Questions for the Readings – Week 6

1)      Chapter ten of the book states, “Psychologist Jerome Bruner has argues that we live our lives in terms of stories that make sense of who we are and what we do.” In a sense, narrative is all reliant on our perspective and self-image. In recent days, the captain of the US Airways plane that crash landed into the Hudson River in New York City has given several interviews where he rejects the notion of himself as a hero and instead makes the case that he was simply doing his job. This is in stark contrast to the majority of media coverage, which has portrayed him as the savior of the 155 people on the plane and countless people in New York City below. Does this theory of narrative as “world-making” fully explain the discrepancy between the two versions of the same event or is there a better explanation?  Can the pilot be a hero to everyone except himself or is there some objective truths about the event that outweigh any modesty or humility on his part? To what extent do you feel your own narrative framing is shaping your answer to these questions?

2)      Aristotle believed that all arguments could be logically proven to be valid or invalid. He also found that arguments that connected the premises of the argument with audience preconceptions made for the most persuasive arguments. But what if, despite Aristotle’s hope that audience preconceptions are based in logically valid deductions, they are in fact full of very emotional, irrational and illogical assumptions. Clearly, neither the argument nor the audience needs to base their rhetorical processes in fact or logic in order to make an argument persuasive to a particular group of people. How would Aristotle respond to the charge that his notion of syllogistic structure is not something that his theory of enthymeme needs to rely on for successful persuasion?  

3)      Using the information in the reading by Warnick and Inch, I would like to ask for someone to analyze the following ads from the 2008 Presidential campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv4bYWBTgdw ,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHe_FQGfdyo , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1azQcs-8iI , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrRk8KQukY

 

As we read in this selection, evaluating the claim, reasoning and evidence is critical to argument analysis. Which of the above ads was most powerful? Were any overly strong and therefore off-putting? What are the different audience assumptions, orientations and background knowledge that each claimant is relying on in order to make his or her argument persuasive? Please use the concepts from the reading to make your analysis, rather than your own biases.