Rhetoric, Evidence, and Sources: Study Notes

Evidence, Sources, and Support

• Core question the instructor keeps returning to: What counts as evidence, and where should you get it from?
• Evidence should be specific to the topic being discussed; you can’t rely on vague or generic claims. The question "What kind of evidence? What kind of research?" pushes you to name concrete types and sources.
• Evidence in class context comes from reliable sources and established research, not just personal opinion.
• Sources can be categorized and evaluated; you should know what counts as a suitable source in your field and for your assignment.

Academic journals and peer-reviewed sources

• Academic journals are periodicals published by academic presses (UP = University Press). They are written and edited by academics, typically with PhDs.
• When you submit a manuscript to an academic journal, it undergoes a vetting process: peer review by other experts in the field who read for quality, gaps, clarity, and rigor.
• Possible outcomes from peer review:
  • Acceptance (publish as is or with minor revisions)
  • Revision needed (address gaps, clarify arguments, strengthen sections)
  • Rejection (not deemed rigorous enough or not a fit)
• Implication: academic journals represent high-quality, vetted research, but they also have disciplinary focuses and varying levels of depth.
• In notes: indicate how credibility is established: author credentials, editorial board, peer-review status, and publication venue.

Other sources and the World Wide Web

• The World Wide Web is a valid source pool but requires verification of reliability and date of publication.
• Reliability checks include: author expertise, publication venue, cited sources, timeliness, and transparency of methods.
• Magazines and popular press (examples below) are more accessible but vary in depth and objectivity; you should assess them critically.

Popular press (examples)

• Includes: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Slate, Atlantic, etc.
• Publisher type: journalism outlets with varying editorial practices; some offer long-form, investigative pieces, others provide quick news items.
• Journalists often have a "beat": a subject area they cover in depth over years (e.g., politics, economics, culture).
• Trust and reliability often depend on the journalist’s track record on a given beat, not just a single article.
• How to assess reliability:
  • Check the journalist’s background and whether they regularly publish on the topic.
  • Look for a public profile that reveals their beat and history (useful for evaluating expertise).
  • Use Google or other sources to verify their area of expertise and previous work.
• Freelance vs. staff:
  • Freelance journalists are contract workers who move between outlets; pay and stability can be variable.
  • Staff (full-time) journalists are employed by a press and tend to have more continuity on a beat.
• Depth and length:
  • Some outlets (e.g., New York Times, LA Times) may present shorter pieces (two pages or less), offering less depth.
  • Other outlets (e.g., Slate) may offer longer, more in-depth articles (e.g., ten pages).
• Objectivity and bias:
  • All outlets have some level of bias or slant; acknowledge potential biases when using any source and disclose them.
  • Recognize how publication conventions shape the presentation of information.
• Reader expectations:
  • Readers expect a thesis, a topic sentence, and supporting evidence. If support is questionable, readers will pause or stop engaging.

Using the web wisely

• Useful criteria for web sources include publication date, author credentials, citations, and whether the site provides verifiable evidence.
• Always verify dates: old information may be superseded by newer research.

Other forms of support beyond published data

• Interviews:
  • Can be valuable for first-hand, person-to-person perspectives and for details that aren’t in the public record.
  • Reliability depends on the interviewee’s expertise, relationship to the subject, and potential biases.
  • In coursework, you may conduct interviews; plan how many you need and how you’ll cite them.
• Personal experience:
  • Personal narrative can add depth and illustrate data, especially when data alone isn’t enough to convey lived realities.
  • It helps connect with readers who have had similar experiences, but you must distinguish personal experience from generalized claims and avoid overgeneralizing.
• Use of self:
  • Writers can responsibly use their own experiences to build ethos and relate to the audience, as long as it’s relevant and clearly contextualized.
• Interviews and credibility:
  • The credibility of interview data relies on transparency about the interviewee’s relationship to the subject and on corroboration with other sources.
• Logos, ethos, and pathos:
  • Logos: logic and evidence-based reasoning.
  • Ethos: credibility and character of the author or speaker.
  • Pathos: emotional appeal intended to move an audience.
  • These appeals are often used together; identify how they’re deployed and how they interact.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: deeper understanding

• Ethos (credibility): where the author’s credibility comes from (ethics, trustworthiness).
  • Factors that influence ethos: education, expertise, background, tone, word choice, and consistent fairness.
  • Direct appeals (credentials, authority) and indirect appeals (calm, measured tone, balanced presentation).
• Pathos (emotional appeal): generates an emotion to persuade.
  • Important distinction: pathos is not merely emotion; it is the strategic mobilization of emotion to support a value or argument.
  • Two subtypes discussed: value proof and motivational proof.
  • Value proof: relies on a shared value between writer and audience (e.g., equality, safety).
    • Often expressed via keywords or phrases signaling a shared value; reader must infer the alignment.
  • Motivational proof: aligns with what the audience wants or is persuaded to do; often involves a call to action.
    • In advertisements and commercials, multiple motivational appeals may be used to steer toward the same goal (buying a product).
• Logos (logic): logical appeals based on evidence and reasoning.
  • There are seven kinds of logical proofs commonly taught in rhetoric.
  • The speaker or writer should be able to identify them and show how they support the argument.
  • Tone and fairness influence whether the logos-based appeal is persuasive if the reasoning is rigorous and transparent.

The seven logical proofs (sign, induction, cause, deduction, analogy, definition, statistics)

• Sign (visible sign): uses a direct, observable sign as evidence when direct data is unavailable.
  • Example: a protest sign or a visible demonstration depicting a claim.
  • If you cannot provide a photo, you should describe the sign in detail.
• Induction: reasoning from specific cases to a general conclusion.
  • Form: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
  • Example: multiple customers are overcharged at the same shop; this suggests the shop is overcharging generally.
• Cause (causal reasoning): argues that one event (cause) leads to another event (effect) and suggests a causal link.
  • If this pattern occurs regularly, you infer a causation, not just correlation.
  • Example: energy drinks cause sweating, which can lead to dehydration; thus, energy drinks cause dehydration (illustrative causal chain).
• Deduction: reasoning from general principles to specific conclusions, acknowledging conditionality.
  • Not universal; depends on conditions. Example: "If studying leads to grades, then attending class may be unnecessary under some circumstances." (Not true for everyone; depends on individual circumstances.)
• Analogy: comparing two dissimilar things to highlight a shared property or relation, with explicit justification.
  • Example: passwords are like bubble gum—strongest when fresh, should be used by individuals, and left in the environment can create a mess; the analogy supports best practices but requires explicit explanation of the mapping.
• Definition: uses clearly stated definitions to set the terms of the argument.
  • Essential when terms are contested or ambiguous; you must specify what you mean by key terms (e.g., "argument" as a back-and-forth defense of a claim with specific conditions).
• Statistics: uses numerical data and quantitative evidence.
  • Always explain context, caveats, and the conditions under which the numbers hold.
  • Purely presenting numbers without context can be misleading; provide the explanatory framework for interpretation.

Note on using all seven: In practice, speakers often blend several proofs within a single argument. Your job as a reader or writer is to identify how and why each proof is used and how they interact or overlap.

Definitions and basic concepts for arguments

• Claim: the assertion you want the audience to accept (the thesis).
• Evidence: the body of information supporting the claim (data, sources, examples).
• Argument: the combination of the claim and its supporting evidence; the reasoning that links evidence to the claim.
• Aristotle and Rhetoric: the foundational origin of these ideas; the term comes from Aristotle’s work, Rhetoric, written about two thousand years ago.
• The audience and conventions:
  • Readers expect a clear thesis, topic sentence, and supporting evidence.
  • If the support is weak or misaligned with conventions, readers may disengage.

Practical implications for your coursework

• Be explicit about source credibility and origin:
  • When using academic journals, indicate the peer-review status and the author’s credentials.
  • When using popular press, acknowledge potential bias and the limitations of depth.
• Acknowledge biases and maintain fairness:
  • If a source skews conservative or liberal, name the bias and assess how it affects the argument.
  • Distinguish between investigative depth (longer articles) and breadth (short pieces).
• Use a mix of support types:
  • Data (statistics), interviews, expert testimony, and personal experience where appropriate.
  • Be transparent about the role of each type of evidence in your argument.
• Ethical implications:
  • Consider the manipulation potential in appeals to emotion or authority.
  • Be mindful of presenting information in a way that respects the audience and avoids unfair manipulation.
• Upcoming assignment notes:
  • Thursday: watch a movie clip and analyze how the on-screen argument motivates action.
  • Prepare to identify which appeals (logos, ethos, pathos) are used, how they’re used, and whether they are effective given the context.

Quick recap and study tips

• Distinguish sources by type: academic journals (highly vetted) vs. popular press (accessible, varied depth) vs. web sources (verify reliability and date).
• Always evaluate the credibility of a source: author expertise, track record on the beat, and transparency of methods.
• Recognize all three rhetorical appeals in any argument: Logos (logic), Ethos (credibility), Pathos (emotional influence).
• Be able to identify the seven logical proofs and explain how they support a claim, with examples and caveats about conditions and context.
• Use personal experience judiciously to connect with readers, but don't let it replace robust evidence.
• Expect and analyze how authors might blend multiple appeals to persuade; practice breaking down complex arguments into their components.

Question prompts to prepare for Thursday

• How does the clip use logos to persuade? Are the logical steps explicit and transparent?
• What kind of ethos does the clip establish for the speaker or subject? What background or tone contributes to credibility?
• Is any pathos used? What emotions are targeted, and what values or motivations do they appeal to?
• What kinds of evidence are presented (sign, induction, cause, deduction, analogy, definition, statistics)? Are they used effectively and fairly?
• Are there biases or limitations in the sources cited? How would you acknowledge and account for them in your analysis?
• How would you argue against the clip’s claim, using alternative evidence and/or counter-arguments grounded in the seven logical proofs?