slim.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall

IMAGES

How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay: Outline, Steps, & Examples
New Rhetorical Essay Examples The Latest
Writing a rhetorical analysis essay
How To Write Rhetorical Analysis Essay: 20 Strategies, Steps, And Topics
Learn How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay on Trust My Paper
Rhetorical Analysis Essay [Tips from Pros]

VIDEO

Gettysburg Address Rhetorical Analysis
Essay: Your Rhetorical Self
Write a Winning College Essay
The Rhetorical Analysis Essay
1302 Rhetorical situation
Of Discourse by Francis Bacon हिंदी में समझें

COMMENTS

How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis
Revised on July 23, 2023. A rhetorical analysis is a type of essay that looks at a text in terms of rhetoric. This means it is less concerned with what the author is saying than with how they say it: their goals, techniques, and appeals to the audience. A rhetorical analysis is structured similarly to other essays: an introduction presenting ...
How to Write the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay (With Example)
Rhetorical essay: You'll read a provided passage, then analyze the author's rhetorical choices and develop an argument that explains why the author made those rhetorical choices. AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric . The AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay is graded on just 3 rubric categories: Thesis, Evidence and Commentary, and Sophistication.
Rhetorical Strategies
There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case. Logos. Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or ...
Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorical Analysis. Rhetoric is the study of how writers and speakers use words to influence an audience. A rhetorical analysis is an essay that breaks a work of non-fiction into parts and then explains how the parts work together to create a certain effect—whether to persuade, entertain or inform. You can also conduct a rhetorical analysis ...
How to Write a Great Rhetorical Analysis Essay: With Examples
Name the author of the text and the title of their work followed by the date in parentheses. Use a verb to describe what the author does, e.g. "implies," "asserts," or "claims". Briefly summarize the text in your own words. Mention the persuasive techniques used by the rhetor and its effect.
6.4 Rhetorical Appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Defined
Sometimes, using a combination of logical, pathetic, and ethical appeals leads to a sound, balanced, and persuasive argument. It is important to understand, though, that using rhetorical appeals does not always lead to a sound, balanced argument. In fact, any of the appeals could be misused or overused. When that happens, arguments can be weakened.
How to write a rhetorical analysis [4 steps]
To write a rhetorical analysis, you need to follow the steps below: Step 1: Plan and prepare. With a rhetorical analysis, you don't choose concepts in advance and apply them to a specific text or piece of content. Rather, you'll have to analyze the text to identify the separate components and plan and prepare your analysis accordingly.
Rhetorical Analysis
Almost every text makes an argument. Rhetorical analysis is the process of evaluating elements of a text and determining how those elements impact the success or failure of that argument. Often rhetorical analyses address written arguments, but visual, oral, or other kinds of "texts" can also be analyzed.
3.7 Rhetorical Modes of Writing
Typically speaking, the four major categories of rhetorical modes are narration, description, exposition, and persuasion. The narrative essay tells a relevant story or relates an event. The descriptive essay uses vivid, sensory details to draw a picture in words. The writer's purpose in expository writing is to explain or inform.
Rhetorical Strategies: Building Compelling Arguments
Rhetorical Strategies: Building Compelling Arguments. Rhetoric pertains to how authors use and manipulate language in order to persuade an audience. To be rhetorically effective (and thus persuasive), an author must engage the audience in a variety of compelling ways. We can classify these as Logos, Pathos, and Ethos. Logos: Appeal to Logic.
How to Write an Argumentative Essay
Make a claim. Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim. Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim) Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives. The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays.
9.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically about Rhetoric
It can be an editorial, a movie or book review, an essay, a chapter in a book, or a letter to the editor. For your rhetorical analysis, you will need to consider the rhetorical situation—subject, author, purpose, context, audience, and culture—and the strategies the author uses in creating the argument.
AP Lang
The rhetorical analysis essay is a free-response question in which you analyze any rhetorical strategies that the author uses in the given passage and evaluate/discuss them in a well-formatted essay. "The rhetorical analysis free-response essay question presents students with a passage of nonfiction prose of approximately 600 to 800 words.
Rhetoric and Argumentation
The term rhetoric refers to the argumentative use of logos (along with ēthos and pathos) as a means of persuasion in political, legal, and ceremonial speeches. Aristotle appears to have envisioned a division of labor between the dialectical and rhetorical perspectives on argumentation, the one complementing the other. According to Hanns ...
The 20 Most Useful Rhetorical Devices
Eutrepismus is another rhetorical device you've probably used before without realizing it. This device separates speech into numbered parts, giving your reader or listener a clear line of thinking to follow. Eutrepismus is a great rhetorical device—let me tell you why. First, it's efficient and clear.
Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the parts of a speech or text to understand how it produces its persuasive effect. Overview. Writing the Rhetorical Analysis. Student Example. Professional Example. Video. Come to the RWC! Downloadable Resources. Learning how to identify and analyze rhetorical tools is an important part of the academic ...
9.3 Glance at Genre: Rhetorical Strategies
The strategies and other devices of rhetorical writing that are open to analysis are present in many types of communication, including multimodal examples such as advertisements that combine visuals with carefully crafted texts, dialogue, and voice-over. Figure 9.3 M&Ms (credit: "Plain M&Ms Pile" by Evan-Amos/Wikimedia Commons, Public ...
17 Rhetorical Modes for Paragraphs & Essays
Sometimes writers incorporate a variety of modes in any one essay. For example, under the umbrella of an argument essay, and author might choose to write paragraphs showing cause and effect, description, and narrative. The rhetorical mode writers choose depends on the purpose for writing. Rhetorical modes are a set of tools that will give you ...
Chapter 7: Rhetoric and Argumentation
Chapter 7: Rhetoric and Argumentation "General Assembly" by hmerinomx, CC BY-SA 2.0 This chapter is about rhetoric and argumentation and is divided into three sections.The first introduces key terminology related to "argumentation" including syllogism and enthymeme, Monroe's Motivated Sequence, presumption and burden of proof, and audiences of argument.
Understanding Rhetorical Choices
Hey there! Rhetorical choices are the deliberate decisions a writer or speaker makes in order to create a persuasive or convincing message. Some key rhetorical choices to be aware of when analyzing a text include: diction (word choice), tone (author's attitude), syntax (sentence structure), and rhetorical devices (figurative language, repetition, etc.).
Rhetorical Questions in Essays: 5 Things you should Know
If your rhetorical question isn't as good as you think it is, your marks are going to drop - big time. 5. Teachers Hate Rhetorical Questions in Essays. This one supplants all other reasons. The fact is that there are enough teachers out there who hate rhetorical questions in essays that using them is a very risky move.
31 Common Rhetorical Devices and Examples
An expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty especially for rhetorical effect. to be, or not to be: that is the question. cacophony | see definition ». Harshness in the sound of words or phrases. chiasmus | see definition ». An inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases.
The Use of Rhetorical Strategies in Argumentative Essays
Abstract. The most challenging skill perceived by students when they learn the English language is the writing skill. This recent study would like to identify the rhetorical strategies used by ...
Why Losing Political Power Now Feels Like 'Losing Your Country'
This can be rooted in substantive disagreements on policy, identity-based status threat, safe versus dangerous worldview, historical and contemporary patterns of oppression, violations of ...