Thank You for Arguing: Chapter 27 Summary & Analysis

In this chapter, Heinrichs will discuss a few situations in order to illustrate how to choose the right rhetorical tools. Learning to choose the right rhetorical tools is a little like learning how to ski—at first, it’s difficult to remember the different lessons and tips all at once. While it takes a long time to master the art of rhetoric, there are a few aspects of rhetoric that one should always keep in mind when hearing or making a persuasive speech. One should consider the goals of the speech, the ethos, pathos, and logos of the speech, and whether the persuader does a good job of harnessing kairos—i.e., speaking with the right timing and using the right medium.

Imagine that your superior at work quits, and you’re trying to make a bid for their old job. First, consider the goal: persuading the boss to give you a job, which will require deliberative rhetoric. Next, ask yourself which Aristotelian appeal you should emphasize in your pitch. Pathos usually doesn’t work well in an office setting, since it’s too intense. Logos could be helpful, but you’re probably best off using an appeal to ethos, emphasizing your disinterest, your strong values, and your practical wisdom.

If you’re trying to convince your boss to promote you, you could write a detailed strategy memo, proving your practical wisdom. It would be a good idea to send in the memo quickly, taking advantage of kairos and showing that you’re punctual and responsible. You could also emphasize your decorum by dressing well, and emphasize a common identity between yourself and your boss (often, bosses like employees who remind them of themselves).

Next, imagine that your strategy of emphasizing ethos works, and your boss calls you in for an interview. Here, you should emphasize your practical wisdom, your values (which should align with the company’s values), and your disinterest (your loyalty to the boss and to the company). It would be a good idea to emphasize your talents by telling personal stories about your abilities. Finally, you could close by emphasizing your sincerity and your “heart”—some bosses might find such a pathetic display cheesy, but most will probably appreciate it.

Another example: imagine that you’re trying to convince your book club to read a certain book next month—Thank You For Arguing. Instead of arguing forcefully for the book, you could try the “reluctant conclusion” strategy, emphasizing that you, too, had doubts about this book. You could emphasize the author’s practical wisdom—his experience as a consultant for other companies. Finally, you could emphasize the connection between the values the book imparts, such as education and social skills, and the values your book club celebrates. In this way, you’d be making an ethos-heavy pitch for the book.

For the next example, imagine that you’re raising money for a chain of bed-and-breakfasts by presenting to a venture capital firm. After your presentation, one of the partners questions the notion of standardizing bed-and-breakfasts. Instead of making a snappy joke or debating the terminology—both of which would lack decorum—you could use code language, such as “mature industry” and “ROI” (return on investment) to show off your familiarity with the venture capital culture.

When in doubt, it’s always best to concede an opponent’s points. Doing so buys you some extra time to think of a response, and, even if you can’t think of a clever response, allows you to switch the tense to the future. A clever concession “redefines the issue without appearing to.” For example, while arguing about the legitimacy of the welfare system, a politician could refute an opponent who claims, “welfare mothers are lazy” by conceding the point and saying, “I’m sure there are lazy people on welfare.” In doing so, the politician could switch to a future tense and emphasize the long-term economic benefits of reforming welfare.

Consider another politican example: a local candidate who’s been accused of wearing a marijuana-themed t-shirt, suggesting that he used drugs as an adolescent. A few potential responses: 1) deny it, 2) minimize it, (i.e., “I smoked, but I didn’t inhale”), or 3) go on the offensive. Options 2) and 3) risk making the candidate seem like a liar or a slippery politician. By using option 1), on the other hand, the candidate could reframe the debate and switch to the future tense, scolding his opponent for focusing on the past instead of talking about how to improve the community in the future. Any concession that changes the debate from past tense to future tense will often win an audience.