Rhetorica Reading

Shane Brabant
Rhetorica Reading
Eng 100 Tu-Th 4:00-5:20
Anicca Cox
3-1-10

I found the reading to be extremely vague. The concepts outlined in this reading are very complex and in this reading they are not explained in a way that I can understand them. I am taking Logic this semester and the information outlined in this reading are very similar to some of the information we are going over in class. We outlined what an argument was, what a rhetorical syllogism is, as well as the forms arguments come in. I have a hard time with the language of logic. Syllogism, rhetoric and enthymeme are examples of words that I just cant seem to get the hang of. Their meaning eludes me, even though I am in logic class and I really need to understand what they mean.

The different forms an argument comes in was a new thing for me this semester. Inductive, deductive and narrative were all new things for me. I am currently studying inductive and deductive arguments, how to identify them, how to use them, how to analyze them. It is all very interesting but extremely convoluted and complex. I am having difficulty with my logic class.

The terms Ethos, Logos and Pathos were familiar terms, but their exact meaning is hard for me to keep straight and understand. I find dissecting language in this was to be extremely interesting but I do not always understand how to dissect our language. I would like to be able to have a better understanding of these three elements of logic so that I can better converse with classmates and teachers about their meaning and uses.

I am wondering if anyone else in my group, or the class as a whole, is having trouble understanding the above concepts. I would like to hear from them about how they understand logos, pathos and ethos and what ways they were able to conceptualize the concepts. If they don't understand then maybe we can work together on finding a way to understand them.