Guide to Critical Thinking

Rhetorical Arguments
Think about how politicians might try to persuade you to vote for them. They may appeal 
to your patriotism. They may suggest that if the other candidate wins, things will go badly. 
They may choose words and examples that help specific audiences feel like the politician 
empathizes with their situation. All of these techniques can be effective, and all are part of 
what someone who studies rhetoric—the art of persuasion—might include under the term 
argument.
Rhetoric is a field that uses the word argument almost as much as logic does. You are likely to 
encounter this use in English, communication, composition, or argumentation classes. From 
the point of view of rhetoric, an argument is an attempt to persuade—to change someone’s 
opinion or behavior. Because the goal of a rhetorical argument is persuasion, good arguments 
are those that are persuasive. In fact, any time someone attempts to persuade you to do some-
thing, they can be seen as advancing an argument in this sense.
Moral of the Story: Defining the Word Argument
To avoid conflating the two widely different uses of the word argument (that is, as a dis-
pute in ordinary language and as a defense of a point of view in logic) is to use the word 
only in its classical sense. In its classical meaning, an argument does not refer to a vehicle 
to express emotions, complaints, insults, or provocations. For these and all other related 
meanings, there are a wide variety of terms that would do a better job, such as disagree-
ment, quarrel, bicker, squabble, fight, brawl, altercation, having words, insult match, word 
combat, and so on. The more precise we are in our selection of words, the more efficient 
our communications.
har85668_01_c01_001-024.indd 15
4/9/15 11:20 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

---

Section 1.4 
Arguments Outside of Logic
Think about how you might have persuaded a sibling to do something for you when you 
were young. You might have offered money, tried to manipulate with guilt-inducing tactics, 
appealed to his or her sense of pride or duty, or just attempted to reason with him or her. 
All of these things can be motivating, and all may be part of a rhetorical approach to argu-
ments. However, while getting someone to do something out of greed, guilt, pride, or pity can 
indeed get you what you want, this does not mean you have succeeded in achieving a justified 
defense of your position.
Some of the most impressive orators in history—Demosthenes, Cicero, Winston Churchill—
were most likely born with a natural talent for rhetoric, yet they groomed their talent by becom-
ing well educated and studying the speeches of previous great orators. Rhetoric depends not 
only on the mastery of a language and broad knowledge, but also on the fine-tuning of the use of 
phrases, metaphors, pauses, crescendos, humor, and other devices. However, a talent for rheto-
ric can be easily employed by unscrupulous people to manipulate others. This characteristic is 
precisely what distinguishes rhetorical arguments from arguments in logic.
Whereas rhetorical arguments aim to persuade (often with the intent to manipulate), logical 
arguments aim to demonstrate. The distinction between persuading and demonstrating is 
crucial. Persuading requires only the appearance of a strong position, perhaps camouflaged 
by a strong dose of emotional appeal. But demonstrating requires presenting a position in a 
way that may be conceivable even by opponents of the position. To achieve this, the argument 
must be well informed, supported by facts, and free from flawed reasoning. Of course, an 
argument can be persuasive (meaning, emotionally appealing) in addition to being logically 
strong. The important thing to remember is that the fundamental end of logical arguments is 
not to persuade but to employ good reasoning in order to demonstrate truths.