Lecture 1 – An introduction to the 5 canons of Rhetoric
Charisma is the signaling of leadership ability:
Ethos -> Values-based
Logos -> Symbolic (assigning new meaning and values to issues)
Pathos -> Emotion-laden
Charisma can be learnt, because rhetoric is a skill! Aristotle would describe this skill as the faculty of
discovering all the available means for persuasion in any given situation.
The five canons of classical rhetoric:
1) Inventio; (Invention / Discovery)
2) Dispositio; (Arrangement)
3) Elocutio; (Style)
4) Memoria; (Memory)
5) Pronuntiatio. (Delivery)
Inventio describes what will I say? It is concerned with a system or method of finding / generating
ideas and arguments. Orators had to find arguments that would support whatever case or standpoint
they were espousing. The results would be a clear message, vision or goal, explained through logical
arguments and proofs, further aided by a frame and an appeal.
Non-artistic proof: Scientific evidence, laws, models, contracts, data, historical records, etc.
Artistic proof: Appeals, such as rational (logos), emotional (pathos), or ethical (ethos).
When going for an emotional appeal (pathos), try to actually feel the emotion yourself. This
value of authenticity and openness will create goodwill. Express the emotion in your facial
expressions and tone of voice, offer descriptive detail and tell a story. Make that connection!
,
,Tutorial 1: Fallacies
I. Faulty causal generalization: Arguing from an effect to infer causation, thus failing to
acknowledge that there could be more causes producing the effect. OR: failing to
acknowledge the local context of the cause-effect relationship while over-claiming its effect
across cases.
a. Steven drives through town and sees 10 children. Therefore, there are no adult
residents.
II. False analogy: An analogy is overstretched and does not hold (because it is e.g., irrelevant,
inconsequential, or overlooking important dissimilarities).
a. John and Mary both drive Tesla. Since John is a teacher, so is Mary.
b. To say that humans are immortal is like saying a car can run forever.
III. The half-truth: Selective presentation of information, while leaving out relevant information
that is relevant for interpreting the issue.
a. Henk died one week after his COVID-vaccination. [Meanwhile: Car-accident]
IV. Mere assertion: Merely stating a claim without offering an argument
a. Today’s demonstration is the greatest demonstration in the history of Covid-19.
V. Red herring: A diversion tactic (changing the subject)
a. Tom just broke up with you and you talk to your friend about it. She says that it does
not compare to the hurt African children feel when starving.
VI. Fallacy of affirming the consequent: IF A, THEN B; B did not occur, so there cannot be A
(does not follow because B is not exclusively due to A)
a. If the lamp were broken, the room would be dark.
The room is dark, so the lamp must be broken.
VII. Fallacy of denying the antecedent: IF A, THEN B; A did not happen, so there cannot be B
(does not follow because B is not exclusively due to A)
a. If you say your wish out loud, it won’t come true.
Your wish came true, so you did not say it out loud.
VIII. Illicit process: Jumping to conclusions, because conclusion has a wider extension than the
premises (i.e., two particular premises, but a universal conclusion)
a. Penguins are black and white. Old TV shows are also black and white.
Therefore, penguins are old TV shows.
IX. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: Failure to supply a link between a chain of arguments
a. All Communists are people. All Americans are people.
Therefore, all Americans are Communists.
X. Conclusion from two negative premises: Mistakenly drawing a conclusion out of two
negative premises without first establishing a relationship
a. Fish are not dogs. Dogs can not fly. Therefore, fish can fly.
, XI. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: a version of the above where one
mistakenly draws an affirmative conclusion out of two negative premises (i.e., explanation by
negation: does not follow)
a. People under the age of 67 are not senior citizens. No seniors are children.
Therefore, all people under the age of 67 are children.
XII. False generalization: jumping to conclusions from inadequate evidence (e.g., particulars are
unrepresentative, irrelevant, or not numerous enough to warrant a universal conclusion).
a. My ex-boyfriend cheated on me, so I believe that all women are disloyal.
XIII. Ad populum: Fallacy of using public opinion as argument (Bandwagon fallacy is a particular
case of an Ad Populum fallacy).
a. The whole village thinks the sky is green, so it must be true.
XIV. Appeal to emotion: Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling
argument.
a. Eat your food, children in Africa are starving.
XV. The fallacy fallacy: Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has
been made, that it is necessarily wrong.
a. You used a strawman approach to attack my argumentation, so you are wrong.
XVI. Tu queque: Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser –
answering criticism with criticism.
a. Mother, why should I quit smoking? You did it when you were younger as well.
XVII. Personal incredulity: Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that
it’s therefore not true.
a. I don’t understand how humans could have evolved from single-celled organisms. It
just doesn’t make any sense to me, so theory of evolution is wrong.
XVIII. Burden of proof: Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim,
but for someone else to disprove.
a. There is a monkey flying through space right now. Prove me wrong.
XIX. Ambiguity: Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent
the truth.
a. Why I didn’t pay my parking tickets? It said “fine for parking here”, so it was fine.
XX. The gambler’s fallacy: Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena
such as roulette wheel spins.
a. Red has come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so it surely must be black
now. Let’s put all of our money on Black!
XXI. Bandwagon: Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an
attempted form of validation.
a. If there is no God, why do so many people pray?
XXII. Appeal to authority: Using the opinion of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in
place of an actual argument.
a. This cereal is the best out there, because Michael Jordan says he eats it every day.
, XXIII. Black-or-white: Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in
fact more possibilities exist.
a. You’re either on my side, or on that of the enemy.
b. Today is either going to be a cold or a hot day.
XXIV. Begging the question: A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.
a. The earth is round because it’s spherical in shape.
b. Parkour is dangerous because it is unsafe.
XXV. Appeal to nature: Making the argument that because something is ‘natural’, it is therefore
valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
a. Herbal medicine is natural, so it's good for you.
XXVI. Composition / division: Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be
applied to all, or other parts of it.
a. Atoms are invisible, and we are made of atoms. So we must be invisible as well!
XXVII. No true Scotsman: Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss
relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
a. Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims do not harm other persons.
“What about those terrorists? And Syria?” -> Those are not “true” muslims.
XXVIII. Genetic: Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from who it
comes.
a. My parents told me God exists, so God exists.
b. My doctor is overweight, so he cannot tell me I am unhealthy.
XXIX. Anecdotal: Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument,
especially to dismiss statistics.
a. My grandma has smoked for 50 years and still hasn’t died. You can smoke safely.
XXX. The Texas sharpshooter: Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a
pattern to fit a presumption.
a. Alex and Sabine are a good match, because they both like movies and pizza.
[Meanwhile: Sabine is lesbian and a cat-person, while Alex is a dog-person].
XXXI. Middle ground: Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between extremes is the truth.
a. Vaccines neither cause nor are free from autism particles. They cause some autism.
XXXII. Strawman: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
a. Person A: I think we should give better course manuals and study guides to students.
b. Person B: That is a horrible idea. We shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone.
XXXIII. False cause: Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one
is the cause of the other.
a. Temperatures have been rising, but the number of pirates has been decreasing.
Therefore, pirates used to cool the world and global warming is a hoax.
XXXIV. Slippery slope: Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too,
therefore A should not happen.
a. If we allow same-sex couples to marry, then next thing you know we’ll be allowing
people to marry their own siblings, cars or even monkeys.
