Dear Ryan,
Thank you for your kind words and useful criticisms with
regard to my proposal. You were quite correct in that my thesis lacked
definition, and if nothing else, our dialogue and these posts are helping me
achieve clarity in my writing. This letter will aspire to be as valuable as
yours and hopefully be successful in that endeavor.
First of all, I learned a new word today: syllogism. It’s a
form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two or more propositions
e.g. lions are cats and cats are mammals, therefore one concludes lions are
mammals. Syllogistic arguments are handy but not compelling because the
propositions are not linked. My example is a demonstration of a valid argument,
but if there is nothing more to infer about lions, who really gives a crap?
Your thesis is “Romney’s use of rhetorical techniques is…sound
and valid, however there are a few fallacies in both ethos and pathos that
nevertheless add to the effectiveness of the speech,” and you have laid out an
efficient way to prove this. Your argument follows that Romney uses ethos,
Romney uses pathos, Romney’s logos is not always correct, but this does not
detract from the argument; and finally Romney’s use of kairos is strong. These premises
support your conclusion; however, they are not linked together logically, and
therefore your argument becomes syllogistic. The best way to combat this—I feel—would
be to expand your thesis.
While I do realize the assignment revolves around analysis,
your paper should not be limited to Romney’s speech is effective. It should be that
Romney’s speech effectively communicates a certain idea or effectively draws us
to a certain conclusion. Thus, your road map would not come across as a collection
of disparate ideas but a display of interwoven harmonies. Furthermore this
would make your paper more interesting.
I hope this helps and best of luck.
Sincerely,
Conner Wareing
No comments:
Post a Comment