Aristotle’s Three Plus One Rhetorical Appeals
Aristotle defined three plus one primary appeals to use in persuasion.
Ethos
Ethos is an appeal to character, building up one’s own reputation in the minds of the audience in an attempt to enhance the argument.
Pathos
Pathos is an appeal to emotion, triggering emotions in the audience in an attempt to enhance the argument.
Logos
Logos is an appeal to logic/reason, laying out a logical path from the evidence to the argument’s conclusion to persuade the audience.
Kairos(the plus one)
Kairos is an appeal to timeliness or urgency, using time to compel the audience to persuasion. This is considered ‘plus one’ because it cannot be controlled by the rhetorician in the same way as the other three, instead, it can only be exploited through opportunity.
The most persuasive arguments will employ a combination of all three but the balance depends greatly on the medium and the audience. Persuasion in written media prefers Logos over Pathos, while spoken media prefers the opposite. Care should be taken to carefully consider the audience’s values in making an Ethos appeal in either spoken or written media.
Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy occurs when one poses an argument that is logically invalid given the available evidence. Below is a list of some of the more common fallacies but there are many more that have been defined. Sometimes it proves much more difficult to identify the specific type of fallacy than to simply notice the flaw in logic. When analyzing a rhetorical piece for fallacies, it is more important to note the presence of the fallacy than to call it by name. Some fallacies are very similar or can overlap. A list of examples of these fallacies can be found in this post.
| Logical Fallacies | A.K.A | Description |
|---|---|---|
| #MissingCitation | unsupported evidence | Basing a logical argument on a controversial claim without a source citation |
| #FalseComparison | apples to oranges | Comparing two unlike things |
| #AllNaturalFallacy | fallacy of association | It is natural so therefore good |
| #Exaggeration | over stating evidence | Presenting evidence to be better than it really is |
| #PopularityAppeal | Everyone else does it | It is popular so therefore good |
| #HastyGeneralization | faulty distribution | Making a generalization from too small of a sample |
| #FalseImplication | implied assumption | A conclusion based on implied assumptions that are not supported and may be refuted in the greater media |
| #QuoteOutOfContext | misquotation fallacy | A specific form of the #FalseImplication where a third-party is quoted with insufficient context resulting in an implication of a contrary conclusion |
| #ExceptionFallacy | exception proves the rule | Similar to Hasty Generalization but with just one example |
| #UnitFallacy | mismatched units | Equating, comparing, or doing math on unlike things |
| #FallacyOfIgnorance | It is unknown so therefore false, or it is unknown so therefore true | |
| #LoadedQuestion | complex question fallacy | A question that presumes a fallacy or artificial limitation |
| #FalseDilemma | false choice | Assuming a limited number of outcomes when not limit exists |
| #Lying | false assertion | Stating something known to be false as true or vice-versa |
| #InverseError | denying the antecedent | Assuming if P, then Q, therefore if not P, then not Q |
| #RedHerring | beside the point | Diverting attention to confuse a line of logical thought |
| #StrawmanFallacy | a strawman argument | Cast opposing argument as something else that is easier to disprove |
| #CircularArgument | circular logic | A because B because C because A |
| #Tautology | redundandant logic | Presenting the same evidence in different ways as more that one thing |
| #ReductioAdAbsurdum | conclusion is absurd | Disprove and argument with an absurb example carried to its logical conclusion |
| #SlipperySlope | slippery slope fallacy | Stringing uncertainties together to come to a more certain conclusion |
| #ChanticleerFallacy | post hoc ergo propter hoc | If A implies B, then B implies A |
| #CherryPicking | stacking the deck | Ignoring evidence that does not logically support your argument |
| #NonSequitur | it does not follow | An argument that does not follow the rules of logic |
| #WhatAboutism | Tu quoque | Appeal to hypocracy to prove an argument |
| #GamblersFallacy | due theory | Erroneous probability model applied to argument |
| #NoTrueScotsman | accident fallacy | Making an generalization true by exclusion of counterexamples |
| #LogicalFallacy | Any other logical failure not covered by a more specific one above |
More Places to Learn
|
Title: Thank You for Arguing, Third Edition: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion Author: Jay Heinrichs Reviewed by: Adam Von Ancken |
|
Learning to become a skilled rhetorician requires focused study and lots of practice. This book is a great place to start. It presents the teachings of the ancient topic in a modern and compelling manner. It informs and entertains while also telling a story. I highly recommend reading this book but you should note some caveats. The author argues for a nearly ruleless rhetoric, where anything goes (except fighting) in the interest of persuasion. He also claims formal logic is nearly useless, preferring the murkier rhetorical logic instead. Being a committed professional engineering, I take a particular exception to this notion. I am committed to a more responsible form of rhetoric, where objective truth and the vigor of formal logic are held in the highest regard. I do recognize, however, that argument in practice rarely deals in absolute truths, and the spectrum of rhetorical wrong to right is far from bimodal. As long as you exert a healthy dose of critical thinking whilst digesting this book, you shall acquire a healthy dose of wisdom. You can find additional resources related to this book including video lessons, quizzes, and teaching guides at the associated website: arguelab.com |