Throughout the text, Burke claims and attempts to demonstrate the greater logical coherence of his argument in comparison to those of his opponents, the English "revolutionaries." One instance of this occurs early on in the essay, during Burke's attempt to discredit the Revolutionary Society. He takes particular issue with Richard Price's claim that:
[The current king of England] ‘is almost the only lawful king in the world, because the only one
who owes his crown to the choice of his people.’
In a display of logos intended to convince his readers, Burke deconstructs this claim, pointing out what he believes to be the many flaws in Price's statement:
According to this spiritual doctor of politics, if his majesty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is so held by his majesty. Therefore if you follow their rule, the king of Great Britain, who most certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no respect better than the rest of the gang of usurpers.
In the above excerpt, Burke exhibits one of the classic strategies used to deconstruct an opponent's argument: following a claim to its logical conclusion. In doing so, Burke reveals the fallacy inherent in Price's particular brand of revolutionary ideology. Burke chooses to characterize this fallacy as intentionally "slippery," insinuating that his opponents are disingenuous:
Thus these politicians proceed, whilst little notice is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to be examined upon the plain meaning of their words and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and slippery constructions come into play.
By referring to his opponents as "equivocators," Burke undermines the structure of their logical reasoning, strengthening his argument against revolutionary ideology by making Price's attempts at logos appear shaky.
