"Then, touching the brim of his cap, he headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last (P. 13). "

In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and its Consequences; that's the title of the book. Yet, despite the fact that it actually points-out that the book is about a death, this key event hasn't even really occurred in the first two (short) sections of the book. The first section does end with a murder, as it states in the final paragraph that "four shotgun blasts... ended six human lives (P. 5)." So the reader becomes increasingly interested, believing that something exciting will definitely happen in the next section; but then... it doesn't. The second section begins before the shots, as if section one hadn't even ended that way. And then, at the end, just like in the previous one, it ends with a murder.

So why is Truman Capote (the author) taking so long to actually get to the part of the murder? Is it to torture the reader or leave him on edge? No, this is not the case. In order to grasp the reasoning as to why Capote decides to dawdle, one must look at the other part of the title: "... and its Consequences." What the author of this feature article is doing, is describing things before the murder so the audience will later grasp the effects it had on places and people.

In the first section he describes the town of Holcomb in great depth. He explains that it is a "lonesome area (P. 3)," that people's accents have a "prairie twang (P. 3)," and that people felt so safe "they seldom...locked their doors (P.5)."He also implies that it is pretty abandoned, as even the bank is no longer running. Yet, it is evident that this is about to change, as he says that "until one morning in mid-November of 1959, few Americans - in fact, few Kansans - had ever heard of Holcomb (P. 5)." The morning he's talking about is probably the morning after the night of the murder, which marked a change for the town.

In the second section, Capote describes the Clutter family. He does so in such depth that it seems odd at first. He explains that Herbert William Clutter is married to Bonnie Fox and they have four children: three girls and one boy. The family seems pretty normal. His daughter, Nancy, even uses the common fallacy of appeal to popularity (ad populum), asking her parents to let her go to a "Spook Show" because "all her friends were going (P.8)." Capote not only describes the family, but also the house and the land. The house was designed by Mr. Clutter, with a white exterior and with carpet-covered floors inside. The land consisted of 3,800 acres on which crops such as wheat, milo seed, and certified grass seed were harvested. Capote also adds that there were also animals living on this land.

Although Capotes description is very thorough, I noticed that he never mentions the vicinity of many people. On the contrary, there is barely anybody there with the Clutters. "Other than a housekeeper who came in on weekdays," Capote says, "the Clutters employed no household help (P. 9)." Later on, he adds that "the Stoeckleins... lived in a house not a hundred yards from the main house; except for them, the Clutters had no neighbors within half a mile (P. 12)."So the social interactions the Clutters had were definitely not many. I'm not sure, but this could - or could not - be some sort of foreshadowing aid Capote is giving us. Aside from that, he never actually says exactly who was killed -except for Mr. Clutter, who Capote says is living his last day. Yet, I'm almost certain it will be Mr. Clutter and his family. Capote says six people were killed; and, well... there's Mr. Clutter... his wife... their three daughters... and their only son. That adds to six, doesn't it?

"It is our duty to guard those millions from that fate." - Winston Churchill

The argument between England and India during the 1900’s is an important subject that continues to be studied today. It has become a controversial topic, with some siding with the British and the rest supporting Gandhi’s protest (notice my use of the False Dilemma fallacy). However, who would have thought that this renowned conflict was based on lies? Oh yes, it was, because both Gandhi and Winston Churchill were experts on rhetoric. And what is rhetoric if not a bunch of lies appearing to be telling the truth?

In “Our Duty in India” Winston Churchill speaks of the necessity of keeping India under British control, as he clearly tries to convince the audience of the vitality of this. If even the retelling of an experience uses fallacies, then of course this persuasive speech will use them as well. Although they were well hidden, these fallacies were definitely there throughout the speech. Among them is the fallacy of false dilemma, which is clearly evident when Churchill says: “But win or lose, we must do our duty.” Based on only this statement, Britain can either win or lose the conflict with India. However, there are other possible endings to this conflict. What about making an agreement? Then they wouldn’t be losing or winning, would they?

Winston Churchill also clearly uses a fallacy when he says: “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” This can be understood in two different ways: Either he means that the two first sentences prove the third, or he simply wants the third sentence to be understood on its own. Either way, it’s a fallacy. The fact that Gandhi wants to impede British trade and rule in India in no way proves that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. This then, is a fallacy of misinterpreting the evidence. However, what if someone argued that that final sentence was meant to be understood on its own and not as an effect of the previous two? Then it is still a fallacy: The fallacy of bad example. In this case, then, there is nothing even pretending to prove that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. But then again, barely anybody notices it anyways. I do thanks to Heinrichs. That’s one of the perks of knowing about rhetoric.

"I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." - George Orwell

We often tell stories about personal experiences. And when we do, we obviously want our audience to side with us when it comes to the occurrence. That's where rhetoric comes in. No, contrary to my previous beliefs, rhetoric isn't only used in arguments: It is also employed when the audience doesn't even know it is being convinced of something. And, I must add, this might even be the most advantageous way to use it. So George Orwell does this, and uses rhetoric skillfully in a retelling of a controversial experience.

It is definitely difficult to spot the fallacies in this speech (especially so, since they are certainly unexpected). Pathos is clearly obvious, though. Throughout the entire retelling, Orwell uses this rhetorical technique in order to acquire the audience's sympathy. The use of pathos is clear in statements such as "... I was hated by large numbers of people (the audience will take pity due to the strong word "hate")," "... in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind me (he is implying that the Burmans manipulated him)," and even the quote I chose as the title of this blog post (by saying this, he is justifying his actions in a way he believes will draw the audience to his side - and it does).

So as Orwell uses easy-to-spot pathos, he strengthens this technique with hidden pathos-based fallacies. Hasty generalization is definitely one of the most common ones. It is obvious when Orwell says, for example: "I was young and ill-educated and I had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." Yes, he did just say that EVERY Englishman living in the eastern hemisphere faces problems in this new region. But obviously not all of them do. Therefore it is a hasty generalization. With this fallacy, he sought to earn the audience's sympathy by portraying Englishmen as the victims, and men from the East as the oppressors.

False choice is even more common than hasty generalization in this speech. It is especially used when it comes to the decision of shooting the elephant. Orwell says: "The people expected it of me and I had to do it," and "I had got to shoot the elephant," along with other statements that just strengthen the view he wants the audience to have: That he did not shoot the elephant by choice, but because there was nothing else he could have done. However, is this actually the case? Shooting the elephant was not the only option. He could have just not shot it at all, or given the rifle to someone else to do the honors, or created an even more interesting distraction... the possibilities are endless. Yet by not admitting so, the audience is automatically drawn to him. I was weary about everything he said the entire time, since I was looking for fallacies, so I did not fall into the trap of his rhetoric. But I have no doubt that others were victims of pathos and even ended up shedding a tear or two.

"All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible." - Mahatma Gandhi

Speeches are convincing, that's their purpose. A person stands up and talks to others... but all with a sole purpose. This speaker might appear to be altogether selfless and doing it all for his audience. However, this is what he's supposed to do. Otherwise, why would people support him if they feel he's doing it for selfish reasons? They would never favor him, because in the end, everyone runs on selfish ideals. But then, how does the speaker pretend it is not for himself that he is doing it, but for the overall good of everyone? Well, through the use of fallacies, of course! Many speakers use these, and their audiences don't even notice. Among these speakers stands Mahatma Gandhi, who fills his Kingsley speech with fallacies but to a successful extent, as these are quite hard to find.

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules," says Gandhi as he begins his speech. It's a long sentence, isn't it? Well yes, long enough to hold two fallacies, even. First of all, it uses hasty generalization, because Gandhi is simply assuming that people don't know about their rulers. He doesn't even explain how he got to this conclusion, and yet, he generalizes on people's view of their rulers. In addition, this is definitely a many questions fallacy. Gandhi is squishing many issues into one: who rulers are, why God rules, and how He rules. He is simply treating all these questions as one, thus making this a fallacy.

Afterwards in his speech, Gandhi explains that what is governing everything "is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern conduct of living being...." But this is a fallacy of ignorance: Just because he has never heard of a blind law being able to govern "conduct of living being" does not mean that this is not possible. Just because his theory isn't disproved, he assumes it's true.

Further on in his speech, Gandhi asks "And is this power benevolent or malevolent?" referring to God's power. However, is it actually either good or bad? Couldn't it be anywhere in between? By ignoring all the other choices, Gandhi is committing a fallacy of false dilemma. He follows this sentence by saying: "I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the mist of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is supreme Good." This is definitely a wrong ending fallacy because, how does the fact that life, truth and light all persist, make Him benevolent? And how does the fact that He brings these three items automatically turn Him into these three items? Gandhi also out of nowhere adds to more items (love and Good) and pretends that they belong in his conclusion, but in all actuality he just inserted them, applying the wrong ending fallacy. And this "wrong ending" is what ends this entry, hopefully giving it a good ending and demonstrating Gandhi's hidden, ulterior techniques.

"And, after all, what is a lie?" - Lord Byron

After reading chapters sixteen and seventeen I looked through my classmates' blogs as a means of inspiration, since I had no idea what to write of. I then noticed that many, including Daniel Solano's and Lina Merizalde's assessed the importance of identifying that someone had good values and is looking out for our needs. However, all I could think about while reading the chapters was how much I wanted to be as convincing as the salesman mentioned in chapter sixteen. Considering Heinrichs is a rhetorician, he shouldn't be trying to break such a persuasive person. If I were him, I would be complimenting the salesman non-stop. But no: He decides to focus on how the salesman isn't looking out for Heinrich's mom's satisfaction, and even creates an imaginary conversation in which his mom ultimately humiliates the salesman, or at least shuts him up in a rude, uncalled for manner ("If I look at it [the pool table], will you take me to the shirt department (P. 175)?").

Let's face the ugly truth: No one will ever look out solely for your own needs and not his/her own. Yes, not even parents, otherwise they'd give you all their food so only your needs could be fulfilled. So why would a salesman, of all people, want the best for you? Thus when buying something, you shouldn't even ask yourself whether the salesperson is completely disinterested and selfless and only cares about your needs. I mean, why would he? He has his own life to carry out. So why would he put a stranger's over his own? But by all means, this salesman shouldn't be humiliated. It's his duty, for God's sake! And he's doing a great job at it, I must add! He convinced a woman of buying an item that was probably at least four times the price of the one she was originally considering!

So, I don't understand why Heinrichs is focusing this chapter on how not to be like his mom. I mean, you shouldn't have to be taught how to not let people convince you of something you don't want. If you don't want it, you won't buy it. Otherwise, even a small part of you must have wanted it in the first place. Not buying it in the end, consists mainly of a strongly set mind. What Heinrichs decides to teach is simply some extra information that most people won't need if they have enough will power and clarity of what they want. However, I believe that what he should be teaching us, is how to be like that amazing salesman! That guy probably didn't even get education on rhetoric, and yet he is so good at it. So Heinrichs: Don't criticize him, pay tribute to him and teach us how to be that good. Because selling is even harder than saying no, as this video further demonstrates:

*No need to watch the entire thing. With just a minute, you'll get it.

"Never Argue the Inarguable (P. 158)."

We use fallacies all the time. Many times we do so unintentionally. Sometimes we don't even realize we're being fallacious, and other times we do and ask ourselves, "What did that reason even have to do with what I was saying?" but walk away content with the fact that our audience didn't notice the lack of relationship between our choice and our proof. However, there are many occasions in which we use these fallacies and we do get caught.

After seeing this, I immediately realized that this would be considered a fallacy. Harry Styles (the boy who answered the question) was probably trying to make a point. However, the lack of connection between the interviewer's question ("Can you walk out on the street and just be yourself?") and Harry's answer ("London's quite big."), is immediately identified by the other band members. Turns out that Harry might be in one of the most popular bands in the world, and he might have the looks, but when it comes to rhetoric, he's not very good (as far as this video is concerned).

At least he tried, though. Because in rhetoric, what's even worse than being caught in your own fallacy, is completely disturbing rhetoric: The Rhetorical Fouls. There are seven ways to completely impede an argument - not settle it, but block it. When one of these occurs, the argument reaches a dead end: You have killed it. These are the following:

- "Switching tenses away from the future (P. 170)" By using present or past tense, you're portraying the argument as something that simply is that way and can't be changed. Thus, there isnothing more to argue because the present and past are real and inarguable.

- "Inflexible insistence on the rules - using the voice of God, sticking to your guns, refusing to hear the other side (P. 170)" Heinrich's explanation speaks for itself. 

- "Humiliation - an argument that sets out only to debate someone, not to make a choice (P. 170)." Instead of trying to argue with somebody and convince him or your audience, you only attack him and/or his values, putting a stop to rhetoric and the argument. 

- "Innuendo (P. 170)."It completely stops the argument because if your opponent objects to what you said he "can look like a fool (P. 167)."

- "Threats (P. 170)." Giving no choices, but forcing an opinion on somebody instead. I can relate it the most to angry parents: "You will come and you will be nice about it!" There's nothing to argue there: I either do what they say or we get into a fight (remember that there's a big difference between a fight and an argument.)

- "Nasty language or signs... (P. 170)" Self - explanatory.

- "Utter stupidity (P. 170)." Have you ever argued with somebody that's so ignorant that  it seems like he wins, but only because he just denies everything you say?  He's simply halting an argument, bcause you will eventually get bored of comebacks like "Well, no!" or "That's not true," (or commonly in Spanish: "Claro que no!") that contain no further justification. But what when both people are equally ignorant? Then it just becomes an annoying, pointless set of ongoing "No!" "Yes" "No!" "Yes!".... ("Claro que no!" "Claro que si!"....). This type usually goes on between toddlers and siblings. Don't stoop to the rhetorical level of a two - year old.

"Rhetorical Deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion (P. 133)."

As I read Chapter 13 of Thank You for Arguing I began realizing of all the ways we are fooled in our day to day life. Everyone around us uses bad logic, everybody from our parents -  saying "Then if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" - to politicians - "Every American family has to live within their means. Their government should, too (P.122)." And then I realized an example of deductive logic that I, as a girl, see all the time: beauty.

This example is actually made up of two parts. Society begins pushing this rhetorical deduction into girls' heads as off a very young age:
"Women want to be pretty.
You are a woman,
Then you want to be pretty."
Due to this, young girls become concerned with being pretty, because, well, they're "women," so they must be pretty as well... or at least try to be.

This example of deductive logic sets the commonplace for a next situation. It leaves girls vulnerable and makes them easy targets to companies with the objective of making them "pretty."So these companies use the following example of rhetorical deduction:
"If our product makes you pretty,
and you want to be pretty,
then you should buy our product."

This advert is a perfect example:

Although, to be honest, it is one of the most boring advertisements I've ever seen, it does the trick and employs deductive logic. Notice how not a word is said, yet, the message is clear: This product will make you "chic, trendy, glamourous, [and] beautiful." It wants women to say "If this product makes me pretty, and I want to be pretty, then I should buy this product." - well, in a much more thoughtless way like "I want this product."  Interesting how society works hand in hand with the beauty industry. 

Vocabulary

Deduction:  "Deductive logic applies a general principle to a particular matter. Rhetorical deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion, interpreting the circumstances through a lens of beliefs and values (P.133)."

Enthymeme:  "We should [choice], because [commonplace] (P. 133)." 

Induction:  "In rhetoric, induction is argument by example. This kind of logic starts with the specific and moves to the general (P. 133)."

Fact, Comparison, Story:  "These are the three kinds of example to use in inductive logic (P. 133)."

Paradigm: A set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.

"Commonplaces are powerful weapons. Do not aim them at your foot." (P. 103)

After twelve chapters of Thank You for Arguing, things are beginning to get complicated. It's not because Heinrichs doesn't explain well - He's a great teacher of such a complex subject! It's due to the fact that there are so many ways to win an argument that it begins to get confusing.It's funny how before, I had about three ways to win an argument... and now, there are so many, it's hard to keep track of them. As a result, I decided the best way to keep them all organized im my head is to define them and exemplify them. So what better place to do it than my blog:


The Advantageous (Approach):
"You make the audience believe your own choice to be the advantageous one." (P. 107)

This video is a Samsung Galaxy Ad. However, it starts off seeming like an iPhone ad instead. Due to this, it is a perfect example of the Advantageous approach. It begins by having people in the ad speak highly of the new iPhone release, calling it an event they'll remember for the rest of their lives. However, the Samsung Galaxy is then portrayed as a much better option, saying it is "magnificent"and "amazing." By the end, it is obvious that those in line for the iPhone would much rather have the Galaxy, but they pretend they don't by mocking those who have it or making up lame excuses as to why it's not meant for them ("I could never get a Samsung... I'm creative"), thus adding witty humor to the ad.

This is also an example of Definition Judo ("Make your opponent's most positive words look like negatives" (P. 113)). It uses irony to make the iPhone buyers' positive comments seem negative, thus never directly trashing it. They do this by having the customers say (enthusiastically, though) that they've waited for nine hours and have nine more to go, and that the iPhone has a kind of "retro, old - school style." Although the ad's character say these like they're good things, the ironic tone of the ad-makers is evident, and they succeed in making these iPhone-praising comments seem negative.

The Commonplace: 

"The assumptions and outlook on the world that define an individual." (P.101)

In this video, Obama starts with logos, stating, for example, that when he took office the US was "losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month." By starting with logos, as Heinrichs puts it, Obama makes the audience "think that [his] opinion is a very small step from the commonplace." (P. 107)

After using logos he establishes the commonplace: "get folks back to work," "make the middle class secure again,""create one million manufacturing jobs," "double exports,""tax breaks to invest in America,""produce more American energy," "preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers," "train 2 million Amercians with the job skills they need,""expand student aid,""reduce deficit by $4 trillion,""wealthy pay a little more," and "end Afghanistan war and rebuild America."

By establishing so many commonplace ideas, he is reaching out to the greatest amount of people, establishing it in the broadest context ("one that appeals to the values of the widest audience" (P. 120)). By saying he'll have the wealthy pay a little more, he is getting the consent of the anti-capitalists, yet maintaining that of the rich since it is only a "little more."

The Commonplace Label ( Anyone who opposes [the commonplace] will risk seeming like an outsider" (P. 107)) will certainly apply here as well. Anyone who disagrees with Obama in this video will risk coming across as an unpatriotic American who doesn't care about improving the United States' economy, life conditions, and education.