Example Reading Responses: 'A Rhetoric of Motives' / 'Rhetoric in Civic Life'
The readings of 'A Rhetoric of Motives' and of 'Rhetoric in Civic Life' are indicative of a compare and contrast where one piece reflects truth in fiction and the second piece is a factual discourse of rhetoric. Each is a telltale recant of stories and of specific activity that is emblematic of the human experience. Comparatively speaking, the piece, 'A Rhetoric of Motives', is a poetic compendium of stories that exhibit the experiences that man and woman face in the world. The rhetoric is more passive than active in this piece as the poem is not intended to convince but rather to portray. The Rhetoric in Civil Life is more or less an attempt to review the historical Supreme Court case of Brown v Board of Education to determine what is right and what is wrong.
The Rhetoric in Civic Life is an example of the use of rhetoric to facilitate a new understanding of concepts that have been applied in real circumstances. The Range of Rhetoric is an example of discourse that expresses the gamut of rhetoric as a means of conveying opinion during discussion. The involvement of theology is apparent in The Range of Rhetoric whereas the notion of religion is essentially absent from Rhetoric in Civic Life. This difference is emblematic of the inherent difficulties associated with the framing of an issue using a black and white approach. The Range of Rhetoric involves a discussion and a review of morality to the extent of labeling morality as a type of literature that can be removed at will. This proves to be a similarity to The Range of Rhetoric as the absence of theology corresponds to the literature label used to describe the use of morality.
The Rhetoric in Civic Life goes into the explanation of who within an audience is influenced by rhetoric, which therefore consists of the audience. The audience is the influential portion of the viewership that is predisposition to the influence of rhetoric. The Range of Rhetoric on the other hand does not assume the audience to be separated by the influence or non-influence of rhetoric. The comparison is therefore to assume that either the audience and the people partaking in a particular situation are either capable of being influenced by rhetoric or such that they are not influenced by rhetoric to change behavior.
The use of rhetoric is used to influence people at all levels of communications. Companies use rhetoric to convince people to buy a particular product. Government uses rhetoric to promote a specific type of opinion and view point. The personal experiences associated with rhetoric can vary considerably to the point of having many stories to which one has experience rhetoric as an audience member to the extent of which the rhetoric was specifically intended to change opinion of the underlying audience member. Having experienced the time-share marketing pitch, the level of rhetoric associated with the presentation is considerable and is befitting of the use of rhetoric as analyzed in the two pieces of reading.
The rhetoric used was to convince the audience that each member is in need of a time-share. The deal is so resoundingly good from the use of rhetoric that the audience is to be susceptible to the marketing pitch which is nothing more than a tremendous amount of rhetoric used to convince the audience to buy the time-share. The audience is essentially trapped during the presentation and is subjected to the full level of rhetoric as applicable to the marketing pitch. Rhetoric in this instance is applied to convince the audience member to buy a time-share or to invest into the use of a time share. Rhetoric is therefore applicable to convincing the audience to partake in an act that normally would otherwise not do or be extremely hesitant to do.
This example is applicable to the rhetoric in the reading since the use of rhetoric is discussed as a means to persuade and as a means to analyze decisions. Additionally, the use of rhetoric is thought to be a point of dismissal to the point of argument. The rhetoric that is associated with morality in The Range of Rhetoric is considered to be rather optional to the audience member. The need to persuade is the use of rhetoric. When the need to persuade is necessary, the use of rhetoric is applicable to the point of obtaining the underlying desirable result.
- Why is morality considered applicable to rhetoric?
- Why is rhetoric used to convince or persuade the audience?
- What are the most significant examples of the use of rhetoric in modern society?
- Why is theology and adjudication used to compare the use of rhetoric?
- When is the use of rhetoric most applicable?
- Is rhetoric used to convince people to do things they would not normally do?
- Why or why not is argumentation a form of rhetoric?
- When is rhetoric forbidden to be used?
- Why or why not is the use of rhetoric dangerous?