The title of this paper
is "A Whole Lot of Substance or a Whole Lot of Rhetoric?". The author
of this paper then must assume that he has set up a dichotomy for his
audience, because he does not present the choice between the two as strange, but rather difficult. This article treats rhetoric as a cloak behind which the governor of Maine has hidden the substance of his policy. The author of this article also operates under that assumption that there is a discernible distinction between the rhetoric of a speech and its substance.
Based on specific examples from the latter two articles and one from an
assignment in this class, is there actually a distinction between
rhetoric and the substance of communication? If so, what is it? If not,
why not? How does this affect you specifically.
Please prepare an outline to bring into class Wednesday. You will have
half an hour to write this essay, and you will turn in your outline with
the essay.
I'm confused how we are to use an example from an assignment in this class.
ReplyDeleteThat is to say: is the substance of your proposal of law distinct from the *way* you have expressed or will express your proposal of law?
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to find an example of this in our own work. It's like trying to argue against yourself saying that your proposal's substance is different from the way it is expressed. Does that make sense?
DeleteIt's perfectly acceptable to say that the substance (i.e. that police in STL County should wear cameras on-duty) cannot be separated from the proposal of law itself. It just means that you'll have to find a way to refute the articles I've provided you. Remember that claims that others make are yours to accept, refute, or qualify.
Delete