3 Assignments:

Term Proposal

Term Project Outline

Term Project – Final Product

ENGL 570

Term Paper

Outline

Description: The term paper outline is an opportunity for students to structure their paper and receive direct feedback from the instructor. By doing so, students can begin drafting with confidence knowing whether their approach logically supports the thesis they have crafted.

Note: If a student completes an outline that does not match the proposed topic in the Term Paper proposal (module 5 assignment) and the student did not clarify any changes with the instructor one week prior to project due date, then the assignment may not be accepted.

Minimum requirements:

· Though there is no word requirement, students should present an outline that sufficiently reflects their intended approach, including a thesis, all main points, and primary subpoints that will be used for support.

· Though not required, a reference list is highly suggested. The instructor can review the titles and authors and provide any guidance on the research prior to the final submission.

· Single sentence thesis statement. This should be clear and detailed.

· Full sentences required for every point (main and all supporting points). Topic outlines are too general and severely lack clarity.

The following were the Term Paper proposal options a student may have chosen:

1) Theoretical Shift: The different readings should reveal not only the core concepts in classical rhetoric and its theories, but it should also reflect how such theories changed between rhetoricians. This prompt does not suggest a comprehensive tracing of a complete rhetorical theory, but it does allow students to identify a key part of the theory, examine it in different iterations, and analyze how and why it shifted between theorists.

2) Culturally Informed: To suggest that classical rhetorical theory developed in a vacuum would be an utterly false narrative. Greek and Roman culture significantly influenced how rhetoricians not only understood rhetoric, but how they viewed it in connection with human existence. This prompt allows students to consider elements of the broader context and how such influences were taken up within rhetorical theory.

3) Mining the Gap: Developing questions about the readings over the course of the semester is quite common, yet when one of those questions prompts further questioning where there is no clear answer, then the student most likely has identified a gap. This prompt allows students to investigate rhetorical theory, identify an area that might be underdeveloped, discussed passively, or missing altogether and attempt to answer why the gap exists as well as the importance of addressing it.

4) Reconceptualization: Similar to “Mining the Gap,” this prompt allows for students to investigate classical rhetoric, but instead of identifying a gap in the literature, they may suggest a reconceptualization of a common term, theory, or rhetorician. This paper would take the form of an argument where the student will identify not only what needs to be redefined, but how it would look after and the impact such redefinition would have on the field.

5) Student-Defined: Technically, all of the above options are choices for students; however, if there is a topic that does not seem to fit in those categories and/or students are unsure where it would fit, they may submit a proposal and solicit feedback from the professor on whether it would work for the term paper.

Make sure you follow the approach you identified in your proposal as this will be the instructor’s view of your paper when assessing. The outline requirements are listed above. Review the Term Paper Outline Rubric before submitting.

ENGL 570

Term Paper

Proposal

Description: The term paper is an opportunity for students to synthesize the readings and discussion boards and trace a specific thread they may have followed throughout the semester. Through careful analysis, the student will form their own theory about classical rhetoric and support their view with the use of primary and secondary sources.

For the proposal, students will select one of the broad writing prompts below and MODIFY the prompt to form their own unique paper topic. The prompts below should be interpreted more as categories to form a specific topic rather than a traditional “prompt.” Students should use the discussion boards and responses as a way to identify a theme, concept, or theory they would like to pursue in the term paper.

General requirements: Your proposal must have the following: identify which prompt you chose, the specific thread (topic) you will narrow your focus on, and an explanation of the following:

1) Identify with prompt you chose below.

2) How you plan to modify the prompt to focus on a specific thread or idea you plan to research.

3) The particular rhetorician(s) you will include in your discussion and why they are essential to your topic.

4) What concerns or questions you might have about the topic or paper in general (*Part of a proposal process is for the student to not only define what their paper topic is, but it is for them to receive clarifications from the instructor as to what could help their approach).

The proposal must be between
450-600 words
and in APA format if citations are necessary and included. Whatever option the student chooses is the option that must be completed for the module 4 Midterm Project.

The following are writing prompts for students to choose from for this paper:

1) Theoretical Shift: The different readings should reveal not only the core concepts in classical rhetoric and its theories, but it should also reflect how such theories changed between rhetoricians. This prompt does not suggest a comprehensive tracing of a complete rhetorical theory, but it does allow students to identify a key part of the theory, examine it in different iterations, and analyze how and why it shifted between theorists.

2) Culturally Informed: To suggest that classical rhetorical theory developed in a vacuum would be an utterly false narrative. Greek and Roman culture significantly influenced how rhetoricians not only understood rhetoric, but how they viewed it in connection with human existence. This prompt allows students to consider elements of the broader context and how such influences were taken up within rhetorical theory.

3) Mining the Gap: Developing questions about the readings over the course of the semester is quite common, yet when one of those questions prompts further questioning where there is no clear answer, then the student most likely has identified a gap. This prompt allows students to investigate rhetorical theory, identify an area that might be underdeveloped, discussed passively, or missing altogether and attempt to answer why the gap exists as well as the importance of addressing it.

4) Reconceptualization: Similar to “Mining the Gap,” this prompt allows for students to investigate classical rhetoric, but instead of identifying a gap in the literature, they may suggest a reconceptualization of a common term, theory, or rhetorician. This paper would take the form of an argument where the student will identify not only what needs to be redefined, but how it would look after and the impact such redefinition would have on the field.

5) Student-Defined: Technically, all of the above options are choices for students; however, if there is a topic that does not seem to fit in those categories and/or students are unsure where it would fit, they may submit a proposal and solicit feedback from the professor on whether it would work for the term paper.

Review the Term Paper Proposal general requirements and rubric before submitting. This assignment must be between
450-600 words, APA format
(no title page or abstract needed).

ENGL 570

Term Paper

Final Submission

Description: The term paper is an opportunity for students to synthesize the readings and discussion boards and trace a specific thread they may have followed throughout the semester. Through careful analysis, the student will form their own theory about classical rhetoric and support their view with the use of primary and secondary sources.

Note: If a student completes a paper that does not match the proposed topic in the Term Paper proposal (module 5 assignment) and the student did not clarify any changes with the instructor one week prior to project due date, then the assignment may not be accepted.

Minimum requirements:

· 5500-6000 words

· 15 secondary sources (more than 15 is fine)

The following were the Term Paper proposal options a student may have chosen:

1) Theoretical Shift: The different readings should reveal not only the core concepts in classical rhetoric and its theories, but it should also reflect how such theories changed between rhetoricians. This prompt does not suggest a comprehensive tracing of a complete rhetorical theory, but it does allow students to identify a key part of the theory, examine it in different iterations, and analyze how and why it shifted between theorists.

2) Culturally Informed: To suggest that classical rhetorical theory developed in a vacuum would be an utterly false narrative. Greek and Roman culture significantly influenced how rhetoricians not only understood rhetoric, but how they viewed it in connection with human existence. This prompt allows students to consider elements of the broader context and how such influences were taken up within rhetorical theory.

3) Mining the Gap: Developing questions about the readings over the course of the semester is quite common, yet when one of those questions prompts further questioning where there is no clear answer, then the student most likely has identified a gap. This prompt allows students to investigate rhetorical theory, identify an area that might be underdeveloped, discussed passively, or missing altogether and attempt to answer why the gap exists as well as the importance of addressing it.

4) Reconceptualization: Similar to “Mining the Gap,” this prompt allows for students to investigate classical rhetoric, but instead of identifying a gap in the literature, they may suggest a reconceptualization of a common term, theory, or rhetorician. This paper would take the form of an argument where the student will identify not only what needs to be redefined, but how it would look after and the impact such redefinition would have on the field.

5) Student-Defined: Technically, all of the above options are choices for students; however, if there is a topic that does not seem to fit in those categories and/or students are unsure where it would fit, they may submit a proposal and solicit feedback from the professor on whether it would work for the term paper.

Make sure you follow the approach you identified in your proposal as this will be the instructor’s view of your paper when assessing. The paper must be between
5500-6000 words
and include a minimum of
15 secondary sources
. Review the Term Paper Rubric before submitting.

ENGL 570

Term Paper Outline Grading Rubric

Criteria

Levels of Achievement

Content 70%

Advanced

Proficient

Developing

Not Present

Points Earned

Development

19 to 21 points
Thesis is specific, narrow, and clear. Topic/project clearly identified within it.
Main ideas directly support the thesis and reflect either intended authors, works, theories, and/or other key elements included in the topic.
Sufficient supporting points given to explain/develop the main ideas.
Full sentences present for every main and supporting point.
All requirements must be met.

14 to 18 points
Thesis identifies the topic and controlling idea but needs further refinement to give clear direction of the paper.
Main ideas support the thesis but may not include authors, works, theories, and/or other key elements included in the topic.
Supporting points present but more is necessary to establish clear development of the main idea.
Full sentences present for almost all main and supporting point.
All requirements must be met.

1 to 13 points
Thesis might be present but does not identify a clear topic and/or authors/works to be discussed.
Main ideas do not necessarily support the thesis or do not follow it.
Supporting points minimally present and are potentially redundant.
Points are not full sentences.
At least one requirement must be met.

0 points
Not present.

Structure 30%

Advanced

Proficient

Developing

Not Present

Points Earned

Structure

8 to 9 points
The writing reflects
grammatical,
punctuation, and
spelling standards.
Language is accurate,
appropriate, effective, and reflects graduate level diction.
The tone is appropriate
and highly effective.
Outline structure has proper indentations to indicate role of each point.
APA formatting/citations correct and used where appropriate.

5 to 7 points
The writing contains
some grammatical,
punctuation, and / or spelling errors.
Language is unclear,
awkward or
inappropriate in parts.
Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.
Outline structure has minor flaws, but role of each point still discernible.
APA formatting/citations present where appropriate but with minor flaws.

1 to 4 points
The writing contains
many grammatical,
punctuation and/or
spelling errors.
Language use is
largely inaccurate or inappropriate.
The tone is
ineffective and/or inappropriate.
Outline structure difficult to follow and role of each point unclear.
APA formatting/citations minimally attempted and not consistent with guidelines.

0 points
Not present.

Total

/30

Instructor’s Comments:

Page 2 of 2

ENGL 570

Term Paper Grading Rubric

0 points
Not present.

0 points
Not present.

Advanced

Proficient

Developing

Not Present

Points Earned

0 points
Not present.

0 points
Not present.

0 points
Not present.

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content 70%		Advanced		Proficient		Developing		Not Present		Points Earned
Development	157 to 175 points Thesis has clear focus. Major points are stated clearly and are well-supported. Ideas not only answer prompt but expands it modified topic. Includes previous writers and/or ideas to reflect broad knowledge of specific topic’s place in Classical Rhetoric. Content is persuasive and comprehensive. All requirements must be met.	105 to 156 points Thesis has a focus but further refinement necessary. Major points generally support thesis but may need additional support or clarity to establish clear connections. Limited contextualization of the primary rhetor/theme/work. Content is somewhat persuasive and comprehensive. All requirements must be met.	1 to 104 points Thesis present but unclear. Major points not connected to thesis, unclear, and not sufficiently supported. No contextualization of the primary rhetor/theme/work. Content not comprehensive. All requirements must be met.						0 points Not present.
Scope	18 to 20 points The content is specific and manageable, focused on specific topic with in-depth support.	12 to 17 points The content is specific in some areas but might leave others too broad.	1 to 16 points The content is broad, often trying to cover the entirety of a work and not going in-depth with any one topic or theme.
Source Integration	45 to 50 points Writing seamlessly includes secondary sources as part of the academic conversation around a specific topic. Secondary sources appropriate for the topic. All requirements must be met.	30 to 44 points Secondary sources included as part of the academic conversation, but connections to specific topic may not be consistent. Secondary sources not always appropriate for the topic. All requirements must be met.	1 to 29 points Secondary sources included but not really connected to one another. Mentioned as isolated works. Secondary sources not appropriate for the topic. All at least one requirement must be met.
Structure 30%
Organization	31 to 35 points Structure presents clear and coherent ideas. Paragraphs unified with clear focus. Transitional wording/phrasing indicates shifts in focus and logical connections between ideas.	20 to 30 points Structure reflects the prompted but may not blend together as one focus. Content is generally focused and unified. Some redundancy present, which hinders the flow of ideas. Basic transitions present.	1 to 19 points Structure not clear or present. No clear order of ideas. Content may address prompt but does not reveal blending ideas together for a single focus. Limited to no attempts at transitioning.
Grammar and Mechanics	31 to 35 points The writing reflects grammatical, punctuation, and spelling standards. Language is accurate, appropriate, effective, and reflects graduate level diction. The tone is appropriate and highly effective.	20 to 30 points The writing contains some grammatical, punctuation, and / or spelling errors. Language is unclear, awkward or inappropriate in parts. Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.	1 to 19 points The writing contains many grammatical, punctuation and/or spelling errors. Language use is largely inaccurate or inappropriate. The tone is ineffective and/or inappropriate.
APA Formatting	31 to 35 points Writing correctly follows formatting guidelines. Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations are used correctly and appropriately.	20 to 30 points Writing follows most formatting guidelines, but some flaws are detected. Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations are incorrectly formatted or used.	1 to 19 points Writing lacks many elements of correct formatting. Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations and / or references are not provided.
Total	/350
Instructor’s Comments:

Page 2 of 3

ENGL 570

Proposal Grading Rubric

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content 70%	Advanced	Proficient	Developing	Not Present	Points Earned
Development	13 to 14 points Specific, narrow topic/project clearly identified. Intended authors, works, theories, and/or other elements discussed as part of the proposal. Student describes and details the value of the project and/or contextualizes the reason for selecting it. Writer presents questions and/or concerns about the project/paper, displaying awareness of the project’s description and purpose. The proposal is 450–600 words. All requirements must be met.	9 to 12 points Topic/project clearly identified, but some refinement necessary to limit the scope of the project or provide additional details. Intended authors, works, theories, and/or other elements discussed broadly but more clarification needed. More clarification needed for the value of the project and reason for the student selecting it. Writer presents questions and/or concerns about the project/paper, yet the questions do not reflect awareness of the project description. The proposal is at least 450 words. All requirements must be met.	1 to 8 points Topic/project generally described but doesn’t indicate a specific option. Intended authors, works, theories, and/or other elements not discussed as part of the proposal. Value and/or contextualization of the project not provided or only given in relation to the class requirements. Question/concerns (or general awareness of this part) not included. The minimum length requirement was not met. At least one of the requirements met.		0 points Not present and/or no requirements met.
Structure	5 to 6 points The writing reflects grammatical, punctuation, and spelling standards. Language is accurate, appropriate, effective, and reflects graduate level diction. The tone is appropriate and highly effective. APA formatting/citations correct and used where appropriate.	3 to 4 points The writing contains some grammatical, punctuation, and / or spelling errors. Language is unclear, awkward or inappropriate in parts. Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective. APA formatting/citations present where appropriate but with minor flaws.	1 to 2 points The writing contains many grammatical, punctuation and/or spelling errors. Language use is largely inaccurate or inappropriate. The tone is ineffective and/or inappropriate. APA formatting/citations minimally attempted and not consistent with guidelines.
Total	/20
Instructor’s Comments:

Page 2 of 2

Running head: SOCIALIZATION THEORY 1

SOCIALIZATION THEORY 5

Research Proposal: Judicial Rhetoric

ENGL 570 TERM Project Proposal

Liberty University

Prompt

The prompt chosen is culturally informed. In this prompt I will take into consideration the elements of broader context such as past judicial rhetoric, the trial and defense in judicial rhetoric and Aristotle’s explaination of judicial rhetoric and how these influences are taken up in rhetorical theory. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling

Rhetoric will mainly be used as an art of pursuation. The idea to be followed in the rhetorical theory is the actual information which will be rational and will follow organizational pattern in order to create a sense of consistence for the readers. The result will be attained in framing phase through informative presentation. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling

Modification of the Prompt to Focus on a Specific Idea

I plan to modify culturally informed prompt by following tenets of rhetoric. In this case, I will modify this prompt to fit into invention, arrement and style tenets. The paper will also follow three basic appeals to persuade the audience: Logos which are appeals based on reason, logic and order. Ethos which are appeals based on authority, credibility as well as character. Pathos which are appeals based on emotion. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): I think you’re conveying you will use rhetoric (apply it) in your term paper, but this isn’t what we would consider “modifying the prompt.” When you modify a prompt, you make it specific about a particular subject. You seemed to do that some in the above section. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling Comment by Holt, Travis (English): fragment Comment by Holt, Travis (English): fragment

The Rhetorician to be Included in the Discussion

The rhetorician to be included in the discussion will be Aristotle. Aristole is essential to my topic because he defined judicial rhetoric as writing or speech that takes into consideration the injustice or justice of a certain accusation or charge (Garver, 2009). Aristotle also addresses defense, accusations and the bases from which their enthymemes must be drawn, exploring ‘for what, and how many, purposes persons do wrong (Garver, 2009). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): the wording is hard to follow here.

Concerns about the Topic

The purpose of the project is to explore judicial rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome. Any individual reading the classical rhetorics may discover that judicial as the branch of rhetoric received the most attention because of the discussion of the courtroom (Nordquist, 2017). Trials or lawsuits in courtroom in Rome and Greece were extremely common experience for ordinary free citizen–normally the male head of a home–and it was a rare citizen who failed to go to courtroom at least a half a dozen times during the course of his adult life. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): is Comment by Holt, Travis (English): that received

This project seeks to answer the following questions:

·

What is the focus on the past in judicial rhetoric? Comment by Holt, Travis (English): These questions need further development to be clearer. Right now, it seems they are just asking what judicial rhetoric is. That may not be your intention, but it is hard to tell without more details.

· What is the trial and defense in judicial rhetoric?

· How did Aristotle explain judicial rhetoric in terms of the enthymeme? Comment by Holt, Travis (English): compared to what? Are you saying he is unique in doing this, thus suggesting he is different from his predecessors? If so, that could turn into a full-fledged paper where you discuss the significance of Aristotle doing this and what it meant and means for rhetoric to follow.

Intended Theories

The research intends to use classical rhetoric theory which traces its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denotated the art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the 4th and 5th century Athenian democracy (Webb, 2016). As rhetoric started to be treated as an art, it began to appear in public debate. According to Alexander Kennedy, dialogues, speeches, theses, as well as lectures were extended and established by educators of public speaking, philosophers, as well as practicing speakers to create a ‘classical rhetoric (Webb, 2016). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): ancient Comment by Holt, Travis (English): This section seems to be a general understanding of what some scholars have labeled as “classical rhetoric theory.”
I don’t think this is the “theory” you’re applying here, and you don’t necessarily have to identify one for the purpose of this paper. If anything, I would say you’re doing more of a historical analysis as you work to understand the historical context and how it influenced Aristotle’s development of rhetoric.

Value of the Project

This project will be valuable to judges and lawyers who determine the core value of justice. Judicial rhetoric helps to promote fairness and detects prejudice by appealing to the law. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): I’m not sure the paper will have these groups as an intended audience. I think you’re pairing “judicial rhetoric” with the idea of “judges and lawyers,” but “judicial rhetoric” is a type of rhetoric developed in ancient Greece. I think any work you do in this paper will be more valuable to current scholars of rhetoric, correct?

Through this project, the prosecutors will use judicial rhetoric to arouse assent to the truth of a statement by persuading their audiences to agree with their illustrations of reality. The resistance to their opinions is implied in their circumstances since contrasting opinions are anticipated from the defense (Nordquist, 2017). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): Lawyers and judges already have a pretty clear understanding of rhetoric and its presence in the courtroom.

 Whereas modern scholars of practical reasoning hardly think about rhetoric, judicial reasoning from Judicial rhetoric is the model that will help contemporary scholars in practical reasoning (Nordquist, 2017). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): Do you have proof that they are unaware of this?
Be careful with statements such as this. You’re making a claim, but in the paper, you would need to immediately support that.

This is definitely getting on the right track. I know you’ve worked hard to develop a beginning for this project, and this can be exhausting and difficult; however, I want to stress the importance of such proposals because we are able to work together to get you on track for a much better outcome than if you had written an entire paper on your first proposed topic. As I say in the instructions, the proposal is a form of negotiation between the professor and student, a fleshing out of ideas to improve the quality of the paper by the end.

I think you are good to go with the topic as proposed, particularly what you mentioned in the third question you seek to answer. Nevertheless, I need to caution you against a few pitfalls. First, don’t summarize what judicial rhetoric is and has been understood to be by other scholars. At times, it seemed you were explaining what it was and that it is valuable for others to be aware of it. Judicial rhetoric has been in some form of existence since it’s discovery, and we continue to use it today; thus, it’s not something to really be rediscovered. Now, if you’re explaining/describing that Aristotle did something different in his classifications of rhetoric, and that his contributions had a direct impact on our understanding of rhetoric, that might be different. Basically, work on answering a question that hasn’t already been answered, and that will help you avoid summarizing and reporting in the term paper.

Also, continue to edit consistently. I noticed you addressed some of the spelling errors I noted in previous drafts, but there are still some present in this submission. Anytime you have someone help you find issues that need to be addressed, always interpret that as “if I have one mistake, chances are I have others.” This will help you look at every sentence rather than just ones that have been marked.

You do not have to resubmit the proposal again, but be sure to heed my advice above as you construct the outline.

References

Basic Rhetoric and Writing Strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Diversity/Basic_Rhetoric_and_Writing_Strategy

Garver, E. (2009). Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric. Rhetorica: A journal of the history of rhetoric, 27(1), 1-18.

Maria, P. (2019). THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE CHILD IN THE SOCIETY. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330076266_THE_IMPORTANCE_OF_THE_SOCIALIZATION_PROCESS_FOR_THE_INTEGRATION_OF_THE_CHILD_IN_THE_SOCIETY

Nordquist, R. (2017, May 2). What is Judicial Rhetoric? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/judicial-rhetoric-term-1691207

Shelly, S. (2017). The Importance of Socialization in Society. Retrieved from http://www.sociologydiscussion.com/socialization/the-importance-of-socialization-in-society/2200

University of Arkansas. (n.d.). The Five Canons of Rhetoric. Retrieved from https://walton.uark.edu/business-communication-lab/Resources/downloads/The_Five_Canons_of_Rhetoric

Webb, R. (2016). Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice. Routledge.

Running head: JUDICIAL RHETORIC 1

JUDICIAL RHETORIC 4

Project Outline: Judicial Rhetoric

ENGL 570 Term Paper Outline

Liberty University

Introduction

According to Aristotle, judicial rhetoric is one of the three main branches of rhetoric: writing or speech that considers the justice or injustice of a certain charge or accusation.

Thesis statement

The branch of rhetoric that received the most attention was the judicial, the oratory of the courtroom. Litigations in court in Greece and Rome were an extremely common experience for even the ordinary free citizen–usually the male head of a household–and it was a rare citizen who did not go to court at least a half a dozen times during the course of his adult life. Comment by Author: Right now, this is more background information and not really reflective of the main focus for a paper. A thesis should provide a clear and narrowed topic with a controlling statement (what your approach to that topic is in this paper).
I don’t really see that declarative statement; instead, this is general information.
In fact, this was flagged as being on another website called “thoughtco.”

Prompt

The prompt chosen is culturally informed. In this prompt, I will take into consideration the elements of broader context such as past judicial rhetoric, the trial, and defense in judicial rhetoric and Aristotle’s explanation of judicial rhetoric and how these influences are taken up in rhetorical theory.

Modification of the Prompt to Focus on a Specific Idea

I plan to modify a culturally informed prompt by following the tenets of rhetoric. In this case, I will modify this prompt to fit into invention, arrangement and style tenets (University of Arkansas). The paper will follow three basic appeals to persuade the audience: Logos, Ethos and Pathos.

The Rhetorician to be Included in the Discussion

The rhetorician to be included in the discussion will be Aristotle.

Concerns about the Topic

The purpose of the project is to explore judicial rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome. Any individual reading the classical rhetorics, may discover that judicial as the branch of rhetoric received the most attention because of the discussion of the courtroom (Nordquist, 2017)

Intended Theories

The research intends to use a classical rhetoric theory which traces its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denotated the art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the 4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy

Judicial Rhetoric in Ancient Greece and Rome

The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging knowledge of the law and its procedures that the professional lawyer did, however, it was great to his advantage to have wide-ranging knowledge of the tactics of defense and prosecution. As a result, the schools of rhetoric did a flourishing business in training the layperson to defend himself in court or to prosecute an offending neighbor.

Aristotle on Judicial Rhetoric and The Enthymeme

Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies injustice by appealing to the law. ‘Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the polis,’ so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to adjust ‘particular cases to general laws.

Prosecution and Defense in Judicial Rhetoric

In judicial rhetoric, prosecutors usually try to arouse assent to the truth of a statement like the following: ‘John killed Mary.’ That is, prosecuting attorneys try to ‘persuade’ their audiences to agree with their representations of reality.

The Model for Practical Reason

While modern scholars of practical reasoning hardly think about rhetoric, judicial reasoning is the model for a contemporary practical reason. It is typically assumed that practical reasoning has to continue from rule to case and that the point of practical reasoning is to justify people’s actions. Comment by Author: I’m not sure what you mean here, and part of it is the double use of “reasoning.” Comment by Author: Yolanda,
I am a bit concerned about the term paper at this moment. You have information about judicial and other forms of rhetoric here; however, much of it is taken word-for-word from outside sources such as Thoughtco. This is a form of plagiarism, and it makes up a significant part of this outline. First, you want to use peer-reviewed sources to support your ideas in the paper, and when you do use outside sources, you want to be able to properly reference and cite their work to give them credit for it.
For traditional outlines, you typically provide one sentence at a time to highlight the main and supporting ideas of the paper. Above I see more general content about the topic, but I’m not really sure how you’re setting up your paper to discuss the topic from a particular view.
I highly recommend contacting the online writing center to make sure what you have in the paper is conveying a clear idea and that you’re properly citing sources.
For more help with research, the JFL has research librarians who can help you locate sources that would be beneficial to the topic you’ve chosen and help you develop your thoughts further.

References

Basic Rhetoric and Writing Strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Diversity/Basic_Rhetoric_and_Writing_Strategy

Comment by Author: Is this found through the JFL databases? Or was it found via Google?

Garver, E. (2009). Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric. Rhetorica: A Journal of the history of rhetoric, 27(1), 1-18.

Maria, P. (2019). THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE CHILD IN THE SOCIETY. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330076266_THE_IMPORTANCE_OF_THE_SOCIALIZATION_PROCESS_FOR_THE_INTEGRATION_OF_THE_CHILD_IN_THE_SOCIETY

Nordquist, R. (2017, May 2). What is Judicial Rhetoric? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/judicial-rhetoric-term-1691207 Comment by Author: Avoid using websites as sources in an academic essay. You want to use peer-reviewed sources found through JFL.

Shelly, S. (2017). The Importance of Socialization in Society. Retrieved from http://www.sociologydiscussion.com/socialization/the-importance-of-socialization-in-society/2200

The University of Arkansas. (n.d.). The Five Canons of Rhetoric. Retrieved from https://walton.uark.edu/business-communication-lab/Resources/downloads/The_Five_Canons_of_Rhetoric Comment by Author: Again, you want to use peer-reviewed sources. This is more than likely a general overview of what the five canons are, but you have access to that information from Cicero’s work.
From what I can understand, it has been copied from a single source word to word and this is plagiarism
https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/download/2322/1765

Webb, R. (2016). Ekphrasis, imagination, and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice. Routledge.

I looked over this outline, and this is far more focused than the original version you present.  I would not change the score on the outline, but I have considered the outline only for giving feedback to help you on the Term Paper.

There are two areas I want to clarify:

1) What is the one sentence thesis your entire paper rests on?  I can see the focus on enthymeme, but I think your concluding remarks are the closest to an argumentative thesis statement.  They are as follows: 

In discussing the enthymeme there is a change of pronunciation from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of Aristotle seems to be focused on categories of the considerable relationship between a premise and conclusion.

So, are you arguing that the enthymeme has changed since Aristotle’s original discussions of it?  If so, I think documenting that change and giving a theory as to WHY it has changed would be a great start.  Again, I don’t know if that’s your approach, but that brings me back to why I’m asking for a single sentence thesis. 

2) You give several different sections on the enthymeme in your outline, and they seem to connect to different sources you’ve found.  What you want to do is make sure each paragraph isn’t just an overview of one source.  You want to integrate the sources within a discussion, meaning how does one person’s view of enthymeme connect (or not_ with someone else’s discussion).  This will keep those studies from being isolated in individual paragraphs and provide a clear focus throughout the paper (one that connects back to the thesis).  I think the online writing center (once you have the paper typed out), can really help you integrate the sources and develop the conversation I’m talking about.

Again, this is much stronger than the first outline, so you’re definitely moving in the right direction.

MAKE SURE YOU COVER THESE POINTS IN YOUR MAIN PAPER DUE TOMORROW. I WONT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU ANY FURTHER EXTENSION

Runninghead: THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC 1

THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC 22

Term Project: Judicial Rhetoric (The Enthymeme in Aristotle’s Rhetoric)

Yolanda McNeil

ENGL 570 Term Paper

Liberty University

Introduction

The concept of enthymeme has been broadly discussed as a subject in argumentation theory and informal logic. All contemporary theorists understand that the enthymeme concept date back to Aristotle Rhetoric. They are convinced that the term ‘syllogism’ which ascribed to this concept in introductions to logic diverges from original Aristotelian perception. But what few individuals are not sure is that scholars of ancient philosophy and philologists are still passionately debating the matter of detailed sense of this concept in Rhetoric (Conley, 1984). As a result, there is just one point that all theorists agree: the enthymeme has changed since Aristotle’s original discussions of it. In overall, the approach of Aristotle to the enthymemes in the Rhetoric seems to change from argumentative theory to logic. Comment by Author: Avoid absolutes. There might be some who don’t credit him. Comment by Author: dates Comment by Author: missing the word “of?” “Not sure of. . . “ Comment by Author: missing a word here? Comment by Author: You could combine these sentences for one statement since they are so close in content. Comment by Author: omit

Research Purpose

This research paper provides an analysis of how Aristotle ascribes to the enthymeme. That will be achieved from the perception of argumentation theory in explaining how enthymeme has presented in different perspectives. The advantages of argumentation theory include the following: it supplements the dominant logical approach presented in 2 highly enlightened researches by Burnyeat (1994) which emphasizes the question of logical validity of the link between the premise and deduction. Secondly, that method is better calculated to outline parallels in contemporary ‘enthymeme issues. Comment by Author: Has been
Or “is” Comment by Author: Spell out numbers under 100 Comment by Author: punctuation

The research intends to use an argumentative theory which is the study of how deductions can be arrived at through reasonable thinking, that is, soundly, claim based or not on-premises. It comprises rules of logic and inference in speeches and premises. In combination with rhetoric theory that traces its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denoted the art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the 4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy. Comment by Author: So are you saying that you’re using argumentation for this paper? Or are you using argumentation theory as the context for enthymeme?

The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging knowledge of the law and its procedures that the professional lawyer did, however, it was great to his advantage to have wide-ranging knowledge of the tactics of defense and prosecution. As a result, the schools of rhetoric did a successful business in training the layperson to defend himself in court or to prosecute an offending neighbor. As such, Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies injustice by appealing to the law. ‘Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the polis,’ so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to adjust ‘particular cases to general laws. Comment by Author: Comma splice Comment by Author: ThoughCo Comment by Author: This information comes directly from ThoughtCo and is stated in the same way.
As I stated in your outline, ThoughtCo isn’t really a peer-reviewed secondary source; instead, it gives more of a generally accepted overview of content.
Also, this is also a significant issue of plagiarism as you’ve used material from another site and not cited it correctly. I commented on this in the outline and warned that it needed to be removed from the final paper.

Research Questions

This project seeks to answer the following questions

· What is the implicit premise in the term enthymeme?

This question can be examined by considering what can be seen as the clearest case that enthymeme can be reduced to logical syllogism, as it happens in the context.

· To what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a syllogistic framework, in the sense of the previous analytics?

This question has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a critical role in determining one’s stance in connection to Solmsen.

· How can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the semeia (signs) and eikota (probabilities) in programmatic passages of the Rhetoric?

This question explains the central place of the semeia and eikota in the rhetorical custom as explained by Aristotle. That stance was mainly as a result of the virtually limited attention initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence was presented as credible or incredible.

The Enthymeme Explained

Aristotle explained that enthymeme occurs in an argument where certain premises or things are not explicitly stated. The 3 properties that Aristotle ascribes to enthymeme include the following: the first one is that enthymemes deal with mainly non-essential issues, namely human actions and in this case are derived from signs and probabilities (Braet, 1999). Secondly, an enthymeme is used because of the benefit of the uneducated audience, and this makes a succinct formulation more suitable. Furthermore, as accustomed presumptions can be left unexpressed, an enthymeme is usually derived from a few statements as compared to premises (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Lastly, just like dialectical sullogimoi, enthymemes are considered to be the kind of sullogismoi whereby common and relatively formal topics as contrary to material and special topics like idia; even though enthymemes from common topics are perceived as more characteristic of rhetoric (McAdon, 2003). Comment by Author: This flagged as coming from another source. While you do have a citation at the end of this, the wording follows the original source. Without quotation marks, this is another form of plagiarism.

As can be seen, the construal of the three properties has not been agreed by the scholars. This is because of the uncertainty that surrounds the text passages discussed by the theorists. Based on this, it might be valuable to supplement these with examples of enthymemes, although because of those present problems it is not clear whether a specific example is essentially an enthymeme (Walton, 2008). The examples that are explicitly designated as enthymemes by Aristotle are as follows: “it is not right for the individual who is sharp to have kids taught to be intelligent, for on top of idleness they incur hostile jealousy from fellow citizens”, taken from Medea; in case the reason is omitted, this enthymeme becomes a maxim (Conley, 1984). “There is no person who is free because he is a slave of chance or money”, taken from Hecuba; here the omission of the reason leads to maxim. “It would be dreadful if in exile people fight to come home, but when they are at home, they are forced into exile in order to cease from fighting,” taken from Lysias speech; of all the examples it is only this one that is explicitly termed an enthymeme (Walton & Reed, 2005). Lastly, if it is essential to seek conciliations whenever such changes are more profitable and more advantageous, then it is essential to seek some of the changes if someone is successful (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). All these examples demonstrate how the enthymeme has been changing since Aristotle’s original discussions of it. Comment by Author: I this an attribution to a source or something discussed within another source?

Enthymeme as Dialectical Arguments

Aristotle defined the enthymeme as a body of persuasion, suggesting that everything is an accident or an addition to the core of the persuasion procedure. The rationale why the enthymeme, as rhetorical demonstration or proof must be considered to be core to the rhetorical procedure of persuasion is that people are easily convinced when they think that anything must be demonstrated (Bitzer, 1959). Therefore, this rudimentary concept of rhetorical demonstration appears to be like this: to create a target one has to believe that b, the speaker should in the first place choose a sentence c or some sentences c1 … cn that is previously adopted by the target group. Secondly, Aristotle is supposed to show that c might be derivative of b or c1 … bn, using b or b1 … bn as premises (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). Due to the fact that the target individuals form their opinions according to rational standards, they will accept c as soon as they are able to comprehend that c can be verified based on their own views. Comment by Author: This entire section is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
You have citations within the paragraph, but they do not align with the material presented. They are citations included in the website’s reference list, but these statements are not coming from the sources you’ve identified here.

Subsequently, the enthymeme’s creation is principally the issue of inferring from accepted views (endoxa) (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). In fact, it is similarly very probable to use premises that might not be generally recognized by themselves, but maybe derived from usually recognized views; other premises are only acknowledged because the orator is regarded trustworthy; still, other enthymemes are created from signs (Bitzer, 1959). That the conclusion is formed from acknowledged views—contrary to inferences from the original and correct principles or sentences—is the significant aspect of dialectical argumentation in the sense of Aristotelian (Weidemann, 1989). Therefore, the enthymemes formulation is a dialectic matter, and such a dialectician has the capability required for the creation of enthymemes (Allen, 2007). When the enthymemes are considered to be a subclass of dialectical opinions, then that seems to be ordinary of normal to expect an explicit difference by which one can tell enthymemes apart from all other kinds of dialectical arguments (Allen, 2007). Nonetheless, this expectancy is in some way misinformed: The enthymeme is dissimilar from other categories of dialectical opinions, as far as it is used in the rhetorical framework of public speaking (and rhetorical arguments are termed ‘enthymemes’); therefore, no additional qualitative or formal dissimilarities are required (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).

Nevertheless, in considering rhetorical framework there are 2 different aspects that the dialectician should have in mind if he/she desires to be a rhetorician in the future, and if the dialectical argument is to develop to be an effective enthymeme. Firstly, the distinctive themes of public speeches do not—as a dialectic subject and theoretic viewpoint—belong to the stuff that is essentially the case, but is amongst the stuff that is the goal of pragmatic discussion and can as well as be otherwise (Braet, 1999). Secondly, as contrary to well-trained dialecticians the readers of public speeches are categorized by a logical inadequacy; apart from that, the jury or assembly members are not familiarized with subsequent a lengthier chain of interpretations. Thus, enthymemes should not be as specific and detailed as a scientific justification and must be brief as compared to a normal or usual dialectical argument (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). This, nevertheless, is not to state that the enthymeme is described by brevity and incompleteness. Instead, it is considered to be an indication of a well-implemented enthymeme that the content and the number of its premises are attuned to the intelligence of the audience in public; however, an enthymeme that fails to integrate these qualities is still considered to be enthymeme. Comment by Author: This is also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Concision of the Enthymeme

Aristotle explained that the enthymeme regularly has fewer premises than some other inferences. Due to the fact that most translators refer the name ‘sullogismos’ to the syllogistic theory, where an appropriate inference has two premises only, those sentences have resulted to the common understanding that Aristotle describes the enthymeme as a sullogismos in where two premises have been repressed, in other words as a shortened, unfinished syllogism (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). But certainly, the cited passages do not try to provide the right enthymeme’s definition, nor does the name ‘sullogismos’ essentially mean inferences with two premises only (Weidemann, 1989). Correctly comprehended, both passages revolve around choosing the right premise, not about intellectual incompleteness. The comment that enthymeme regularly has fewer premises concludes the argument of 2 likely errors the speaker could make. As such, one can draw deductions from stuff that has formerly been construed or from stuff that is yet to be construed (Cronkhite, 1966). The last technique is not persuasive, because the premises are yet to be accepted, or are yet to be introduced. The earlier technique is challenging too: if the speaker is supposed to introduce the desired premises by the other conclusion, and the premises of this pre-conclusion too, one shall come to an end with a longer chain of conclusions (Cronkhite, 1966). Arguments that have many inferential phases are very common in dialectical exercise, but it is impossible to expect the public speaking audience to follow those longer arguments. That is the reason Aristotle explains that the enthymeme has been and must be from a few premises. Comment by Author: This comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Enthymeme in Legal Reasoning Structure

This type of reasoning is deductive which is through the use of rhetoric syllogism that Aristotle termed enthymeme. An enthymeme is almost the same as legal reasoning structure: universal rule or state general apply it to a specific circumstance (the facts) and then reach a deduction (Braet, 1999). What differentiates an enthymeme from scientific or strictly logical syllogism flows from the differences in their spheres. In science and math, the syllogism deals with universally true conclusions (Conley, 1984). In rhetoric and in all fields applicable to rhetoric, for example, politics and law, arguments are based on probabilities and likelihoods, not certainties.

The kind of probability that Aristotle is discussing is not just frequency or commonness, but instead, it is the probability where “whatever, among things that can be other than what they are, therefore it is so linked to that in respect to which it is possible as universal is to a specific (McAdon, 2003). According to Aristotle, something is possible when it is a specific example of a general rule. To be certain, general rules are general since they mirror frequent or common occurrences, but the enthymematic probability is, to Aristotle, predicated on frequency as such, but instead on the link of the generally factual statement to specific example (McAdon, 2003).

The basic framework of a syllogism is the main premise, minor premise, and conclusion. The easiest way to understand is through the popular example: all humans are mortal, Socrates is a humanoid, thus Socrates is mortal. To put it in the right context, the main premise is an overall statement about some condition or some set which is universally correct (within the set of all human, all are considered mortal); the minor premise is an exact statement regarding a particular thing within the general set (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Socrates is considered to be a member of the sets of the human); the deduction essentially follows if minor and major premises are correct.

Kennedy (1991) explained in symbolic logic that syllogism is expressed as if all X is Y, and some X is Z, then all Z is Y 68 “X” =humans; “Y” =mortal; “Z” = Socrates. The language in the formal statement gets a bit odd, but that is how it works. Replace “Z” with “Greeks” and the “is” with “are” in the last 2 clauses, and it sounds a bit better: “if all human beings are mortal, and some members of the team of humans are Greeks, then all Greeks are considered to be mortal. In a formal syllogism and logic all of the premises should be cited explicitly (Kennedy, 1991). In an enthymeme or rhetorical syllogism, frequently several premises are unstated due to the fact that Aristotle, “if a single premise is known, it does not have to be specified, because the hearer purpose to supply it. This means there are often several premises where inferences rest and to explain to them all should be nearly impossible or even truly impossible in some circumstances (Kennedy, 1991). For the audience to supply the absent premise, the enthymeme ought to be predicated on the premise that the audience believes or knows to be factual. Explained the other way, the enthymeme shall be ineffective if the unexplained premise is part and parcel of the basic understanding.

Even if it is possible to establish and express the information being depended on for inference, it would tremendously tedious to do that. Some of the US citizens find it easy to understand the statement such as “the marathoner won a silver medal” to denote that marathoner was the second one in the race as specified by Burnyeat (1994). Unspecified is premises like the silver medals are awarded for the second place; the marathoner was participating in the race; second place denotes that the marathoner was beaten by the first marathoner in the race; the race had other participants; it was an official competition and not just buddies competing for the sake of leisure (Braet, 1999).

Hitchcock (1985) explains that in an enthymeme, the premises, statements as well as conclusions are not normally absolute; they have the tendency of being couched in terms of possibilities. Things such as “children who are hungry sometimes steal to get food” or “children shall commonly be interrupted by thunder” are the stuff of enthymemes (Conley, 1984). This is the actual abode of the enthymeme- drawing an inference that might be correct on the basis of the strongest, most probable generalizations that a person can bring forth to construe the circumstance.

Aristotle similarly identified deceptive enthymemes, premises which tend or seem to be enthymemes, but aren’t (Conley, 1984). Since enthymeme deal with possibilities instead of the certainties, what individuals find most convincing is an elucidation that comports most strongly with their own experience and understanding (Hitchcock, 1985). This is the only way connection is made. An enthymeme created outside the experience of the audience, irrespective of how persuasive or strong or appropriate it might otherwise be, it shall not persuade.

The bright scholar and shrewd observer, anthropologist Geertz Clifford offers a strong example of the significance of linking up with the audience. Geertz criticizes anthropologist Evans-Pritchard’s explanation of Azande witchery. Consider a Zande teenager, Evans-Pritchard states “who has banged his foot on a tree stump and got poisoned.” The teenager responds it is witchery. Nonsense, utters Evans-Pritchard, out of his common-sense habit: you were just bloody uncaring; you must have keenly observed where you were heading. I looked where I was heading; you have to be with so numerous stumps around, says the teenager – and if I had not been witched, I would have been able to see it (Conley, 1984). Moreover, all wounds take a few days to heal for that is the nature of wounds. But this one embittered, thus witchery should be involved (Braet, 1999). Therefore, nevertheless “spiritual” the content of Zande witchery beliefs might or might not be, they are actually employed by the Zande in a mysterious way – as an explanation and defense of the actual claims of idiomatic reason. Behind the above reflections upon stubbed foot, sour stomachs and spoiled pots lies a tissue of common-sense concepts that the Zande ostensibly consider as being factual on their face: that minor cuts usually heal quickly.

It is worthy to note how the Zande teenager’s elucidation for the witchery and infection makes sense within the culture of Zande, although it doesn’t make sense under present western ideals of common sense or from western perception of human activity and human nature (individuals at some point stub their toes) and infection (some wounds get infected and never heal quickly) (Kennedy, 1991). Knowing about the culture of Zande would affect how a person would go about the issue of introducing some biology-based medicinal approaches to treat them.

The Enthymeme’s Content Focusing on Semeia and Eikota Comment by Author: This is Braet’s 1999 section title.

Various authors have tried to explain enthymeme in the perspective of semeia and eikota. Those authors particularly the ones who believe in the logical approach declined the concept of implied premises explaining they are important stuff of enthymemes. Most of these authors have maintained that it is only idiosyncratic aspects that can be found in the content of enthymemes. These authors point to these issues as rhetoric and previous analytics where enthymeme is sullogismos from semeia and eikota. This viewpoint was recently criticized from within their own stances by Burnyeat (1994). He could be right, but his reasoning according to Aristotle, this argument can only be found outside rhetoric and it is not strong than the reflections which conclude that apart from semeia and eikota, rhetorical premises have other signs (Burnyeat, 1996). Comment by Author: Braet 1999

Semeion is also defined as a premise of enthymeme in his prior analytics and. This means semeion is an event or situation which denotes accompanying event or circumstance (Hitchcock, 1985). Aristotle uses illustrations that are principal although not solely concerned with some signs. He differentiates between signs whereby signified and sign continuously go together, this kind of semeion has a distinct term: the tekmerion (necessary signs) whereby signified and sign frequently go together (there is no distinct term for this kind, but it is denoted as semeion in the strict sense) (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle noted that the tekmeria takes place only intermittently.

Aristotle mentioned semeia and eikota first time in the rhetoric when he explained that those are premises where enthymemes are derived. In Aristotle’s opinion, this is due to the fact that the inferences of enthymemes are issues that are rarely necessary for other words human actions (Burnyeat, 1996). Seemingly these are considered to be actions with which the three kinds of speech are concerned: intolerable or exemplary acts, policy measures and acts which might be unfair (Walton, 2008). In his explanation, Aristotle explains that the fact that inferences can only be reached based on premises that belong to similar classes (essential inferences based on essential premises, and commonly non-necessary inferences based on commonly non-essential premises), the premises should have a principally non-essential content (Mailly, 2016). Based on this, Aristotle considers this kind of non-essential premise is seemingly created by semeia and eikota. Comment by Author: This section is taken directly from Braet 1999

Even though Aristotle is connecting the nature of the premises and the nature of the conclusions, what he explains about the nature of rhetorical premises and inferences is not totally in keeping with the entire rhetoric (Hitchcock, 1985). Different from what is proposed, Aristotle’s conclusions and premises are not completely of expressive nature. In fact, the content is usually considered to be more evaluative. Even though other authors have focused on solving the problem of premises and conclusions by declaring eikos as a normative statement and factual probability, this seems to be incredible based on Aristotle’s descriptions (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle sticks to tradition in his eikos’ description by stating that it is mainly a phenomenon in the whole globe, or at any rate of view of the real globe: “that which is recognized to commonly take place or not happen, or mostly is not the case (Burnyeat, 1996).” Comment by Author: This is also following Braet 1999

In eikos’ case, the are two types of semeion in the bigger sense are mentioned too in rhetoric as rhetorical premises and in prior analytics, as protasis apodeiktike e anankaia e endoxos, this means, a demonstrative premise which is either generally accepted or necessary (Braet 1999). Based on this interpretation, there is just a single deduction possible: as premises, semeia and eikota have descriptive content (Mailly, 2016). This means they would also appear to be suitable for arguing the kind of rhetorical deductions which Aristotle originally had in mind about Rhetoric- issues which unlike necessities only take place always, or are possible. But it is pertinent to look at the four examples of enthymemes explained above to distinguish if Aristotle did not regard either the premises or the conclusions of enthymemes as limited to descriptive claims (Walton, 2001). Out of the four examples, only the second one has purely descriptive assertions.

Some of the examples, which can probably also be perceived as instances enthymemes are in normative nature. Moreover, in the several places where Aristotle mentions issues of rhetorical (staseis and initially was referred to as amphosbiftiseis), he proves that he understands that it is just incomparable instances that rhetorical inferences refer to descriptive queries (Mailly, 2016). Therefore, as regards the content of conclusions and premises, the rhetoric would also seem to have no consistency. In this case, Aristotle explains that the orator ought to have premises linked to the ends for conclusions to be reached of the 3 kinds of speech, on the other hand, he reminds the audience that premises of enthymemes are semeia, eikota, tekmeria (Smith, 2007). In the first place, no inferences can be attained concerning tell. In other words, whether the proposal is not or is favorable, an individual’s behavior praiseworthy is an act considered unfair, based on this kind of descriptive premises (Hitchcock, 1985). Furthermore, in his premise’s treatment, Aristotle doesn’t limit to eikota tekmeria as well as semeia though this is frequently maintained based on different viewpoints or perspectives.

There is similarly the likelihood that Aristotle has given much preference to semeia and eikota as enthymemes from the category of the argument that seems to be the easiest way to decrease to diagnostic syllogisms (Smith, 2007). In this case, current information actually gives the audience a better concept of the several contents of rhetorical premises (Burnyeat, 1996). Aristotle precisely states that the enthymeme from a non-necessary sign is the only one of the numerous potentials. As a result, because of the random treatment, it is not possible to make a thorough declaration on the scope of the contents of rhetorical premises. One is motivated to state that: the kind of premise which could be utilized in the 3 categories of speeches, but the simple fact that Aristotle is continually sharing fictional illustrations makes his stance hard to determine.

A comprehensive argument or debate is far beyond the scope of the current prompt. It shall be sufficient to explain the penchant principles like “the scarce is superior to the plentiful”. How then can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the semeia and eikota in programmatic passages of the Rhetoric? Possibly it is because of the central place of the semeia and eikota in the rhetorical custom. That stance was mainly as a result of the virtually limited attention initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence was presented as credible or incredible (Mailly, 2016). This might have induced Aristotle to use semeia and eikota as a parity for the entire rhetorical premises. It is also remarkable that the eikota and semeia are provided with limited rights in exactly those contexts of the Rhetoric where the enthymeme is highly connected to the logical syllogism (Kennedy, 1991). Possibly this mainly for the reason that it highlights the difference with the usually essential premises of the Analytics.

The Enthymeme’s Formulation Focusing on Implicit Premise Comment by Author: This is the same title as a section in Braet 1999 Comment by Author: This is taken directly from Braet 1999

In considering the issue of an implicit premise, there are several views that can be summed up as follows. According to Aristotle, an enthymeme is considered to be a syllogism that has an indirect or implied premise. This would later become the standard definition. However, this definition and interpretation are not taken seriously (Kennedy, 1991). Secondly, Aristotle explained that an Enthymeme might contain the premise that that has not been expressed, which is not so essential. Furthermore, where Aristotle is concerned, it is improper to speak about implicit premises: the several enthymemes with just a single premise in Rhetoric must not be supplemented by the addition of an unexpected premise (McAdon, 2003).

There are 4 different examples which presented as correct enthymemes. However, these differences are related to the sources and they are resultants of existing, in most cases fictional sources, contrary to the ones that have ostensibly been invented (Hitchcock, 1985). Firstly, the formulation difference lies in the enthymeme’s style. This is where some of these examples are formulated in a factual way. Thus, the audience is able to understand that the impact of some of the enthymemes is not even primarily to the structure and content of the argument, but instead to the arresting devising (Walton, 2001). With concern to this literary feature, it can be concluded that the outcomes of the enthymeme’s description-both after and before Aristotle is a striking devising.

Secondly, the formulation difference lies in the comprehensive intricacy of the sentences that make up the enthymemes in the examples. Aristotle presents enthymemes that comprise multifaceted speeches or statements. As a result, there are four examples, which were derived from the existing manuscripts and designed as enthymemes by Aristotle (Mailly, 2016). Conversely, Aristotle also uses simpler illustrations like “he is sick, due to the fact that he has infection” which are mainly presented as signs and were seemingly invented to serve as an example (McAdon, 2003). This difference in intricacy has the main repercussions for the reducibility of the instances to reasonable forms of argument. The sign enthymemes, with their terms, can be reduced to invalid or valid syllogisms from the previous analytics which Aristotle did in his last work, a procedure to which he referred in his rhetoric (Walton, 2001). Nevertheless, this is impossible where most complicated examples are concerned about just because they comprise many terms.

Generally, Aristotle used enthymeme in only two senses. Aristotle employed the word for arguments that exist in all authentic manuscripts, and which are affected by stylistic formula (Hitchcock, 1985). This means it is impossible to decrease the examples to syllogistic formulae of arguments based on Aristotle’s reasoning. In the framework of the interpreted examples, there is no reference to any pushy literary effect. As the initial logic according to pre-Aristotelian tradition and the second one with syllogistic of Aristotle, which was established comparatively late, a reader gets the impression that what people see in that context is an old and recent case (Mailly, 2016).

Structuring Enthymemes in Terms of Syllogistic and Topical Comment by Author: Braet’s 1999 section heading

The question of ‘to what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a syllogistic framework?’ has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a critical role in determining one’s stance in connection to Solmsen (Raphael, 1974). Some authors have tried to answer explaining the enthymeme model in post-analytic rhetoric with the exemption of the strange pre-analytic artifact- this interpretation is shared (Smith, 2007). Other authors believe that such Rhetoric has a double enthymeme model, and believes an enthymeme is contemporary; this is the position espoused by Ryan (1984). All these resulted in argumentation theory. Therefore, in the modern argumentation theory, the most interesting feature is that many disputants are attempting to resolve what seems like a wrong dilemma. They thus share the supposition of Solmsen that an enthymeme ought to be predicated on syllogistic or topical framework (Raphael, 1974). Nevertheless, those are in fact two contrasting structures: a logical and practical framework that is concerned with the logical structure and argumentation scheme, which focusses on the form of argument (Hitchcock, 1985). In this case, there are two categories of the framework that are not jointly high-class but instead, combine into one argumentation. This is not to explain that the knowledge that the 2 are dissimilar and might be merged is completely absent, but instead that no systematic and explicit dissimilarity is made between all the structural levels.

It is possible to discover that Aristotle does not seem to have made this dissimilarity concerning structural levels so that knowing this difference involves a relic. However, according to McAdon (2003), this is not supposed to be the case if one uses the difference as a logical or diagnostic tool, without explicitly accrediting it to Aristotle. In the re-interpretation of the passages as either syllogistic or contemporary enthymemes are overriding (Raphael, 1974). In the first passage argumentation, structures play a critical role, but direct kinds of discussions are similarly mentioned. In the subsequent passage, the converse is the instance.

A topical structure, just like its contemporary concept and as argumentation structure is different from a logical framework. What needs to be made clear is that that the two categories of the structure are not substitutes, but instead deal with dissimilar features of discussion (Raphael, 1974). Then, from the perspective of contemporary argumentation philosophers, it is easy to explain how topical as well as logical structure plays a critical role in the topical enthymemes.

The Enthymemes Underpinning Brown V Board of Education

The issue in Brown’s case was whether the argument of the plaintiff was correct and fourteenth amendment followed about “separated public learning institutions are not ‘equal’ and it is impossible to make them ‘equal,’ and that thus they are denied the equal protection of the rules and regulations.” Several premises surround this claim, and it is exciting to tease most of them out. The enthymeme explains 3 of its premises: separated public learning institutions aren’t equal, segregated learning institutions can’t be made equal and the fourteenth amendment demands that the entire public get equal protection of the rules and regulations (Raphael, 1974). The inference that is emphasized to be followed in these premises is that having segregated schools breaches the equivalent protection act.

Unspecified, but comprehended premises consist of the following: the public learning institutions are created by rules and regulations; the rules and regulations relating to education are encompassed within the concept of protection of people (in fact this was broadly argued, but in this paper, only one unstated premise is quoted) (Mailly, 2016). In this case, it was overtly addressed by Brown Court that fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to the countries; that there is “race”; that some learning institutions were isolated by race; that the past settled cases allowing segregation but equivalent education was incorrectly decided; that the so-called separation is a malicious; that parity or equivalence is an issue of mind and heart, not just factually quantifiable criteria (Raphael, 1974).

Conclusion

In discussing the enthymeme in Aristotle’s Rhetoric one can see a change of pronunciation from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of Aristotle seems to be focused on categories of the considerable relationship between a premise and conclusion. His arguments or ideas of departure were ideas and points that he discovered in practice. This consists of a topical approach that is explained by quoted illustrations. In the last marginal—ease, there is an effort to construe the enthymeme in terms of prescribed syllogistic figures. As a result, the variety of definite arguments are laid on the Procrustean bed of definite syllogistics: the syllogistic method, demonstrated with devised illustrations from the syllogistic. While it is logical that Aristotle wanted to make his clear findings of syllogistics appropriate for the evaluation and analysis of rhetorical argumentation, from the perspective of argumentation concept, that was an exceptionally doubtful initiative.

Yolanda,

The topic and discussion here is good, and it shows a high level of investigation into Aristotle; however, this discussion and material comes from other sources, which is a significant ethical issue (plagiarism). The amount of material taken from other sources is substantial and makes up nearly the entire paper. Some sections are not highlighted because I had to stop at the two sources that were lifted for the other parts. You even used the section headings from Braet’s 1999 article, meaning you replicated another source’s work and submitted it as though it was original. I can see points where you changed a word or two in sentences, but the structures, ideas, and even organization of the material is identical. Due to this level of plagiarism, this is a tier 4 violation according to the university’s academic misconduct policy, which is the reason for the grade being assigned. I am also submitting a plagiarism report through LUO to document the situation.

I know this is not the comments you wish to see at the end of the paper, but I must be very clear that this is a serious issue. I was concerned when you submitted your outline last week, which is why I stressed the need to significantly revise the content and work with a research librarian. I’m not sure if you felt overwhelmed and decided this was the only option as you finished the course, but the work submitted here has consequences.

I cannot stress enough that in order for you to be successful in this program, you need to make sure you avoid any instances of plagiarism. Work with the research librarian to help you not only find sources, but integrate them into your paper. The online writing center is another resource available to students to help students use sources.

I promise you that I do not enjoy situations of plagiarism or having to write comments such as this; however, I also know it is necessary to help you understand this is not the step you want to take in academia.

If you have questions, you can contact me via email.

References

Allen, J. (2007). “Aristotle on the Disciplines of Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic” In Rhetorica 25: 87–108.

Aristotle’s Rhetoric. (2010, February 1). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

Barnes, J. (1981). “Proof and the Syllogism.” In E. Berti (ed.), Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics.’ Padova: Antenore, 17-59. Comment by Author: Title of a book? If so, italicize this. Comment by Author: Journal? Or publisher information?

Bitzer, L. F. (1959). “Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.” In Quarterly Journal of Speech 45: 399–408. Comment by Author: Big name in rhetoric.

Braet, A. C. (1999). The enthymeme in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: From argumentation theory to logic. Informal logic, 19(2).

Burnyeat, M.F. (1994). “Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion.” In D.J. Furley and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3-55.

Burnyeat, M.F. (1996). “Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Rationality of Rhetoric.” In A. Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 88-115. Comment by Author: italicize

Conley, Th.J. (1984). “The Enthymeme in Perspective.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187. Comment by Author: italicize

Cronkhite, G. (1966). “The Enthymeme as Deductive Rhetorical Argument.” In Western Speech Journal 30: 129–134

Hitchcock, David, (1985). “Enthymematic Arguments.” informal Logic 7, 83-97. Comment by Author: italicize

Kennedy, G.A. (1991). Aristotle On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse. Newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comment by Author: italicize

Mailly, J. G. (2016). Using enthymemes to fill the gap between logical argumentation and revision of abstract argumentation frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08789.

McAdon, B. (2003). Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia, and Topoi: The Confusing Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the” Rhetoric”. Philosophy & rhetoric, 36(3), 223-247.

Pfister, D. S., & Woods, C. S. (2016). The unnaturalistic enthymeme: Figuration, interpretation, and critique after digital mediation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 236-253.

Raphael, S. (1974). “Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument: Aristotle’s Position in ‘Rhetoric’ I-II.” Phronesis 19,153-167.

Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43(3-4), 114-123.

Walton, D. (2008). The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(3), 361-379.

Walton, D. N. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and plausible inference. Philosophy & rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.

Walton, D., & Reed, C. A. (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese, 145(3), 339-370.

Weidemann, H. (1989). “Aristotle on Inferences from Signs (Rhetoric I 2, 1357b1–25).” In Phronesis 34: 343–351.

ENGL570_B01_202020 – 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUO

Term Paper
Yolanda McNeil
on Thu, Mar 05 2020, 9:59 PM

15% highest match
Submission ID: 023edea0-7542-490e-9a7e-4a71a560616e

Attachments (1)

Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

Running head: THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC 1

THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC 2

Term Project: 1 JUDICIAL RHETORIC (THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S

RHETORIC) YOLANDA MCNEIL

(http://safeassign.blackboard.com/)

Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x
Word Count: 5,918
Attachment ID: 2642248507

15%

http://safeassign.blackboard.com/

ENGL 570 TERM PAPER

Liberty University

Introduction

The concept of enthymeme has been broadly discussed as a subject in argumentation theory

and informal logic. All contemporary theorists understand that the enthymeme concept date

back to Aristotle Rhetoric. They are convinced that the term ‘syllogism’ which ascribed to this

concept in introductions to logic diverges from original Aristotelian perception. But what few

individuals are not sure is that scholars of ancient philosophy and philologists are still

passionately debating the matter of detailed sense of this concept in Rhetoric (Conley, 1984). As

a result, there is just one point that all theorists agree: the enthymeme has changed since

Aristotle’s original discussions of it. In overall, the approach of Aristotle to the enthymemes in

the Rhetoric seems to change from argumentative theory to logic.

Research Purpose

This research paper provides an analysis of how Aristotle ascribes to the enthymeme. That will

be achieved from the perception of argumentation theory in explaining how enthymeme has

presented in different perspectives. The advantages of argumentation theory include the

following: it supplements the dominant logical approach presented in 2 highly enlightened

researches by Burnyeat (1994) which emphasizes the question of logical validity of the link

between the premise and deduction. Secondly, that method is better calculated to outline

parallels in contemporary ‘enthymeme issues.

The research intends to use an argumentative theory which is the study of how deductions can

be arrived at through reasonable thinking, that is, soundly, claim based or not on-premises. It

comprises rules of logic and inference in speeches and premises. 1 IN COMBINATION

WITH RHETORIC THEORY THAT TRACES ITS ROOTS BACK TO ANTIQUE

GREECE, WHERE “RHETORIC” DENOTED THE ART OF PUBLIC SPEAKING AS

IT ADVANCED UNDER THE STATUTORY RÉGIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE 4TH

AND 5TH-CENTURY ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY.

THE ORDINARY CITIZEN LACKED THE WIDE-RANGING KNOWLEDGE OF THE

LAW AND ITS PROCEDURES THAT THE PROFESSIONAL LAWYER DID,

HOWEVER, IT WAS GREAT TO HIS ADVANTAGE TO HAVE WIDE-RANGING

KNOWLEDGE OF THE TACTICS OF DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION. AS A

RESULT, THE SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC DID A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN

TRAINING THE LAYPERSON TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN COURT OR TO

PROSECUTE AN OFFENDING NEIGHBOR. AS SUCH, JUDICIAL RHETORIC

PROMOTES JUSTICE AND IDENTIFIES INJUSTICE BY APPEALING TO THE

LAW. ‘FORENSIC SPEECH ACCEPTS AS GIVEN THE LAWS OF THE POLIS,’ SO

THE SECTION ON JUDICIAL RHETORIC USES ENTHYMEMES TO ADJUST

‘PARTICULAR CASES TO GENERAL LAWS.

Research Questions

This project seeks to answer the following questions · What is the implicit premise in the term

enthymeme?

This question can be examined by considering what can be seen as the clearest case that

enthymeme can be reduced to logical syllogism, as it happens in the context.

· To what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a syllogistic framework, in the sense of

the previous analytics?

This question has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle’s

Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a critical role in determining one’s

stance in connection to Solmsen.

· How can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the semeia (signs) and eikota

(probabilities) in programmatic passages of the Rhetoric?

This question explains the central place of the semeia and eikota in the rhetorical custom as

explained by Aristotle. That stance was mainly as a result of the virtually limited attention

initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence was presented as credible or

incredible.

The Enthymeme Explained

Aristotle explained that enthymeme occurs in an argument where certain premises or things

are not explicitly stated. The 3 properties that Aristotle ascribes to enthymeme include the

following: the first one is that enthymemes deal with mainly non-essential issues, namely

human actions and in this case are derived from signs and probabilities (Braet, 1999).

Secondly, an enthymeme is used because of the benefit of the uneducated audience, and this

makes a succinct formulation more suitable. Furthermore, as accustomed presumptions can be

left unexpressed, an enthymeme is usually derived from a few statements as compared to

premises (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Lastly, just like dialectical sullogimoi, enthymemes are

considered to be the kind of sullogismoi whereby common and relatively formal topics as

contrary to material and special topics like idia; even though enthymemes from common topics

are perceived as more characteristic of rhetoric (McAdon, 2003).

As can be seen, the construal of the three properties has not been agreed by the scholars. This is

because of the uncertainty that surrounds the text passages discussed by the theorists. Based on

this, it might be valuable to supplement these with examples of enthymemes, although because

of those present problems it is not clear whether a specific example is essentially an enthymeme

(Walton, 2008). The examples that are explicitly designated as enthymemes by Aristotle are as

follows: “it is not right for the individual who is sharp to have kids taught to be intelligent, for

on top of idleness they incur hostile jealousy from fellow citizens”, taken from Medea; in case

the reason is omitted, this enthymeme becomes a maxim (Conley, 1984). “There is no person

who is free because he is a slave of chance or money”, taken from Hecuba; here the omission of

the reason leads to maxim. “It would be dreadful if in exile people fight to come home, but

when they are at home, they are forced into exile in order to cease from fighting,” taken from

Lysias speech; of all the examples it is only this one that is explicitly termed an enthymeme

(Walton & Reed, 2005). Lastly, if it is essential to seek conciliations whenever such changes are

more profitable and more advantageous, then it is essential to seek some of the changes if

someone is successful (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). All these examples demonstrate how the

enthymeme has been changing since Aristotle’s original discussions of it.

Enthymeme as Dialectical Arguments

2 ARISTOTLE DEFINED THE ENTHYMEME AS A BODY OF PERSUASION,

SUGGESTING THAT EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT OR AN ADDITION TO THE

CORE OF THE PERSUASION PROCEDURE. The rationale why the enthymeme, as

rhetorical demonstration or proof must be considered to be core to the rhetorical procedure of

persuasion is that people are easily convinced when they think that anything must be

demonstrated (Bitzer, 1959). Therefore, this rudimentary concept of rhetorical demonstration

appears to be like this: to create a target one has to believe that b, the speaker should in the first

place choose a sentence c or some sentences c1. cn that is previously adopted by the target

group. Secondly, Aristotle is supposed to show that c might be derivative of b or c1. bn, using b

or b1. bn as premises (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). Due to the fact that the target individuals

form their opinions according to rational standards, they will accept c as soon as they are able

to comprehend that c can be verified based on their own views.

Subsequently, the enthymeme’s creation is principally the issue of inferring from accepted

views (endoxa) (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). In fact, it is similarly very probable to use premises

that might not be generally recognized by themselves, but maybe derived from usually

recognized views; other premises are only acknowledged because the orator is regarded

trustworthy; 2 STILL, OTHER ENTHYMEMES ARE CREATED FROM SIGNS

(BITZER, 1959). That the conclusion is formed from acknowledged views—contrary to

inferences from the original and correct principles or sentences—is the significant aspect of

dialectical argumentation in the sense of Aristotelian (Weidemann, 1989). 2 THEREFORE,

THE ENTHYMEMES FORMULATION IS A DIALECTIC MATTER, AND SUCH A

DIALECTICIAN HAS THE CAPABILITY REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF

ENTHYMEMES (ALLEN, 2007). WHEN THE ENTHYMEMES ARE CONSIDERED

TO BE A SUBCLASS OF DIALECTICAL OPINIONS, THEN THAT SEEMS TO BE

ORDINARY OF NORMAL TO EXPECT AN EXPLICIT DIFFERENCE BY WHICH

ONE CAN TELL ENTHYMEMES APART FROM ALL OTHER KINDS OF

DIALECTICAL ARGUMENTS (ALLEN, 2007). Nonetheless, this expectancy is in some

way misinformed: The enthymeme is dissimilar from other categories of dialectical opinions, as

far as it is used in the rhetorical framework of public speaking (and rhetorical arguments are

termed ‘enthymemes’); therefore, no additional qualitative or formal dissimilarities are

required (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).

Nevertheless, in considering rhetorical framework there are 2 different aspects that the

dialectician should have in mind if he/she desires to be a rhetorician in the future, and if the

dialectical argument is to develop to be an effective enthymeme. Firstly, the distinctive themes

of public speeches do not—as a dialectic subject and theoretic viewpoint—belong to the stuff

that is essentially the case, but is amongst the stuff that is the goal of pragmatic discussion and

can as well as be otherwise (Braet, 1999). Secondly, as contrary to well-trained dialecticians the

readers of public speeches are categorized by a logical inadequacy; apart from that, the jury or

assembly members are not familiarized with subsequent a lengthier chain of interpretations.

Thus, enthymemes should not be as specific and detailed as a scientific justification and must

be brief as compared to a normal or usual dialectical argument (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).

This, nevertheless, is not to state that the enthymeme is described by brevity and

incompleteness. 2 INSTEAD, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INDICATION OF A

WELL-IMPLEMENTED ENTHYMEME THAT THE CONTENT AND THE NUMBER

OF ITS PREMISES ARE ATTUNED TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AUDIENCE

IN PUBLIC; however, an enthymeme that fails to integrate these qualities is still considered to

be enthymeme.

The Concision of the Enthymeme

Aristotle explained that the enthymeme regularly has fewer premises than some other

inferences. Due to the fact that most translators refer the name ‘sullogismos’ to the syllogistic

theory, where an appropriate inference has two premises only, those sentences have resulted to

the common understanding that Aristotle describes the enthymeme as a sullogismos in where

two premises have been repressed, in other words as a shortened, unfinished syllogism

(Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). But certainly, the cited passages do not try to provide the right

enthymeme’s definition, nor does the name ‘sullogismos’ essentially mean inferences with two

premises only (Weidemann, 1989). Correctly comprehended, both passages revolve around

choosing the right premise, not about intellectual incompleteness. The comment that

enthymeme regularly has fewer premises concludes the argument of 2 likely errors the speaker

could make. As such, one can draw deductions from stuff that has formerly been construed or

from stuff that is yet to be construed (Cronkhite, 1966). The last technique is not persuasive,

because the premises are yet to be accepted, or are yet to be introduced. The earlier technique is

challenging too: if the speaker is supposed to introduce the desired premises by the other

conclusion, and the premises of this pre-conclusion too, one shall come to an end with a longer

chain of conclusions (Cronkhite, 1966). Arguments that have many inferential phases are very

common in dialectical exercise, but it is impossible to expect the public speaking audience to

follow those longer arguments. That is the reason Aristotle explains that the enthymeme has

been and must be from a few premises.

Enthymeme in Legal Reasoning Structure

This type of reasoning is deductive which is through the use of rhetoric syllogism that Aristotle

termed enthymeme. An enthymeme is almost the same as legal reasoning structure: universal

rule or state general apply it to a specific circumstance (the facts) and then reach a deduction

(Braet, 1999). What differentiates an enthymeme from scientific or strictly logical syllogism

flows from the differences in their spheres. In science and math, the syllogism deals with

universally true conclusions (Conley, 1984). In rhetoric and in all fields applicable to rhetoric,

for example, politics and law, arguments are based on probabilities and likelihoods, not

certainties.

The kind of probability that Aristotle is discussing is not just frequency or commonness, but

instead, it is the probability where “whatever, among things that can be other than what they

are, therefore it is so linked to that in respect to which it is possible as universal is to a specific

(McAdon, 2003). According to Aristotle, something is possible when it is a specific example of a

general rule. To be certain, general rules are general since they mirror frequent or common

occurrences, but the enthymematic probability is, to Aristotle, predicated on frequency as such,

but instead on the link of the generally factual statement to specific example (McAdon, 2003).

The basic framework of a syllogism is the main premise, minor premise, and conclusion. The

easiest way to understand is through the popular example: all humans are mortal, Socrates is a

humanoid, thus Socrates is mortal. To put it in the right context, the main premise is an overall

statement about some condition or some set which is universally correct (within the set of all

human, all are considered mortal); the minor premise is an exact statement regarding a

particular thing within the general set (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Socrates is considered to be a

member of the sets of the human); the deduction essentially follows if minor and major

premises are correct.

Kennedy (1991) explained in symbolic logic that syllogism is expressed as if all X is Y, and some

X is Z, then all Z is Y 68 “X” =humans; “Y” =mortal; “Z” = Socrates. The language in the formal

statement gets a bit odd, but that is how it works. Replace “Z” with “Greeks” and the “is” with

“are” in the last 2 clauses, and it sounds a bit better: “if all human beings are mortal, and some

members of the team of humans are Greeks, then all Greeks are considered to be mortal. In a

formal syllogism and logic all of the premises should be cited explicitly (Kennedy, 1991). In an

enthymeme or rhetorical syllogism, frequently several premises are unstated due to the fact

that Aristotle, “if a single premise is known, it does not have to be specified, because the hearer

purpose to supply it. This means there are often several premises where inferences rest and to

explain to them all should be nearly impossible or even truly impossible in some circumstances

(Kennedy, 1991). For the audience to supply the absent premise, the enthymeme ought to be

predicated on the premise that the audience believes or knows to be factual. Explained the

other way, the enthymeme shall be ineffective if the unexplained premise is part and parcel of

the basic understanding.

Even if it is possible to establish and express the information being depended on for inference,

it would tremendously tedious to do that. Some of the US citizens find it easy to understand the

statement such as “the marathoner won a silver medal” to denote that marathoner was the

second one in the race as specified by Burnyeat (1994). Unspecified is premises like the silver

medals are awarded for the second place; the marathoner was participating in the race; second

place denotes that the marathoner was beaten by the first marathoner in the race; the race had

other participants; it was an official competition and not just buddies competing for the sake of

leisure (Braet, 1999).

Hitchcock (1985) explains that in an enthymeme, the premises, statements as well as

conclusions are not normally absolute; they have the tendency of being couched in terms of

possibilities. Things such as “children who are hungry sometimes steal to get food” or “children

shall commonly be interrupted by thunder” are the stuff of enthymemes (Conley, 1984). This is

the actual abode of the enthymeme- drawing an inference that might be correct on the basis of

the strongest, most probable generalizations that a person can bring forth to construe the

circumstance.

Aristotle similarly identified deceptive enthymemes, premises which tend or seem to be

enthymemes, but aren’t (Conley, 1984). Since enthymeme deal with possibilities instead of the

certainties, what individuals find most convincing is an elucidation that comports most

strongly with their own experience and understanding (Hitchcock, 1985). This is the only way

connection is made. An enthymeme created outside the experience of the audience, irrespective

of how persuasive or strong or appropriate it might otherwise be, it shall not persuade.

The bright scholar and shrewd observer, anthropologist Geertz Clifford offers a strong example

of the significance of linking up with the audience. Geertz criticizes anthropologist Evans-

Pritchard’s explanation of Azande witchery. Consider a Zande teenager, Evans-Pritchard states

“who has banged his foot on a tree stump and got poisoned.” The teenager responds it is

witchery. Nonsense, utters Evans-Pritchard, out of his common-sense habit: you were just

bloody uncaring; you must have keenly observed where you were heading. I looked where I was

heading; you have to be with so numerous stumps around, says the teenager – and if I had not

been witched, I would have been able to see it (Conley, 1984). Moreover, all wounds take a few

days to heal for that is the nature of wounds. But this one embittered, thus witchery should be

involved (Braet, 1999). Therefore, nevertheless “spiritual” the content of Zande witchery beliefs

might or might not be, they are actually employed by the Zande in a mysterious way – as an

explanation and defense of the actual claims of idiomatic reason. Behind the above reflections

upon stubbed foot, sour stomachs and spoiled pots lies a tissue of common-sense concepts that

the Zande ostensibly consider as being factual on their face: that minor cuts usually heal

quickly.

It is worthy to note how the Zande teenager’s elucidation for the witchery and infection makes

sense within the culture of Zande, although it doesn’t make sense under present western ideals

of common sense or from western perception of human activity and human nature (individuals

at some point stub their toes) and infection (some wounds get infected and never heal quickly)

(Kennedy, 1991). Knowing about the culture of Zande would affect how a person would go

about the issue of introducing some biology-based medicinal approaches to treat them.

The Enthymeme’s Content Focusing on Semeia and Eikota

Various authors have tried to explain enthymeme in the perspective of semeia and eikota.

Those authors particularly the ones who believe in the logical approach declined the concept of

implied premises explaining they are important stuff of enthymemes. Most of these authors

have maintained that it is only idiosyncratic aspects that can be found in the content of

enthymemes. These authors point to these issues as rhetoric and previous analytics where

enthymeme is sullogismos from semeia and eikota. This viewpoint was recently criticized from

within their own stances by Burnyeat (1994). He could be right, but his reasoning according to

Aristotle, this argument can only be found outside rhetoric and it is not strong than the

reflections which conclude that apart from semeia and eikota, rhetorical premises have other

signs (Burnyeat, 1996).

Semeion is also defined as a premise of enthymeme in his prior analytics and. This means

semeion is an event or situation which denotes accompanying event or circumstance

(Hitchcock, 1985). Aristotle uses illustrations that are principal although not solely concerned

with some signs. He differentiates between signs whereby signified and sign continuously go

together, this kind of semeion has a distinct term: the tekmerion (necessary signs) whereby

signified and sign frequently go together (there is no distinct term for this kind, but it is

denoted as semeion in the strict sense) (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle noted that the tekmeria takes

place only intermittently.

Aristotle mentioned semeia and eikota first time in the rhetoric when he explained that those

are premises where enthymemes are derived. In Aristotle’s opinion, this is due to the fact that

the inferences of enthymemes are issues that are rarely necessary for other words human

actions (Burnyeat, 1996). Seemingly these are considered to be actions with which the three

kinds of speech are concerned: intolerable or exemplary acts, policy measures and acts which

might be unfair (Walton, 2008). In his explanation, Aristotle explains that the fact that

inferences can only be reached based on premises that belong to similar classes (essential

inferences based on essential premises, and commonly non-necessary inferences based on

commonly non-essential premises), the premises should have a principally non-essential

content (Mailly, 2016). Based on this, Aristotle considers this kind of non-essential premise is

seemingly created by semeia and eikota.

Even though Aristotle is connecting the nature of the premises and the nature of the

conclusions, what he explains about the nature of rhetorical premises and inferences is not

totally in keeping with the entire rhetoric (Hitchcock, 1985). Different from what is proposed,

Aristotle’s conclusions and premises are not completely of expressive nature. In fact, the

content is usually considered to be more evaluative. Even though other authors have focused on

solving the problem of premises and conclusions by declaring eikos as a normative statement

and factual probability, this seems to be incredible based on Aristotle’s descriptions (McAdon,

2003). Aristotle sticks to tradition in his eikos’ description by stating that it is mainly a

phenomenon in the whole globe, or at any rate of view of the real globe: “that which is

recognized to commonly take place or not happen, or mostly is not the case (Burnyeat, 1996).”

In eikos’ case, the are two types of semeion in the bigger sense are mentioned too in rhetoric as

rhetorical premises and in prior analytics, as protasis apodeiktike e anankaia e endoxos, this

means, a demonstrative premise which is either generally accepted or necessary (Braet 1999).

Based on this interpretation, there is just a single deduction possible: as premises, semeia and

eikota have descriptive content (Mailly, 2016). This means they would also appear to be

suitable for arguing the kind of rhetorical deductions which Aristotle originally had in mind

about Rhetoric- issues which unlike necessities only take place always, or are possible. But it is

pertinent to look at the four examples of enthymemes explained above to distinguish if Aristotle

did not regard either the premises or the conclusions of enthymemes as limited to descriptive

claims (Walton, 2001). Out of the four examples, only the second one has purely descriptive

assertions.

Some of the examples, which can probably also be perceived as instances enthymemes are in

normative nature. Moreover, in the several places where Aristotle mentions issues of rhetorical

(staseis and initially was referred to as amphosbiftiseis), he proves that he understands that it is

just incomparable instances that rhetorical inferences refer to descriptive queries (Mailly,

2016). Therefore, as regards the content of conclusions and premises, the rhetoric would also

seem to have no consistency. In this case, Aristotle explains that the orator ought to have

premises linked to the ends for conclusions to be reached of the 3 kinds of speech, on the other

hand, he reminds the audience that premises of enthymemes are semeia, eikota, tekmeria

(Smith, 2007). In the first place, no inferences can be attained concerning tell. In other words,

whether the proposal is not or is favorable, an individual’s behavior praiseworthy is an act

considered unfair, based on this kind of descriptive premises (Hitchcock, 1985). Furthermore,

in his premise’s treatment, Aristotle doesn’t limit to eikota tekmeria as well as semeia though

this is frequently maintained based on different viewpoints or perspectives.

There is similarly the likelihood that Aristotle has given much preference to semeia and eikota

as enthymemes from the category of the argument that seems to be the easiest way to decrease

to diagnostic syllogisms (Smith, 2007). In this case, current information actually gives the

audience a better concept of the several contents of rhetorical premises (Burnyeat, 1996).

Aristotle precisely states that the enthymeme from a non-necessary sign is the only one of the

numerous potentials. As a result, because of the random treatment, it is not possible to make a

thorough declaration on the scope of the contents of rhetorical premises. One is motivated to

state that: the kind of premise which could be utilized in the 3 categories of speeches, but the

simple fact that Aristotle is continually sharing fictional illustrations makes his stance hard to

determine.

A comprehensive argument or debate is far beyond the scope of the current prompt. It shall be

sufficient to explain the penchant principles like “the scarce is superior to the plentiful”. How

then can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the semeia and eikota in

programmatic passages of the Rhetoric? Possibly it is because of the central place of the semeia

and eikota in the rhetorical custom. That stance was mainly as a result of the virtually limited

attention initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence was presented as

credible or incredible (Mailly, 2016). This might have induced Aristotle to use semeia and

eikota as a parity for the entire rhetorical premises. It is also remarkable that the eikota and

semeia are provided with limited rights in exactly those contexts of the Rhetoric where the

enthymeme is highly connected to the logical syllogism (Kennedy, 1991). Possibly this mainly

for the reason that it highlights the difference with the usually essential premises of the

Analytics.

The Enthymeme’s Formulation Focusing on Implicit Premise

In considering the issue of an implicit premise, there are several views that can be summed up

as follows. According to Aristotle, an enthymeme is considered to be a syllogism that has an

indirect or implied premise. This would later become the standard definition. However, this

definition and interpretation are not taken seriously (Kennedy, 1991). Secondly, Aristotle

explained that an Enthymeme might contain the premise that that has not been expressed,

which is not so essential. Furthermore, where Aristotle is concerned, it is improper to speak

about implicit premises: the several enthymemes with just a single premise in Rhetoric must

not be supplemented by the addition of an unexpected premise (McAdon, 2003).

There are 4 different examples which presented as correct enthymemes. However, these

differences are related to the sources and they are resultants of existing, in most cases fictional

sources, contrary to the ones that have ostensibly been invented (Hitchcock, 1985). Firstly, the

formulation difference lies in the enthymeme’s style. This is where some of these examples are

formulated in a factual way. Thus, the audience is able to understand that the impact of some of

the enthymemes is not even primarily to the structure and content of the argument, but instead

to the arresting devising (Walton, 2001). With concern to this literary feature, it can be

concluded that the outcomes of the enthymeme’s description-both after and before Aristotle is

a striking devising.

Secondly, the formulation difference lies in the comprehensive intricacy of the sentences that

make up the enthymemes in the examples. Aristotle presents enthymemes that comprise

multifaceted speeches or statements. As a result, there are four examples, which were derived

from the existing manuscripts and designed as enthymemes by Aristotle (Mailly, 2016).

Conversely, Aristotle also uses simpler illustrations like “he is sick, due to the fact that he has

infection” which are mainly presented as signs and were seemingly invented to serve as an

example (McAdon, 2003). This difference in intricacy has the main repercussions for the

reducibility of the instances to reasonable forms of argument. The sign enthymemes, with their

terms, can be reduced to invalid or valid syllogisms from the previous analytics which Aristotle

did in his last work, a procedure to which he referred in his rhetoric (Walton, 2001).

Nevertheless, this is impossible where most complicated examples are concerned about just

because they comprise many terms.

Generally, Aristotle used enthymeme in only two senses. Aristotle employed the word for

arguments that exist in all authentic manuscripts, and which are affected by stylistic formula

(Hitchcock, 1985). This means it is impossible to decrease the examples to syllogistic formulae

of arguments based on Aristotle’s reasoning. In the framework of the interpreted examples,

there is no reference to any pushy literary effect. As the initial logic according to pre-

Aristotelian tradition and the second one with syllogistic of Aristotle, which was established

comparatively late, a reader gets the impression that what people see in that context is an old

and recent case (Mailly, 2016).

Structuring Enthymemes in Terms of Syllogistic and Topical

The question of ‘to what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a syllogistic

framework?’ has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle’s

Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a critical role in determining one’s

stance in connection to Solmsen (Raphael, 1974). Some authors have tried to answer explaining

the enthymeme model in post-analytic rhetoric with the exemption of the strange pre-analytic

artifact- this interpretation is shared (Smith, 2007). Other authors believe that such Rhetoric

has a double enthymeme model, and believes an enthymeme is contemporary; this is the

position espoused by Ryan (1984). All these resulted in argumentation theory. Therefore, in the

modern argumentation theory, the most interesting feature is that many disputants are

attempting to resolve what seems like a wrong dilemma. They thus share the supposition of

Solmsen that an enthymeme ought to be predicated on syllogistic or topical framework

(Raphael, 1974). Nevertheless, those are in fact two contrasting structures: a logical and

practical framework that is concerned with the logical structure and argumentation scheme,

which focusses on the form of argument (Hitchcock, 1985). In this case, there are two

categories of the framework that are not jointly high-class but instead, combine into one

argumentation. This is not to explain that the knowledge that the 2 are dissimilar and might be

merged is completely absent, but instead that no systematic and explicit dissimilarity is made

between all the structural levels.

It is possible to discover that Aristotle does not seem to have made this dissimilarity concerning

structural levels so that knowing this difference involves a relic. However, according to McAdon

(2003), this is not supposed to be the case if one uses the difference as a logical or diagnostic

tool, without explicitly accrediting it to Aristotle. In the re-interpretation of the passages as

either syllogistic or contemporary enthymemes are overriding (Raphael, 1974). In the first

passage argumentation, structures play a critical role, but direct kinds of discussions are

similarly mentioned. In the subsequent passage, the converse is the instance.

A topical structure, just like its contemporary concept and as argumentation structure is

different from a logical framework. What needs to be made clear is that that the two categories

of the structure are not substitutes, but instead deal with dissimilar features of discussion

(Raphael, 1974). Then, from the perspective of contemporary argumentation philosophers, it is

easy to explain how topical as well as logical structure plays a critical role in the topical

enthymemes.

The Enthymemes Underpinning Brown V Board of Education

The issue in Brown’s case was whether the argument of the plaintiff was correct and fourteenth

amendment followed about “separated public learning institutions are not ‘equal’ and it is

impossible to make them ‘equal,’ and that thus they are denied the equal protection of the rules

and regulations.” Several premises surround this claim, and it is exciting to tease most of them

out. The enthymeme explains 3 of its premises: separated public learning institutions aren’t

equal, segregated learning institutions can’t be made equal and the fourteenth amendment

demands that the entire public get equal protection of the rules and regulations (Raphael,

1974). The inference that is emphasized to be followed in these premises is that having

segregated schools breaches the equivalent protection act.

Unspecified, but comprehended premises consist of the following: the public learning

institutions are created by rules and regulations; the rules and regulations relating to education

are encompassed within the concept of protection of people (in fact this was broadly argued,

but in this paper, only one unstated premise is quoted) (Mailly, 2016). In this case, it was

overtly addressed by Brown Court that fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to the

countries; that there is “race”; that some learning institutions were isolated by race; that the

past settled cases allowing segregation but equivalent education was incorrectly decided; that

the so-called separation is a malicious; that parity or equivalence is an issue of mind and heart,

not just factually quantifiable criteria (Raphael, 1974).

Conclusion

In discussing the enthymeme in Aristotle’s Rhetoric one can see a change of pronunciation

from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of Aristotle seems to be focused

on categories of the considerable relationship between a premise and conclusion. His

arguments or ideas of departure were ideas and points that he discovered in practice. This

consists of a topical approach that is explained by quoted illustrations. In the last marginal—

ease, there is an effort to construe the enthymeme in terms of prescribed syllogistic figures. As a

result, the variety of definite arguments are laid on the Procrustean bed of definite syllogistics:

the syllogistic method, demonstrated with devised illustrations from the syllogistic. While it is

logical that Aristotle wanted to make his clear findings of syllogistics appropriate for the

evaluation and analysis of rhetorical argumentation, from the perspective of argumentation

concept, that was an exceptionally doubtful initiative.

References

Allen, J. (2007). 2 “ARISTOTLE ON THE DISCIPLINES OF ARGUMENT:

RHETORIC, DIALECTIC, ANALYTIC” IN RHETORICA 25: 87–108.

Aristotle’s Rhetoric. (2010, February 1). 3 RETRIEVED FROM

HTTPS://PLATO.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/ARISTOTLE-RHETORIC/ BARNES,

J. (1981). 2 “PROOF AND THE SYLLOGISM.” In E. 2 BERTI (ED.), ARISTOTLE

ON SCIENCE: THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS.’ Padova: Antenore, 17-59.

Bitzer, L. F. (1959). 2 “ARISTOTLE’S ENTHYMEME REVISITED.” IN QUARTERLY

JOURNAL OF SPEECH 45: 399–408.

Braet, A. C. (1999). 4 THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC: From

argumentation theory to logic. Informal logic, 19(2).

5 BURNYEAT, M.F. (1994). “Enthymeme: 6 ARISTOTLE ON THE LOGIC OF

PERSUASION.” In D.J. 2 FURLEY AND A. NEHAMAS (EDS.), ARISTOTLE’S

RHETORIC. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: 2 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 3-

55.

5 BURNYEAT, M.F. (1996). “Enthymeme: 2 ARISTOTLE ON THE RATIONALITY

OF RHETORIC.” In A. 5 OKSENBERG RORTY (ED.), ESSAYS ON ARISTOTLE’S

RHETORIC. 2 BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON: 5 UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA PRESS, 88-115.

Conley, Th.J. (1984). 6 “THE ENTHYMEME IN PERSPECTIVE.” QUARTERLY

JOURNAL OF SPEECH 70, 168-187.

Cronkhite, G. (1966). 2 “THE ENTHYMEME AS DEDUCTIVE RHETORICAL

ARGUMENT.” IN WESTERN SPEECH JOURNAL 30: 129–134

Hitchcock, David, (1985). “Enthymematic Arguments.” informal Logic 7, 83-97.

5 KENNEDY, G.A. (1991). 2 ARISTOTLE ON RHETORIC. 5 A THEORY OF CIVIC

DISCOURSE. 2 NEWLY TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND

APPENDIXES. NEW YORK AND OXFORD: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Mailly, J. G. (2016). Using enthymemes to fill the gap between logical argumentation and

revision of abstract argumentation frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08789.

McAdon, B. (2003). Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia, and Topoi: The Confusing

Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the” Rhetoric” Philosophy & rhetoric, 36(3), 223-

247.

Pfister, D. S., & Woods, C. S. (2016). The unnaturalistic enthymeme: 7 FIGURATION,

INTERPRETATION, AND CRITIQUE AFTER DIGITAL MEDIATION. Argumentation

and Advocacy, 52(4), 236-253.

Raphael, S. (1974). 8 “RHETORIC, DIALECTIC AND SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENT:

Aristotle’s Position in ‘Rhetoric’ 2 I-II.” Phronesis 19,153-167.

Smith, V. J. (2007). 9 ARISTOTLE’S CLASSICAL ENTHYMEME AND THE VISUAL

ARGUMENTATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Argumentation and

Advocacy, 43(3-4), 114-123.

Walton, D. (2008). The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied

Logic, 6(3), 361-379.

Walton, D. N. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and plausible inference. Philosophy &

rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.

Walton, D., & Reed, C. A. (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese, 145(3),

339-370.

Weidemann, H. (1989). 2 “ARISTOTLE ON INFERENCES FROM SIGNS (RHETORIC

I 2, 1357B1–25).” IN PHRONESIS 34: 343–351.

Citations (9/9)

Matched Text

1 Another student’s paper

2 https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

3 Another student’s paper

4 https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2003/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

5 http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-aristotle-paul-
and-anselm/

6 http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-charles-s-peirces-theory-of-abduction-and-the-
aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/

7 Another student’s paper

8 http://capone.mtsu.edu/jcomas/rhetoric/aristotle_dialectic.html

9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=515973

Suspected Entry: 69% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

JUDICIAL RHETORIC (THE ENTHYMEME IN
ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC) YOLANDA MCNEIL

Source – Another student’s paper
Judicial Rhetoric Yolanda McNeil

Suspected Entry: 85% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x
ENGL 570 TERM PAPER

Source – Another student’s paper
ENGL 570 Term Paper Outline

Suspected Entry: 85% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

IN COMBINATION WITH RHETORIC THEORY THAT
TRACES ITS ROOTS BACK TO ANTIQUE GREECE,
WHERE “RHETORIC” DENOTED THE ART OF
PUBLIC SPEAKING AS IT ADVANCED UNDER THE
STATUTORY RÉGIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE 4TH
AND 5TH-CENTURY ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

Source – Another student’s paper
The research intends to use a classical rhetoric theory
which traces its roots back to antique Greece, where
“rhetoric” denotated the art of public speaking as it
advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the
4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

THE ORDINARY CITIZEN LACKED THE WIDE-
RANGING KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND ITS
PROCEDURES THAT THE PROFESSIONAL
LAWYER DID, HOWEVER, IT WAS GREAT TO HIS
ADVANTAGE TO HAVE WIDE-RANGING
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TACTICS OF DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTION

Source – Another student’s paper
The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging
knowledge of the law and its procedures that the
professional lawyer did, however, it was great to his
advantage to have wide-ranging knowledge of the
tactics of defense and prosecution

Suspected Entry: 94% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

AS A RESULT, THE SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC DID
A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN TRAINING THE
LAYPERSON TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN COURT OR
TO PROSECUTE AN OFFENDING NEIGHBOR

Source – Another student’s paper
As a result, the schools of rhetoric did a flourishing
business in training the layperson to defend himself in
court or to prosecute an offending neighbor

Suspected Entry: 93% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

AS SUCH, JUDICIAL RHETORIC PROMOTES
JUSTICE AND IDENTIFIES INJUSTICE BY
APPEALING TO THE LAW

Source – Another student’s paper
Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies
injustice by appealing to the law

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

‘FORENSIC SPEECH ACCEPTS AS GIVEN THE
LAWS OF THE POLIS,&APOS

Source – Another student’s paper
‘Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the
polis,&apos

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

SO THE SECTION ON JUDICIAL RHETORIC USES
ENTHYMEMES TO ADJUST ‘PARTICULAR CASES
TO GENERAL LAWS

Source – Another student’s paper
so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to
adjust ‘particular cases to general laws

Suspected Entry: 67% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

ARISTOTLE DEFINED THE ENTHYMEME AS A
BODY OF PERSUASION, SUGGESTING THAT
EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT OR AN ADDITION
TO THE CORE OF THE PERSUASION
PROCEDURE

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Aristotle calls the enthymeme the “body of
persuasion”, implying that everything else is only an
addition or accident to the core of the persuasive
process

Suspected Entry: 68% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

STILL, OTHER ENTHYMEMES ARE CREATED
FROM SIGNS (BITZER, 1959)

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

still other enthymemes are built from signs

Suspected Entry: 62% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

THEREFORE, THE ENTHYMEMES FORMULATION
IS A DIALECTIC MATTER, AND SUCH A
DIALECTICIAN HAS THE CAPABILITY REQUIRED
FOR THE CREATION OF ENTHYMEMES (ALLEN,
2007)

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Thus, the formulation of enthymemes is a matter of
dialectic, and the dialectician has the competence that
is needed for the construction of enthymemes

Suspected Entry: 65% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

WHEN THE ENTHYMEMES ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE A SUBCLASS OF DIALECTICAL OPINIONS,
THEN THAT SEEMS TO BE ORDINARY OF
NORMAL TO EXPECT AN EXPLICIT DIFFERENCE
BY WHICH ONE CAN TELL ENTHYMEMES APART
FROM ALL OTHER KINDS OF DIALECTICAL
ARGUMENTS (ALLEN, 2007)

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

If enthymemes are a subclass of dialectical
arguments, then it is natural to expect a specific
difference by which one can tell enthymemes apart
from all other kinds of dialectical arguments
(traditionally, commentators regarded logical
incompleteness as such a difference

Suspected Entry: 62% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

INSTEAD, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN
INDICATION OF A WELL-IMPLEMENTED
ENTHYMEME THAT THE CONTENT AND THE
NUMBER OF ITS PREMISES ARE ATTUNED TO
THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AUDIENCE IN
PUBLIC

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Rather, it is a sign of a well-executed enthymeme that
the content and the number of its premises are
adjusted to the intellectual capacities of the public
audience

Suspected Entry: 65% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“ARISTOTLE ON THE DISCIPLINES OF
ARGUMENT

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

“Aristotle on the Disciplihnes of Argument

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

RHETORIC, DIALECTIC, ANALYTIC” IN
RHETORICA 25

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic” In Rhetorica 25

Suspected Entry: 80% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“PROOF AND THE SYLLOGISM.”

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

“Proof and the Syllogism.” In

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

BERTI (ED.), ARISTOTLE ON SCIENCE

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Berti (ed.), Aristotle on Science

Suspected Entry: 76% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS.&APOS

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

The Posterior Analytics

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“ARISTOTLE’S ENTHYMEME REVISITED.” IN
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH 45

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

“Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.” In Quarterly
Journal of Speech 45

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

FURLEY AND A

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Furley and A

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

NEHAMAS (EDS.), ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric

Suspected Entry: 68% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 3-55

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Princeton University Press

Suspected Entry: 69% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

ARISTOTLE ON THE RATIONALITY OF
RHETORIC.”

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Aristotle, On Rhetoric

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Berkeley/Los Angeles/London

Suspected Entry: 80% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“THE ENTHYMEME AS DEDUCTIVE RHETORICAL
ARGUMENT.” IN WESTERN SPEECH JOURNAL 30

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Rhetorical Argument.” In Western Speech Journal 30

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

ARISTOTLE ON RHETORIC

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Aristotle, On Rhetoric

Suspected Entry: 72% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

NEWLY TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION,
NOTES, AND APPENDIXES

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Civic Discourse, Newly Translated, with Introduction,
Notes and

Suspected Entry: 76% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

NEW YORK AND OXFORD

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Appendices, New York/Oxford

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

Oxford University Press

Suspected Entry: 72% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

I-II.”

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

I & II and

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“ARISTOTLE ON INFERENCES FROM SIGNS
(RHETORIC I 2, 1357B1–25).” IN PHRONESIS 34

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

“Aristotle on Inferences from Signs (Rhetoric I 2,
1357b1–25).” In Phronesis 34

Suspected Entry: 83% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

RETRIEVED FROM
HTTPS://PLATO.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/ARISTO
TLE-RHETORIC/ BARNES, J

Source – Another student’s paper
Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/

Suspected Entry: 66% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC

Source –
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2003/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/

“Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.” In

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

BURNYEAT, M.F

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/

Burnyeat, M.F

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x
BURNYEAT, M.F
Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/
Burnyeat, M.F
Suspected Entry: 83% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

OKSENBERG RORTY (ED.), ESSAYS ON
ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/

Rorty (Ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (pp

Suspected Entry: 68% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, 88-115

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/

University of California Press

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

KENNEDY, G.A

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/

Kennedy, G.A

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

A THEORY OF CIVIC DISCOURSE

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/

A Theory of Civic Discourse

Suspected Entry: 91% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

ARISTOTLE ON THE LOGIC OF PERSUASION.”

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-charles-s-peirces-theory-of-
abduction-and-the-aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/

Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion

Suspected Entry: 85% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“THE ENTHYMEME IN PERSPECTIVE.”

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-charles-s-peirces-theory-of-
abduction-and-the-aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/

The Enthymeme in Perspective

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH 70, 168-187

Source – http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-charles-s-peirces-theory-of-
abduction-and-the-aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 168-187

Suspected Entry: 67% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

FIGURATION, INTERPRETATION, AND CRITIQUE
AFTER DIGITAL MEDIATION

Source – Another student’s paper
Figuration, Interpretation, and Critique

Suspected Entry: 100% match
Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

“RHETORIC, DIALECTIC AND SYLLOGISTIC
ARGUMENT

Source –
http://capone.mtsu.edu/jcomas/rhetoric/aristotle_dialec
tic.html

“Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument

Suspected Entry: 95% match

Uploaded –
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper x

ARISTOTLE’S CLASSICAL ENTHYMEME AND THE
VISUAL ARGUMENTATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY

Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=515973
“Aristotle’s Classical Enthymeme and the Visual
Argumentation of the Twenty First Century”