4 * Iszeopverion or Greek philosophers to learn the laws of nanure: she nature. Likewise, the early essayists looked at nearly every- 1g common sense rather ising discoveries—for in- stance, that South American “savages” were less brutal and in some ways more civilized than Europ ‘The uadition of ut his experiences are rendered with us xy. Thomas Lynch is an undertaker, so he confronts dea more often than most people, but he is no philosopher and he theologian. He observes death and ruminates on the meaning, ‘with the same tools that you and I might use. These traditi take readers neys of discovery plored terzitory, sometimes of familiar territory approached from a refieshing angle, almost always hoping to open readers up to new ‘ways of thinking about themselves and the world they Some modern essays make a great deal out of the writes’ own ex- periences, telling anecdotes from their lives that illustrate some larger cheme that affects us all. Bret Lott, for example, explores the acute of sin and atonement through a seemingly innocuous dust- up beeween him and his sons. Eudora Welty celebrates the sensory « of childhood. Maya Angelou ponders the con} f race and schooling whi gt These autobiographical or personal of fiction, and you can read them almost the way you'd read a shore fany have plors—sto nt stories, which generally ind of subject or theme to be explored. Essays, by comparison, articular sub- ject, whether it’s the nature of art (Annie Dillard) or of college (James Thurber) ot anythi Roughly a thied of the selections in this volume are largely auso- biographical or exploratory, and so fill into che category of personal Inteopuction * on * 5 3 of this book are made up of rhetorical essays. These have a definite, easily recognized persuasive purpose: they either want readers to change theit minds about something. or wey want readers to change what they do. Some thetorical essays are political emp ing to alter the course of history by persuading (or refrain from taking) action, For example, Martin Lather King's jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” tried to convince moderate whites all over America that they should march arm in arm, ih a Americans against racists like Bull Connon, who ‘was Birmingham's commissioner of public safety in the early 19608. Other persuasive essays do not exy wo ger their readers to do any- thing specific—such as join the civil rights movemene—~as much as ‘hey attempt to change minds and attitudes. These might be opinion essays because they deal more with They might criticize the state of marviage in Ametica (Judy Brady in about public apathy (William F. Buckley). Some, sea were Free meinen =~ pinion editorial ( graphical. An ment youd ex thac you can fi sor her esay How to Read Essays ed co determine what you think the wre i 0 iter was trying to ac- ish with his or her essay if you're going to analyze and evalu sfully. Was the writer trying to get people to doy is trying to persuade y 1k something, you need to be cautious. You need to be skeptical. Be on your guard. You don't want to be fooled. Yo nt to’be taken in by a weak ot unsound argument. To properly read persuasive essays, you need to know how vo argue yourself. Knowing how to argue is parti jortant in a democracy. Jin our society we argue about nearly everything in the public sphere—who should be presi hools should be runs whether we should ban smoking in restaurants. As you study polit- cal and opinion essays, you'll learn how to change the minds and behavior of people, and how others try to change your behavior and opinion. That is the essence of rhetoric, the tricks of the trade, s0 £0 speak, the tools of persuasion. They are power tools and are danger- fous in the wrong hands. They are easily abused. People like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden do not rule by terror alone. They were ied in the arts of persuasion. By learning these chetori- protect yourself against demagoguery. And you'll ir own opinions arid ac- al and opinion es- those essays that (though not exclus (Ac the end, there's @ n ry to persuade readers, the personal essay ike all arts, rhetoric involves various techniques that have proved to be effective over the years. No doube natural talent helps the great orators and writers, but even Abraham Lincoln and Mar- tin Luther King Je. had to practice their art. Lincoln honed his skills in courtrooms and in legislatures, while King practiced fro pulpit. ‘They might sor have known the names of the argument forms discussed below, for many a great artist learns not from books but by imitation. But all great persuaders, no matter the level of their formal training in shetoric, use these argument forms. Ixrkonverion 4 ? ee parts chat correspond to each , and pathetic. The cerminok loay learning these terms and what they fae a angument—tha break it down analyzing an argument éan you evaluate it. Ulimately, evaluation should be your goal in seading not only these essays but any esay, Bssays often delight us, and certainly they 2 ly for the sake of enjoyment, No doubs there is pleasure in getting swept up on the wave of emotion propelled by a good hetorician or in succumbing to the awe inspired by a noble speaker. But reading critically means cae Pay cua ing an argument before surrendering ta anyone’ opinion or bend- ing your actions to someone's wil a read essays you must be active your own reactions, abservat approvals. Enter into a dialogue with the essayist. Your marginal notes will go a long way toward revealing just egies the es- sayist is using to persuade you, Ifthe pages ofthis book are clean by the end of your course, you're reading too passively. Fe ‘Learning to recognize valid and the margins of objections, and Par- the often-disguised forms not be discouraged by fitful icult to analyze, especially vhich essays present them. S | Arguments Everyone uses logic everyelay. When you were in high school, you cred with your parents abou wheter you sh - to go on thai the beach. Now when you decide whether you should go to a party or study one evening, you'll argue the master over in your mind, just as you'll argue wich friends about whether one movie is better than anoches, and you'll argue in your hiscory class about what caused World War I. So you know how to argue. What you're going to learn here is what you've already doing intuitively: Bur once you understand w!8 ¥ INtRopvetion then, are excellent models to use is ially the kind of w to do in school. Most academic writing puts a high premium on logic. “Logical arguments fill into one of two types deductive or inductive, Roughly speaking, deductive arguments are vop-down: they present general principles from which they draw a conclusion. Inductive arguments are bot yy offer many examples and from these abstract a conclusion of general application. ig within a particular category—in The second statement, “Bob is - Tt_asserts something about a p: logically from the premises, the argument is valid, ‘But a valid argument is not necessarily sound. It must pass an- other test, what we might cal che truth tes: Do yox agree with all of she premises? In the example above, you probably objected to the IntRopuctiew * 9 ,” because you know hae not all men . The argument might be valid on Logically follows the premises), unsound is based on a false premise. In real life and in real argu- very few major premises are absolutely true, so mose argu- fers. For example, we could fx this argument Most men ae tall, and Bob is @ is probabl ic would be more persuasive to change the premises altogether: “A height of six feet is tall, and Bob is six feee ich, 0 Bob is tall.” When someone tries to persuade you with a deductive argum you should break it down into its elements. Figure out what premises and conclus ments use a fer q deductive reasoning We hold chese truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by thei Creator with certain unalien- able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of hese rights, Governments are instituted iyranny ver these Stat ives of che United States o solemnly publish and declare, Colonies are, and oF Right ought to be Free and Independent States. ‘Thomas Jefferson proposes many major premises: All men are ere= ated equal; men have the right to i iy and che pursuit of happiness: governments exist to protect these rights; governments acy from the people; if a government is not doing its job, the p These statements a gotical. The first few assert truths about men assert truths about governm:10 * Intaopuertiox dience to share his belieFin these truths, He calls them “self-evident” and offers no evidence or further argu are a citizen of the United States, you probably bei Jeffersons minor premise, like all specific case: the government of Great To pur it succinctly: King George HII is a tyrant. Conclusions are retry easy to identify. Any statement that you could solemnly publish and declare That these and of Right ought to be FREE AND IN- DEPENDENT STATE: fete} conclusions wont be so obvious. x can recognize these different premises. In most argument Iewilleake some practice before parts of deductive arguments, especially major and ‘Any statement you can rephrase with “because” in front of it is a premise: becomes de- the Right of Because “whenever any Form of Governmet structive of [the peoples’ inalienable right the People to alter or to abolish it"; and Because King George IIL is destructive of American rights Therefore we “these United Colonies ate, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” analyzed his argument; thi phrase, so long as you retain the substance of the writers words. The hardest pare of evaluating deductive arguments is what w done for Jefferson's argument: analysis, or breaking down Intronucrion * promives? In our example, you would ask yourself, Do I think that ‘People should overthrow governments shat dont secure their right? and you a false premise, look to see if the waiter has added a sup- argument to change your that premise. For ex- pected that his readers would not agree is minor premise, King George isa tyrant. of supporting cvidence. Actually, the bull of the against King George. Jeff would persuade his skeptical readers to agree v prem that King George’ government was destructive of Ameri- porting arguments, you still regard a premise as false, chen you judge the argum ‘i Accept the premises, th cvaluate an argument’ validicy, wwe do not need to be so precise. Y an crust your own common sense to evaluate most of the argu- ments faa this book and in your life. I've found with ‘my own students that if you simply ask yourself, Does she conclusion follow logically from the premivt ie ‘ ie correctly. If the answer is yes, times writers eave one of their premises out. This is a com mon and accepted rhetorical practice, and such arguments are called enthymemes. For example, a few paragraphs above I reasoned that if you are a citizen of the United Stat teuths that Jefferson liste dependence. My rcasnm * INtRopverreN ‘The conclusion is: You probably belieue in the self evident “hruths” espoused by the Declaration of Independence 7 you to figure out that the major premise is something Americans are raised 10 believe that all men are creaied equal, therefore, you probably believe the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. Asin any deductive argument, you ‘we had to supply che unstared major premise. Conseq. never decide an enthymeme is invalid—because yo sup] premise chat will logically lead to the conclusion. You! testing for truth: do you agree with she premises, both stated and wn- stated Once youive stared that suppressed premise for yourself, you can decide whether is reasonable or not, and then you can decide whether the conclusion follows logically. But you need suppressed premise before you can assess the is easier to grasp than ded lot of specific cases, yo than starting with a categorical statement, as particular examples to lead you to a statem ity. For example, an inductive argument might go like thi Shaquille is call. Dick is tll. Tim is tll. Carmelo is re, all men are tall, “The first thing you might notice is that chis argument is not very strong. While Kobe, Shaquille, Dirk, Tim, and Carmelo might all Intaopvctiox * 4 be tall (lees suppose that we agree they are), that does not mean that all men are tall Usually you cane look at every case within a category, so a gener- alization is almost always an estimate. The conclusion is not going to be definitely crue of false, but probably true ot false. For example, ng the conclusion “Men ar tall” by looking at every case is im” possible, That would mean determining the height of every man on the planet. But we can take a sample of those men and draw a rea- sonable conclusion, Before you accept the reasonableness of any conclusion, however, you should be sure that che sample is'suffi- ciently large, accurate, and representative. I the inductive argument above, the ‘men I named are tall. But the sample is neither suflici representative. (These two criteria often go tog sample from the National Basketball Asso sencative—and I only included five men, row and small to represent men in general. A better sample would include many men selected randomly from the cotal population rather from tl é so he listed twenty-six exam- es of George’ tyranny, from “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good” to “He has excited d Let's see whether we from this sample. Jefferson had invented some grievances, we ‘could dismiss the argument for bein be accu If he had listed only examples constituted iistakes by the government rather than tyranny. But Jefferson has listed enough to impress most readers Is the sample representative? Fall twenty-six g s deale with abuses of one part of the gox- emment’s powers—say, the impeding of immigration to America— they would not be representative. But the grievances touch many aspects of government—taxation, the support and cont the army, the judiciary4 * scope seems sufficien fers pretty pei scribe such arguments as strong. Note that Jefferson concludes with an asse premise of his deductive argument. You will find thac writers com- jis way. Very rarely do you find a fhe Declaration of Independence as an example b straightforward, Jefferson was trained ‘out his argument qui Most argun find in this book, are less carefully and skill task as a diffcult-to-persuade, skeptical reader is to lexities and lay them out clearly so you can evaluate them. Ethical Arguments or speaker's self presentation, especially het ‘moral standing. Within che course ofa speech, certain cues will help an audience form a picture of the speaker's character. How the speaker dresses, how rself on the podium, the tenor of hier voiee, her gestures, what she says about herself, how she treats her opponents—all contribu few of her charac- ‘A high school studene applying for a job at Wal-Mart shouldn't ‘4 meeting of dock workers probably does not want to come dressed like an executive because it might seem to her se of management, not labor. Dress, posture, vocal tone, gestures, and the like are cools of Ip us persuade. We call these tools ethical argu- de with the visual or aural hat 1. Even ‘Writers cannot pe speaker can use, because a reader cannot see or so, whether you're aware of it or not, every essay produces a picture of the writer. Personal essays, as you might expect, often do so ex- readers of Ms. 2s a soy who is searcely able co rake a knife o a raw chicken > ‘This self-portrait contributes to our sense of injustice when white women assume that this six-foot, bearded, bushy-haired black man is a mugger. Even his dict cated, respectable, unchreat ned with an. enormous raining at the end of a leash... . I took larly, by whistling “sunny ms from Vivaldi’ Four Seasons” when he walks down streets at Robbers do not did people goodnight. selec san enraged xy that he was never enraged. In fact, he admits that he xr the rage I felt at so ofte rage because to expose it would alienate and pechaps frighten his readers. So Staples write in calm prose that sat times dispassionate and often funny. He comes across asa thot sonable, likeable person. He might lose a ion, but whi pendence. ‘The very ntence admits that “a decent respect to ns of mankind requires thae [a people ove should declare the causes Tn that sentence, Jefferson aget to win the approval of other governments, ke Francs, who mighe otherwise view the bel Jion as a sign of anarchy. They are trauthority rabble rousers,% * IntnopvetioN 1 government of Independence does the same as slow-to-act, prudent men who “are more disposed to suffer, w! selves by abolishing the forms ernment] t0 which they are accustomed.” yyou'te evaluating someone's ethical argument, you should ask yourself questions like these: ’s personal testimony affect her arguments? scworthy? Is she reasonable? Do I like the writer? Would I be happy to mect and talk with her? The headnotes to each essay might help you ‘questions, and some famous writers can count on their celebs contribute to their ethos, But the writer ethos will answer these quest E ‘The good writer will ako establish connections between herself and the reader. Any rhetorical sicuation presumes a division between 1. Otherwise, there would be no need for persua~ needs to give a reader a sense that the two of chem. despite their differences of opinion on particular issues, one community working toward a common goal. Wh ate a writer’ cthos, you should ask yourself whether she's established that common ground with you, and you should decide whether she is sincere Pathetic Arguments al state of the audience, It includes ig fear and delight, happiness and Pathos refers to the you read you sho that you should to recognize and evaluate pathetic arguments by asking your + Achar poine in the ety di fl anger, ong tion, and so forth? . . the writer clcie these emotions from m: * Ate these emotional appeals fir, orate they dishonest? ‘You might wonder what I mean by honessy when I talk of emo- ‘What's the difference between an honest and a dishonest ? Take, for exampl in Luther King’ explanation of the effects of prejudice on his young daughter: you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stam- personality by developing an unconscious bitwemess toward white people. —then you will understand why we find ie diffi Js appeal because it yone who has a child knows that sym- ' teats cannot be allowed to overcome judgment or children would cat nothing but candy. King surrounds his hearcrending story wi1 + Inrropuerion -o sway rather than persuade, Take lon who, after serving a few years in violene crimes are rarely paroled. Ic would be dish date for district attorney to use photographs of the s ‘earful interviews with the victitn’s parents to attack the incumbent. son is not left behind. There is no formula by this. You must make yourself aware of emotional appeals an simply use your common sense, With that caution raised, add that, as writers, emotions are sometimes our best aid. The vi- yeete about King’s d: wscly engages sympathy and arouses Gutrage pethaps King could not over-come his reader’ long-held prejudices without jerking a few teas. al Essays Personal es hey use the method of tug, which argue ‘than a learned, some- yy argues for this con- the way of logical clusion, b. in the way reasoning. =o p— experience. Once she herse phisticated speaker of Engli career as a writer took off. If we were to evaluate ‘a1 t ‘of an inductive argument, More than likely, we would decide that sause the cvidence, while accurate, is not sufficiently large and it may or may not be representative: we would probably Fear a dey ate coe belo oe ld accept Tan's experience as ‘of successfill writers. The evidence that Tas presents us is anecdotal: a single case, often rendered 1g, sometimes emotionally charged language. Rhetoricians Inrropucriow * 19 vwarn against being swayed by anecdotal evidence. A political candi- dace m taxpayers to fi cnsible vorers would ask: is her case (pi an outlandish, extreme example of a very unusual case? or does our publ y encourage and enable a lot of “welfare queens”? this single anecdote fui he other cases thar our pol cian has not described? Anecdotal arguments are weak inductive arguments. Since personal essays are often anecdotal, they usually exploie pathetic arguments. More often than not, you'll find that personal -pechaps making us laugh (David sometimes cutting us with the razor-sharp edge of compas- ). They also make ethical arguments, because personal es- says depend so much on the writer's experience. Their success or failure depends, ro a large degree, on whether we like the author, whether we trust the voice telling us this particular ane But itis unfair, really, to evaluate personal essays along of argument. If we asked Amy Tan what she meant to do say, she probably would deny any ile of writing is beter than a sop! would claim to be doing no more than offering readers che benefit of her own exper Probably, she did not have an ov cal, ethical, and pathetic ar- guments to see whether we should adopr his opinion. Bue Fudora ‘Welty does not have such an obvious purpose. What does she wane us to think when we finish reading “Listening” rd to say. iters of personal essays generally do not try to change our be- per than opinion. By adopting the perspective, readers are often asked to follow the writer along a path of exploratory thought or expetience to a surprising conclusion. Often, they use che acid of common sense to dissolve