ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx

ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01
LUO
Term Paper
Yolanda McNeil
on Thu, Mar 05 2020, 9:59 PM
15% highest match
Submission ID: 023edea0-7542-490e-9a7e-4a71a560616e
Attachments (1)
Yolanda_McNeil_ENGL570_Term_Project_Paper.docx
Running head: THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S
RHETORIC 1
THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC 2
Term Project: 1 JUDICIAL RHETORIC (THE ENTHYMEME
IN ARISTOTLE'S
RHETORIC) YOLANDA MCNEIL
(http://safeassign.blackboard.com/)
Word Count: 5,918
Attachment ID: 2642248507
15%

http://safeassign.blackboard.com/
ENGL 570 TERM PAPER
Liberty University
Introduction
The concept of enthymeme has been broadly discussed as a
subject in argumentation theory
and informal logic. All contemporary theorists understand that
the enthymeme concept date
back to Aristotle Rhetoric. They are convinced that the term
‘syllogism’ which ascribed to this
concept in introductions to logic diverges from original
Aristotelian perception. But what few
individuals are not sure is that scholars of ancient philosophy
and philologists are still
passionately debating the matter of detailed sense of this
concept in Rhetoric (Conley, 1984). As
a result, there is just one point that all theorists agree: the
enthymeme has changed since
Aristotle's original discussions of it. In overall, the approach of
Aristotle to the enthymemes in
the Rhetoric seems to change from argumentative theory to
logic.

Research Purpose
This research paper provides an analysis of how Aristotle
ascribes to the enthymeme. That will
be achieved from the perception of argumentation theory in
explaining how enthymeme has
presented in different perspectives. The advantages of
argumentation theory include the
following: it supplements the dominant logical approach
presented in 2 highly enlightened
researches by Burnyeat (1994) which emphasizes the question
of logical validity of the link
between the premise and deduction. Secondly, that method is
better calculated to outline
parallels in contemporary ‘enthymeme issues.
The research intends to use an argumentative theory which is
the study of how deductions can
be arrived at through reasonable thinking, that is, soundly,
claim based or not on-premises. It
comprises rules of logic and inference in speeches and
premises. 1 IN COMBINATION
WITH RHETORIC THEORY THAT TRACES ITS ROOTS
BACK TO ANTIQUE

GREECE, WHERE “RHETORIC” DENOTED THE ART OF
PUBLIC SPEAKING AS
IT ADVANCED UNDER THE STATUTORY RÉGIME,
ESPECIALLY IN THE 4TH
AND 5TH-CENTURY ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY.
THE ORDINARY CITIZEN LACKED THE WIDE-RANGING
KNOWLEDGE OF THE
LAW AND ITS PROCEDURES THAT THE PROFESSIONAL
LAWYER DID,
HOWEVER, IT WAS GREAT TO HIS ADVANTAGE TO
HAVE WIDE-RANGING
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TACTICS OF DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTION. AS A
RESULT, THE SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC DID A
SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN
TRAINING THE LAYPERSON TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
COURT OR TO
PROSECUTE AN OFFENDING NEIGHBOR. AS SUCH,
JUDICIAL RHETORIC
PROMOTES JUSTICE AND IDENTIFIES INJUSTICE BY
APPEALING TO THE
LAW. 'FORENSIC SPEECH ACCEPTS AS GIVEN THE LAWS
OF THE POLIS,' SO
THE SECTION ON JUDICIAL RHETORIC USES

ENTHYMEMES TO ADJUST
'PARTICULAR CASES TO GENERAL LAWS.
Research Questions
This project seeks to answer the following questions · What is
the implicit premise in the term
enthymeme?
This question can be examined by considering what can be seen
as the clearest case that
enthymeme can be reduced to logical syllogism, as it happens in
the context.
· To what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a
syllogistic framework, in the sense of
the previous analytics?
This question has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s
works of literature in Aristotle's
Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a
critical role in determining one’s
stance in connection to Solmsen.
· How can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the
semeia (signs) and eikota
(probabilities) in programmatic passages of the Rhetoric?

This question explains the central place of the semeia and
eikota in the rhetorical custom as
explained by Aristotle. That stance was mainly as a result of the
virtually limited attention
initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence
was presented as credible or
incredible.
The Enthymeme Explained
Aristotle explained that enthymeme occurs in an argument
where certain premises or things
are not explicitly stated. The 3 properties that Aristotle ascribes
to enthymeme include the
following: the first one is that enthymemes deal with mainly
non-essential issues, namely
human actions and in this case are derived from signs and
probabilities (Braet, 1999).
Secondly, an enthymeme is used because of the benefit of the
uneducated audience, and this
makes a succinct formulation more suitable. Furthermore, as
accustomed presumptions can be
left unexpressed, an enthymeme is usually derived from a few
statements as compared to

premises (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Lastly, just like dialectical
sullogimoi, enthymemes are
considered to be the kind of sullogismoi whereby common and
relatively formal topics as
contrary to material and special topics like idia; even though
enthymemes from common topics
are perceived as more characteristic of rhetoric (McAdon,
2003).
As can be seen, the construal of the three properties has not
been agreed by the scholars. This is
because of the uncertainty that surrounds the text passages
discussed by the theorists. Based on
this, it might be valuable to supplement these with examples of
enthymemes, although because
of those present problems it is not clear whether a specific
example is essentially an enthymeme
(Walton, 2008). The examples that are explicitly designated as
enthymemes by Aristotle are as
follows: “it is not right for the individual who is sharp to have
kids taught to be intelligent, for
on top of idleness they incur hostile jealousy from fellow
citizens”, taken from Medea; in case
the reason is omitted, this enthymeme becomes a maxim
(Conley, 1984). “There is no person

who is free because he is a slave of chance or money”, taken
from Hecuba; here the omission of
the reason leads to maxim. “It would be dreadful if in exile
people fight to come home, but
when they are at home, they are forced into exile in order to
cease from fighting,” taken from
Lysias speech; of all the examples it is only this one that is
explicitly termed an enthymeme
(Walton & Reed, 2005). Lastly, if it is essential to seek
conciliations whenever such changes are
more profitable and more advantageous, then it is essential to
seek some of the changes if
someone is successful (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). All these
examples demonstrate how the
enthymeme has been changing since Aristotle's original
discussions of it.
Enthymeme as Dialectical Arguments
2 ARISTOTLE DEFINED THE ENTHYMEME AS A BODY OF
PERSUASION,
SUGGESTING THAT EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT OR
AN ADDITION TO THE
CORE OF THE PERSUASION PROCEDURE. The rationale

why the enthymeme, as
rhetorical demonstration or proof must be considered to be core
to the rhetorical procedure of
persuasion is that people are easily convinced when they think
that anything must be
demonstrated (Bitzer, 1959). Therefore, this rudimentary
concept of rhetorical demonstration
appears to be like this: to create a target one has to believe that
b, the speaker should in the first
place choose a sentence c or some sentences c1. cn that is
previously adopted by the target
group. Secondly, Aristotle is supposed to show that c might be
derivative of b or c1. bn, using b
or b1. bn as premises (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). Due to the
fact that the target individuals
form their opinions according to rational standards, they will
accept c as soon as they are able
to comprehend that c can be verified based on their own views.
Subsequently, the enthymeme's creation is principally the issue
of inferring from accepted
views (endoxa) (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). In fact, it is
similarly very probable to use premises

that might not be generally recognized by themselves, but
maybe derived from usually
recognized views; other premises are only acknowledged
because the orator is regarded
trustworthy; 2 STILL, OTHER ENTHYMEMES ARE
CREATED FROM SIGNS
(BITZER, 1959). That the conclusion is formed from
acknowledged views—contrary to
inferences from the original and correct principles or
sentences—is the significant aspect of
dialectical argumentation in the sense of Aristotelian
(Weidemann, 1989). 2 THEREFORE,
THE ENTHYMEMES FORMULATION IS A DIALECTIC
MATTER, AND SUCH A
DIALECTICIAN HAS THE CAPABILITY REQUIRED FOR
THE CREATION OF
ENTHYMEMES (ALLEN, 2007). WHEN THE ENTHYMEMES
ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE A SUBCLASS OF DIALECTICAL OPINIONS, THEN
THAT SEEMS TO BE
ORDINARY OF NORMAL TO EXPECT AN EXPLICIT
DIFFERENCE BY WHICH
ONE CAN TELL ENTHYMEMES APART FROM ALL OTHER
KINDS OF

DIALECTICAL ARGUMENTS (ALLEN, 2007). Nonetheless,
this expectancy is in some
way misinformed: The enthymeme is dissimilar from other
categories of dialectical opinions, as
far as it is used in the rhetorical framework of public speaking
(and rhetorical arguments are
termed ‘enthymemes’); therefore, no additional qualitative or
formal dissimilarities are
required (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).
Nevertheless, in considering rhetorical framework there are 2
different aspects that the
dialectician should have in mind if he/she desires to be a
rhetorician in the future, and if the
dialectical argument is to develop to be an effective
enthymeme. Firstly, the distinctive themes
of public speeches do not—as a dialectic subject and theoretic
viewpoint—belong to the stuff
that is essentially the case, but is amongst the stuff that is the
goal of pragmatic discussion and
can as well as be otherwise (Braet, 1999). Secondly, as contrary
to well-trained dialecticians the
readers of public speeches are categorized by a logical
inadequacy; apart from that, the jury or

assembly members are not familiarized with subsequent a
lengthier chain of interpretations.
Thus, enthymemes should not be as specific and detailed as a
scientific justification and must
be brief as compared to a normal or usual dialectical argument
(Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).
This, nevertheless, is not to state that the enthymeme is
described by brevity and
incompleteness. 2 INSTEAD, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN
INDICATION OF A
WELL-IMPLEMENTED ENTHYMEME THAT THE CONTENT
AND THE NUMBER
OF ITS PREMISES ARE ATTUNED TO THE INTELLIGENCE
OF THE AUDIENCE
IN PUBLIC; however, an enthymeme that fails to integrate
these qualities is still considered to
be enthymeme.
The Concision of the Enthymeme
Aristotle explained that the enthymeme regularly has fewer
premises than some other
inferences. Due to the fact that most translators refer the name
‘sullogismos’ to the syllogistic
theory, where an appropriate inference has two premises only,

those sentences have resulted to
the common understanding that Aristotle describes the
enthymeme as a sullogismos in where
two premises have been repressed, in other words as a
shortened, unfinished syllogism
(Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). But certainly, the cited passages
do not try to provide the right
enthymeme’s definition, nor does the name ‘sullogismos’
essentially mean inferences with two
premises only (Weidemann, 1989). Correctly comprehended,
both passages revolve around
choosing the right premise, not about intellectual
incompleteness. The comment that
enthymeme regularly has fewer premises concludes the
argument of 2 likely errors the speaker
could make. As such, one can draw deductions from stuff that
has formerly been construed or
from stuff that is yet to be construed (Cronkhite, 1966). The last
technique is not persuasive,
because the premises are yet to be accepted, or are yet to be
introduced. The earlier technique is
challenging too: if the speaker is supposed to introduce the
desired premises by the other

conclusion, and the premises of this pre-conclusion too, one
shall come to an end with a longer
chain of conclusions (Cronkhite, 1966). Arguments that have
many inferential phases are very
common in dialectical exercise, but it is impossible to expect
the public speaking audience to
follow those longer arguments. That is the reason Aristotle
explains that the enthymeme has
been and must be from a few premises.
Enthymeme in Legal Reasoning Structure
This type of reasoning is deductive which is through the use of
rhetoric syllogism that Aristotle
termed enthymeme. An enthymeme is almost the same as legal
reasoning structure: universal
rule or state general apply it to a specific circumstance (the
facts) and then reach a deduction
(Braet, 1999). What differentiates an enthymeme from scientific
or strictly logical syllogism
flows from the differences in their spheres. In science and math,
the syllogism deals with
universally true conclusions (Conley, 1984). In rhetoric and in
all fields applicable to rhetoric,
for example, politics and law, arguments are based on

probabilities and likelihoods, not
certainties.
The kind of probability that Aristotle is discussing is not just
frequency or commonness, but
instead, it is the probability where “whatever, among things that
can be other than what they
are, therefore it is so linked to that in respect to which it is
possible as universal is to a specific
(McAdon, 2003). According to Aristotle, something is possible
when it is a specific example of a
general rule. To be certain, general rules are general since they
mirror frequent or common
occurrences, but the enthymematic probability is, to Aristotle,
predicated on frequency as such,
but instead on the link of the generally factual statement to
specific example (McAdon, 2003).
The basic framework of a syllogism is the main premise, minor
premise, and conclusion. The
easiest way to understand is through the popular example: all
humans are mortal, Socrates is a
humanoid, thus Socrates is mortal. To put it in the right context,
the main premise is an overall

statement about some condition or some set which is universally
correct (within the set of all
human, all are considered mortal); the minor premise is an exact
statement regarding a
particular thing within the general set (Pfister, & Woods, 2016).
Socrates is considered to be a
member of the sets of the human); the deduction essentially
follows if minor and major
premises are correct.
Kennedy (1991) explained in symbolic logic that syllogism is
expressed as if all X is Y, and some
X is Z, then all Z is Y 68 “X” =humans; “Y” =mortal; “Z” =
Socrates. The language in the formal
statement gets a bit odd, but that is how it works. Replace “Z”
with “Greeks” and the “is” with
“are” in the last 2 clauses, and it sounds a bit better: “if all
human beings are mortal, and some
members of the team of humans are Greeks, then all Greeks are
considered to be mortal. In a
formal syllogism and logic all of the premises should be cited
explicitly (Kennedy, 1991). In an
enthymeme or rhetorical syllogism, frequently several premises
are unstated due to the fact

that Aristotle, “if a single premise is known, it does not have to
be specified, because the hearer
purpose to supply it. This means there are often several
premises where inferences rest and to
explain to them all should be nearly impossible or even truly
impossible in some circumstances
(Kennedy, 1991). For the audience to supply the absent premise,
the enthymeme ought to be
predicated on the premise that the audience believes or knows
to be factual. Explained the
other way, the enthymeme shall be ineffective if the
unexplained premise is part and parcel of
the basic understanding.
Even if it is possible to establish and express the information
being depended on for inference,
it would tremendously tedious to do that. Some of the US
citizens find it easy to understand the
statement such as “the marathoner won a silver medal” to
denote that marathoner was the
second one in the race as specified by Burnyeat (1994).
Unspecified is premises like the silver
medals are awarded for the second place; the marathoner was
participating in the race; second

place denotes that the marathoner was beaten by the first
marathoner in the race; the race had
other participants; it was an official competition and not just
buddies competing for the sake of
leisure (Braet, 1999).
Hitchcock (1985) explains that in an enthymeme, the premises,
statements as well as
conclusions are not normally absolute; they have the tendency
of being couched in terms of
possibilities. Things such as “children who are hungry
sometimes steal to get food” or “children
shall commonly be interrupted by thunder” are the stuff of
enthymemes (Conley, 1984). This is
the actual abode of the enthymeme- drawing an inference that
might be correct on the basis of
the strongest, most probable generalizations that a person can
bring forth to construe the
circumstance.
Aristotle similarly identified deceptive enthymemes, premises
which tend or seem to be
enthymemes, but aren’t (Conley, 1984). Since enthymeme deal
with possibilities instead of the

certainties, what individuals find most convincing is an
elucidation that comports most
strongly with their own experience and understanding
(Hitchcock, 1985). This is the only way
connection is made. An enthymeme created outside the
experience of the audience, irrespective
of how persuasive or strong or appropriate it might otherwise
be, it shall not persuade.
The bright scholar and shrewd observer, anthropologist Geertz
Clifford offers a strong example
of the significance of linking up with the audience. Geertz
criticizes anthropologist Evans-
Pritchard’s explanation of Azande witchery. Consider a Zande
teenager, Evans-Pritchard states
“who has banged his foot on a tree stump and got poisoned.”
The teenager responds it is
witchery. Nonsense, utters Evans-Pritchard, out of his common-
sense habit: you were just
bloody uncaring; you must have keenly observed where you
were heading. I looked where I was
heading; you have to be with so numerous stumps around, says
the teenager - and if I had not
been witched, I would have been able to see it (Conley, 1984).
Moreover, all wounds take a few

days to heal for that is the nature of wounds. But this one
embittered, thus witchery should be
involved (Braet, 1999). Therefore, nevertheless “spiritual” the
content of Zande witchery beliefs
might or might not be, they are actually employed by the Zande
in a mysterious way - as an
explanation and defense of the actual claims of idiomatic
reason. Behind the above reflections
upon stubbed foot, sour stomachs and spoiled pots lies a tissue
of common-sense concepts that
the Zande ostensibly consider as being factual on their face:
that minor cuts usually heal
quickly.
It is worthy to note how the Zande teenager’s elucidation for the
witchery and infection makes
sense within the culture of Zande, although it doesn’t make
sense under present western ideals
of common sense or from western perception of human activity
and human nature (individuals
at some point stub their toes) and infection (some wounds get
infected and never heal quickly)
(Kennedy, 1991). Knowing about the culture of Zande would
affect how a person would go

about the issue of introducing some biology-based medicinal
approaches to treat them.
The Enthymeme’s Content Focusing on Semeia and Eikota
Various authors have tried to explain enthymeme in the
perspective of semeia and eikota.
Those authors particularly the ones who believe in the logical
approach declined the concept of
implied premises explaining they are important stuff of
enthymemes. Most of these authors
have maintained that it is only idiosyncratic aspects that can be
found in the content of
enthymemes. These authors point to these issues as rhetoric and
previous analytics where
enthymeme is sullogismos from semeia and eikota. This
viewpoint was recently criticized from
within their own stances by Burnyeat (1994). He could be right,
but his reasoning according to
Aristotle, this argument can only be found outside rhetoric and
it is not strong than the
reflections which conclude that apart from semeia and eikota,
rhetorical premises have other
signs (Burnyeat, 1996).

Semeion is also defined as a premise of enthymeme in his prior
analytics and. This means
semeion is an event or situation which denotes accompanying
event or circumstance
(Hitchcock, 1985). Aristotle uses illustrations that are principal
although not solely concerned
with some signs. He differentiates between signs whereby
signified and sign continuously go
together, this kind of semeion has a distinct term: the tekmerion
(necessary signs) whereby
signified and sign frequently go together (there is no distinct
term for this kind, but it is
denoted as semeion in the strict sense) (McAdon, 2003).
Aristotle noted that the tekmeria takes
place only intermittently.
Aristotle mentioned semeia and eikota first time in the rhetoric
when he explained that those
are premises where enthymemes are derived. In Aristotle’s
opinion, this is due to the fact that
the inferences of enthymemes are issues that are rarely
necessary for other words human
actions (Burnyeat, 1996). Seemingly these are considered to be
actions with which the three

kinds of speech are concerned: intolerable or exemplary acts,
policy measures and acts which
might be unfair (Walton, 2008). In his explanation, Aristotle
explains that the fact that
inferences can only be reached based on premises that belong to
similar classes (essential
inferences based on essential premises, and commonly non-
necessary inferences based on
commonly non-essential premises), the premises should have a
principally non-essential
content (Mailly, 2016). Based on this, Aristotle considers this
kind of non-essential premise is
seemingly created by semeia and eikota.
Even though Aristotle is connecting the nature of the premises
and the nature of the
conclusions, what he explains about the nature of rhetorical
premises and inferences is not
totally in keeping with the entire rhetoric (Hitchcock, 1985).
Different from what is proposed,
Aristotle's conclusions and premises are not completely of
expressive nature. In fact, the
content is usually considered to be more evaluative. Even
though other authors have focused on

solving the problem of premises and conclusions by declaring
eikos as a normative statement
and factual probability, this seems to be incredible based on
Aristotle's descriptions (McAdon,
2003). Aristotle sticks to tradition in his eikos’ description by
stating that it is mainly a
phenomenon in the whole globe, or at any rate of view of the
real globe: “that which is
recognized to commonly take place or not happen, or mostly is
not the case (Burnyeat, 1996).”
In eikos’ case, the are two types of semeion in the bigger sense
are mentioned too in rhetoric as
rhetorical premises and in prior analytics, as protasis
apodeiktike e anankaia e endoxos, this
means, a demonstrative premise which is either generally
accepted or necessary (Braet 1999).
Based on this interpretation, there is just a single deduction
possible: as premises, semeia and
eikota have descriptive content (Mailly, 2016). This means they
would also appear to be
suitable for arguing the kind of rhetorical deductions which
Aristotle originally had in mind
about Rhetoric- issues which unlike necessities only take place
always, or are possible. But it is

pertinent to look at the four examples of enthymemes explained
above to distinguish if Aristotle
did not regard either the premises or the conclusions of
enthymemes as limited to descriptive
claims (Walton, 2001). Out of the four examples, only the
second one has purely descriptive
assertions.
Some of the examples, which can probably also be perceived as
instances enthymemes are in
normative nature. Moreover, in the several places where
Aristotle mentions issues of rhetorical
(staseis and initially was referred to as amphosbiftiseis), he
proves that he understands that it is
just incomparable instances that rhetorical inferences refer to
descriptive queries (Mailly,
2016). Therefore, as regards the content of conclusions and
premises, the rhetoric would also
seem to have no consistency. In this case, Aristotle explains
that the orator ought to have
premises linked to the ends for conclusions to be reached of the
3 kinds of speech, on the other
hand, he reminds the audience that premises of enthymemes are

semeia, eikota, tekmeria
(Smith, 2007). In the first place, no inferences can be attained
concerning tell. In other words,
whether the proposal is not or is favorable, an individual’s
behavior praiseworthy is an act
considered unfair, based on this kind of descriptive premises
(Hitchcock, 1985). Furthermore,
in his premise’s treatment, Aristotle doesn’t limit to eikota
tekmeria as well as semeia though
this is frequently maintained based on different viewpoints or
perspectives.
There is similarly the likelihood that Aristotle has given much
preference to semeia and eikota
as enthymemes from the category of the argument that seems to
be the easiest way to decrease
to diagnostic syllogisms (Smith, 2007). In this case, current
information actually gives the
audience a better concept of the several contents of rhetorical
premises (Burnyeat, 1996).
Aristotle precisely states that the enthymeme from a non-
necessary sign is the only one of the
numerous potentials. As a result, because of the random
treatment, it is not possible to make a
thorough declaration on the scope of the contents of rhetorical

premises. One is motivated to
state that: the kind of premise which could be utilized in the 3
categories of speeches, but the
simple fact that Aristotle is continually sharing fictional
illustrations makes his stance hard to
determine.
A comprehensive argument or debate is far beyond the scope of
the current prompt. It shall be
sufficient to explain the penchant principles like "the scarce is
superior to the plentiful”. How
then can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the
semeia and eikota in
programmatic passages of the Rhetoric? Possibly it is because
of the central place of the semeia
and eikota in the rhetorical custom. That stance was mainly as a
result of the virtually limited
attention initially preserved for the judicial speech where the
evidence was presented as
credible or incredible (Mailly, 2016). This might have induced
Aristotle to use semeia and
eikota as a parity for the entire rhetorical premises. It is also
remarkable that the eikota and

semeia are provided with limited rights in exactly those
contexts of the Rhetoric where the
enthymeme is highly connected to the logical syllogism
(Kennedy, 1991). Possibly this mainly
for the reason that it highlights the difference with the usually
essential premises of the
Analytics.
The Enthymeme’s Formulation Focusing on Implicit Premise
In considering the issue of an implicit premise, there are several
views that can be summed up
as follows. According to Aristotle, an enthymeme is considered
to be a syllogism that has an
indirect or implied premise. This would later become the
standard definition. However, this
definition and interpretation are not taken seriously (Kennedy,
1991). Secondly, Aristotle
explained that an Enthymeme might contain the premise that
that has not been expressed,
which is not so essential. Furthermore, where Aristotle is
concerned, it is improper to speak
about implicit premises: the several enthymemes with just a
single premise in Rhetoric must
not be supplemented by the addition of an unexpected premise
(McAdon, 2003).

There are 4 different examples which presented as correct
enthymemes. However, these
differences are related to the sources and they are resultants of
existing, in most cases fictional
sources, contrary to the ones that have ostensibly been invented
(Hitchcock, 1985). Firstly, the
formulation difference lies in the enthymeme’s style. This is
where some of these examples are
formulated in a factual way. Thus, the audience is able to
understand that the impact of some of
the enthymemes is not even primarily to the structure and
content of the argument, but instead
to the arresting devising (Walton, 2001). With concern to this
literary feature, it can be
concluded that the outcomes of the enthymeme’s description-
both after and before Aristotle is
a striking devising.
Secondly, the formulation difference lies in the comprehensive
intricacy of the sentences that
make up the enthymemes in the examples. Aristotle presents
enthymemes that comprise
multifaceted speeches or statements. As a result, there are four

examples, which were derived
from the existing manuscripts and designed as enthymemes by
Aristotle (Mailly, 2016).
Conversely, Aristotle also uses simpler illustrations like “he is
sick, due to the fact that he has
infection” which are mainly presented as signs and were
seemingly invented to serve as an
example (McAdon, 2003). This difference in intricacy has the
main repercussions for the
reducibility of the instances to reasonable forms of argument.
The sign enthymemes, with their
terms, can be reduced to invalid or valid syllogisms from the
previous analytics which Aristotle
did in his last work, a procedure to which he referred in his
rhetoric (Walton, 2001).
Nevertheless, this is impossible where most complicated
examples are concerned about just
because they comprise many terms.
Generally, Aristotle used enthymeme in only two senses.
Aristotle employed the word for
arguments that exist in all authentic manuscripts, and which are
affected by stylistic formula

(Hitchcock, 1985). This means it is impossible to decrease the
examples to syllogistic formulae
of arguments based on Aristotle’s reasoning. In the framework
of the interpreted examples,
there is no reference to any pushy literary effect. As the initial
logic according to pre-
Aristotelian tradition and the second one with syllogistic of
Aristotle, which was established
comparatively late, a reader gets the impression that what
people see in that context is an old
and recent case (Mailly, 2016).
Structuring Enthymemes in Terms of Syllogistic and Topical
The question of ‘to what degree can people attribute to the
enthymeme a syllogistic
framework?’ has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s
works of literature in Aristotle's
critical role in determining one’s
stance in connection to Solmsen (Raphael, 1974). Some authors
have tried to answer explaining
the enthymeme model in post-analytic rhetoric with the
exemption of the strange pre-analytic
artifact- this interpretation is shared (Smith, 2007). Other
authors believe that such Rhetoric

has a double enthymeme model, and believes an enthymeme is
contemporary; this is the
position espoused by Ryan (1984). All these resulted in
argumentation theory. Therefore, in the
modern argumentation theory, the most interesting feature is
that many disputants are
attempting to resolve what seems like a wrong dilemma. They
thus share the supposition of
Solmsen that an enthymeme ought to be predicated on
syllogistic or topical framework
(Raphael, 1974). Nevertheless, those are in fact two contrasting
structures: a logical and
practical framework that is concerned with the logical structure
and argumentation scheme,
which focusses on the form of argument (Hitchcock, 1985). In
this case, there are two
categories of the framework that are not jointly high-class but
instead, combine into one
argumentation. This is not to explain that the knowledge that
the 2 are dissimilar and might be
merged is completely absent, but instead that no systematic and
explicit dissimilarity is made

between all the structural levels.
It is possible to discover that Aristotle does not seem to have
made this dissimilarity concerning
structural levels so that knowing this difference involves a relic.
However, according to McAdon
(2003), this is not supposed to be the case if one uses the
difference as a logical or diagnostic
tool, without explicitly accrediting it to Aristotle. In the re-
interpretation of the passages as
either syllogistic or contemporary enthymemes are overriding
(Raphael, 1974). In the first
passage argumentation, structures play a critical role, but direct
kinds of discussions are
similarly mentioned. In the subsequent passage, the converse is
the instance.
A topical structure, just like its contemporary concept and as
argumentation structure is
different from a logical framework. What needs to be made
clear is that that the two categories
of the structure are not substitutes, but instead deal with
dissimilar features of discussion
(Raphael, 1974). Then, from the perspective of contemporary
argumentation philosophers, it is
easy to explain how topical as well as logical structure plays a

critical role in the topical
enthymemes.
The Enthymemes Underpinning Brown V Board of Education
The issue in Brown’s case was whether the argument of the
plaintiff was correct and fourteenth
amendment followed about “separated public learning
institutions are not 'equal’ and it is
impossible to make them 'equal,' and that thus they are denied
the equal protection of the rules
and regulations.” Several premises surround this claim, and it is
exciting to tease most of them
out. The enthymeme explains 3 of its premises: separated public
learning institutions aren’t
equal, segregated learning institutions can’t be made equal and
the fourteenth amendment
demands that the entire public get equal protection of the rules
and regulations (Raphael,
1974). The inference that is emphasized to be followed in these
premises is that having
segregated schools breaches the equivalent protection act.
Unspecified, but comprehended premises consist of the
following: the public learning

institutions are created by rules and regulations; the rules and
regulations relating to education
are encompassed within the concept of protection of people (in
fact this was broadly argued,
but in this paper, only one unstated premise is quoted) (Mailly,
2016). In this case, it was
overtly addressed by Brown Court that fourteenth Amendment’s
protections apply to the
countries; that there is “race”; that some learning institutions
were isolated by race; that the
past settled cases allowing segregation but equivalent education
was incorrectly decided; that
the so-called separation is a malicious; that parity or
equivalence is an issue of mind and heart,
not just factually quantifiable criteria (Raphael, 1974).
Conclusion
In discussing the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric one can see
a change of pronunciation
from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of
Aristotle seems to be focused
on categories of the considerable relationship between a
premise and conclusion. His

arguments or ideas of departure were ideas and points that he
discovered in practice. This
consists of a topical approach that is explained by quoted
illustrations. In the last marginal---
ease, there is an effort to construe the enthymeme in terms of
prescribed syllogistic figures. As a
result, the variety of definite arguments are laid on the
Procrustean bed of definite syllogistics:
the syllogistic method, demonstrated with devised illustrations
from the syllogistic. While it is
logical that Aristotle wanted to make his clear findings of
syllogistics appropriate for the
evaluation and analysis of rhetorical argumentation, from the
perspective of argumentation
concept, that was an exceptionally doubtful initiative.
References
Allen, J. (2007). 2 “ARISTOTLE ON THE DISCIPLINES OF
ARGUMENT:
RHETORIC, DIALECTIC, ANALYTIC” IN RHETORICA 25:
87–108.
Aristotle’s Rhetoric. (2010, February 1). 3 RETRIEVED FROM
HTTPS://PLATO.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/ARISTOTLE-
RHETORIC/ BARNES,

J. (1981). 2 "PROOF AND THE SYLLOGISM." In E. 2 BERTI
(ED.), ARISTOTLE
ON SCIENCE: THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS.' Padova:
Antenore, 17-59.
Bitzer, L. F. (1959). 2 “ARISTOTLE'S ENTHYMEME
REVISITED.” IN QUARTERLY
JOURNAL OF SPEECH 45: 399–408.
Braet, A. C. (1999). 4 THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S
RHETORIC: From
argumentation theory to logic. Informal logic, 19(2).
5 BURNYEAT, M.F. (1994). "Enthymeme: 6 ARISTOTLE ON
THE LOGIC OF
PERSUASION." In D.J. 2 FURLEY AND A. NEHAMAS
(EDS.), ARISTOTLE'S
RHETORIC. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: 2 PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY PRESS, 3-
55.
5 BURNYEAT, M.F. (1996). "Enthymeme: 2 ARISTOTLE ON
THE RATIONALITY
OF RHETORIC." In A. 5 OKSENBERG RORTY (ED.),
ESSAYS ON ARISTOTLE'S

RHETORIC. 2 BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON: 5
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA PRESS, 88-115.
Conley, Th.J. (1984). 6 "THE ENTHYMEME IN
PERSPECTIVE." QUARTERLY
JOURNAL OF SPEECH 70, 168-187.
Cronkhite, G. (1966). 2 “THE ENTHYMEME AS DEDUCTIVE
RHETORICAL
ARGUMENT.” IN WESTERN SPEECH JOURNAL 30: 129–134
Hitchcock, David, (1985). "Enthymematic Arguments." informal
Logic 7, 83-97.
5 KENNEDY, G.A. (1991). 2 ARISTOTLE ON RHETORIC. 5
A THEORY OF CIVIC
DISCOURSE. 2 NEWLY TRANSLATED WITH
INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND
APPENDIXES. NEW YORK AND OXFORD: OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Mailly, J. G. (2016). Using enthymemes to fill the gap between
logical argumentation and
revision of abstract argumentation frameworks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1603.08789.
McAdon, B. (2003). Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia,

and Topoi: The Confusing
Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the" Rhetoric"
Philosophy & rhetoric, 36(3), 223-
247.
Pfister, D. S., & Woods, C. S. (2016). The unnaturalistic
enthymeme: 7 FIGURATION,
INTERPRETATION, AND CRITIQUE AFTER DIGITAL
MEDIATION. Argumentation
and Advocacy, 52(4), 236-253.
Raphael, S. (1974). 8 "RHETORIC, DIALECTIC AND
SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENT:
Aristotle's Position in 'Rhetoric' 2 I-II." Phronesis 19,153-167.
Smith, V. J. (2007). 9 ARISTOTLE'S CLASSICAL
ENTHYMEME AND THE VISUAL
ARGUMENTATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.
Argumentation and
Advocacy, 43(3-4), 114-123.
Walton, D. (2008). The three bases for the enthymeme: A
dialogical theory. Journal of Applied
Logic, 6(3), 361-379.
Walton, D. N. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and
plausible inference. Philosophy &

rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.
Walton, D., & Reed, C. A. (2005). Argumentation schemes and
enthymemes. Synthese, 145(3),
339-370.
Weidemann, H. (1989). 2 “ARISTOTLE ON INFERENCES
FROM SIGNS (RHETORIC
I 2, 1357B1–25).” IN PHRONESIS 34: 343–351.
Citations (9/9)
Matched Text
1 Another student's paper
2 https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristotle-
rhetoric/
4 https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2003/entries/aristotle-
rhetoric/
5 http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-
religious-argument-as-enthymeme-aristotle-paul-
and-anselm/
6 http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-charles-
s-peirces-theory-of-abduction-and-the-
aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/

8
http://capone.mtsu.edu/jcomas/rhetoric/aristotle_dialectic.html
9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=515973
Suspected Entry: 69% match
Uploaded -
JUDICIAL RHETORIC (THE ENTHYMEME IN
ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC) YOLANDA MCNEIL
Source - Another student's paper
Judicial Rhetoric Yolanda McNeil
Uploaded -
ENGL 570 TERM PAPER
ENGL 570 Term Paper Outline
Uploaded -
IN COMBINATION WITH RHETORIC THEORY THAT

TRACES ITS ROOTS BACK TO ANTIQUE GREECE,
WHERE “RHETORIC” DENOTED THE ART OF
PUBLIC SPEAKING AS IT ADVANCED UNDER THE
STATUTORY RÉGIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE 4TH
AND 5TH-CENTURY ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
The research intends to use a classical rhetoric theory
which traces its roots back to antique Greece, where
“rhetoric” denotated the art of public speaking as it
advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the
4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy
Uploaded -
THE ORDINARY CITIZEN LACKED THE WIDE-
RANGING KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND ITS
PROCEDURES THAT THE PROFESSIONAL
LAWYER DID, HOWEVER, IT WAS GREAT TO HIS
ADVANTAGE TO HAVE WIDE-RANGING
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TACTICS OF DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTION
The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging
knowledge of the law and its procedures that the
professional lawyer did, however, it was great to his
advantage to have wide-ranging knowledge of the
tactics of defense and prosecution

Uploaded -
AS A RESULT, THE SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC DID
A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN TRAINING THE
LAYPERSON TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN COURT OR
TO PROSECUTE AN OFFENDING NEIGHBOR
As a result, the schools of rhetoric did a flourishing
business in training the layperson to defend himself in
court or to prosecute an offending neighbor
Uploaded -
AS SUCH, JUDICIAL RHETORIC PROMOTES
JUSTICE AND IDENTIFIES INJUSTICE BY
APPEALING TO THE LAW
Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies
injustice by appealing to the law
Uploaded -
'FORENSIC SPEECH ACCEPTS AS GIVEN THE
LAWS OF THE POLIS,&APOS

'Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the
polis,&apos
Uploaded -
SO THE SECTION ON JUDICIAL RHETORIC USES
ENTHYMEMES TO ADJUST 'PARTICULAR CASES
TO GENERAL LAWS
so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to
adjust 'particular cases to general laws
Uploaded -
ARISTOTLE DEFINED THE ENTHYMEME AS A
BODY OF PERSUASION, SUGGESTING THAT
EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT OR AN ADDITION
TO THE CORE OF THE PERSUASION
PROCEDURE
Source -
https://seop.illc.uva.nl/archives/sum2010/entries/aristot
le-rhetoric/
Aristotle calls the enthymeme the “body of
persuasion”, implying that everything else is only an
addition or accident to the core of the persuasive

process
Uploaded -
STILL, OTHER ENTHYMEMES ARE CREATED
FROM SIGNS (BITZER, 1959)
Source -
le-rhetoric/
still other enthymemes are built from signs
Uploaded -
THEREFORE, THE ENTHYMEMES FORMULATION
IS A DIALECTIC MATTER, AND SUCH A
DIALECTICIAN HAS THE CAPABILITY REQUIRED
FOR THE CREATION OF ENTHYMEMES (ALLEN,
2007)
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Thus, the formulation of enthymemes is a matter of
dialectic, and the dialectician has the competence that
is needed for the construction of enthymemes

Uploaded -
WHEN THE ENTHYMEMES ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE A SUBCLASS OF DIALECTICAL OPINIONS,
THEN THAT SEEMS TO BE ORDINARY OF
NORMAL TO EXPECT AN EXPLICIT DIFFERENCE
BY WHICH ONE CAN TELL ENTHYMEMES APART
FROM ALL OTHER KINDS OF DIALECTICAL
ARGUMENTS (ALLEN, 2007)
Source -
le-rhetoric/
If enthymemes are a subclass of dialectical
arguments, then it is natural to expect a specific
difference by which one can tell enthymemes apart
from all other kinds of dialectical arguments
(traditionally, commentators regarded logical
incompleteness as such a difference
Uploaded -
INSTEAD, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN
INDICATION OF A WELL-IMPLEMENTED
ENTHYMEME THAT THE CONTENT AND THE
NUMBER OF ITS PREMISES ARE ATTUNED TO

THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AUDIENCE IN
PUBLIC
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Rather, it is a sign of a well-executed enthymeme that
the content and the number of its premises are
adjusted to the intellectual capacities of the public
audience
Uploaded -
“ARISTOTLE ON THE DISCIPLINES OF
ARGUMENT
Source -
le-rhetoric/
“Aristotle on the Disciplihnes of Argument
Uploaded -
RHETORIC, DIALECTIC, ANALYTIC” IN
RHETORICA 25
Source -

le-rhetoric/
Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic” In Rhetorica 25
Uploaded -
"PROOF AND THE SYLLOGISM."
Source -
le-rhetoric/
“Proof and the Syllogism.” In
Uploaded -
BERTI (ED.), ARISTOTLE ON SCIENCE
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Berti (ed.), Aristotle on Science
Uploaded -

THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS.&APOS
Source -
le-rhetoric/
The Posterior Analytics
Uploaded -
“ARISTOTLE'S ENTHYMEME REVISITED.” IN
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH 45
Source -
le-rhetoric/
“Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited.” In Quarterly
Journal of Speech 45
Uploaded -
FURLEY AND A
Source -
le-rhetoric/

Furley and A
Uploaded -
NEHAMAS (EDS.), ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric
Uploaded -
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 3-55
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Princeton University Press
Uploaded -

ARISTOTLE ON THE RATIONALITY OF
RHETORIC."
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Aristotle, On Rhetoric
Uploaded -
BERKELEY, LOS ANGELES, LONDON
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Berkeley/Los Angeles/London
Uploaded -
“THE ENTHYMEME AS DEDUCTIVE RHETORICAL
ARGUMENT.” IN WESTERN SPEECH JOURNAL 30
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Rhetorical Argument.” In Western Speech Journal 30

Uploaded -
ARISTOTLE ON RHETORIC
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Aristotle, On Rhetoric
Uploaded -
NEWLY TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION,
NOTES, AND APPENDIXES
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Civic Discourse, Newly Translated, with Introduction,
Notes and
Uploaded -
NEW YORK AND OXFORD

Source -
le-rhetoric/
Appendices, New York/Oxford
Uploaded -
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Source -
le-rhetoric/
Oxford University Press
Uploaded -
I-II."
Source -
le-rhetoric/
I & II and

Uploaded -
“ARISTOTLE ON INFERENCES FROM SIGNS
(RHETORIC I 2, 1357B1–25).” IN PHRONESIS 34
Source -
le-rhetoric/
“Aristotle on Inferences from Signs (Rhetoric I 2,
1357b1–25).” In Phronesis 34
Uploaded -
RETRIEVED FROM
HTTPS://PLATO.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/ARISTO
TLE-RHETORIC/ BARNES, J
Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Uploaded -
THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC

Source -
le-rhetoric/
“Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited.” In
Uploaded -
BURNYEAT, M.F
Source - http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-
proceedings-2002-religious-argument-as-enthymeme-
aristotle-paul-and-anselm/
Burnyeat, M.F
Uploaded -
BURNYEAT, M.F
Burnyeat, M.F
Uploaded -

OKSENBERG RORTY (ED.), ESSAYS ON
ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC
Rorty (Ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (pp
Uploaded -
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, 88-115
University of California Press
Uploaded -
KENNEDY, G.A

Kennedy, G.A
Uploaded -
A THEORY OF CIVIC DISCOURSE
A Theory of Civic Discourse
Uploaded -
ARISTOTLE ON THE LOGIC OF PERSUASION."
proceedings-2002-charles-s-peirces-theory-of-
abduction-and-the-aristotelian-enthymeme-from-signs/
Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion
Uploaded -
"THE ENTHYMEME IN PERSPECTIVE."

The Enthymeme in Perspective
Uploaded -
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH 70, 168-187
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 168-187
Uploaded -
FIGURATION, INTERPRETATION, AND CRITIQUE
AFTER DIGITAL MEDIATION
Figuration, Interpretation, and Critique
Uploaded -

"RHETORIC, DIALECTIC AND SYLLOGISTIC
ARGUMENT
Source -
http://capone.mtsu.edu/jcomas/rhetoric/aristotle_dialec
tic.html
“Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument
Uploaded -
ARISTOTLE'S CLASSICAL ENTHYMEME AND THE
VISUAL ARGUMENTATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY
Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?curid=515973
"Aristotle's Classical Enthymeme and the Visual
Argumentation of the Twenty First Century"
Running head: THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S
RHETORIC 1
THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC 22
Term Project: Judicial Rhetoric (The Enthymeme in Aristotle's
Rhetoric)
Yolanda McNeil
ENGL 570 Term Paper
Liberty University

Introduction
The concept of enthymeme has been broadly discussed as a
subject in argumentation theory and informal logic. All
contemporary theorists understand that the enthymeme concept
date back to Aristotle Rhetoric. They are convinced that the
term ‘syllogism’ which ascribed to this concept in introductions
to logic diverges from original Aristotelian perception. But
what few individuals are not sure is that scholars of ancient
philosophy and philologists are still passionately debating the
matter of detailed sense of this concept in Rhetoric (Conley,
1984). As a result, there is just one point that all theorists
agree: the enthymeme has changed since Aristotle's original
discussions of it. In overall, the approach of Aristotle to the
enthymemes in the Rhetoric seems to change from
argumentative theory to logic. Comment by Author: Avoid
absolutes. There might be some who don’t credit him.
Comment by Author: dates Comment by Author:
missing the word “of?” “Not sure of. . . “ Comment by
Author: missing a word here? Comment by Author: You could
combine these sentences for one statement since they are so
close in content. Comment by Author: omit
Research Purpose
This research paper provides an analysis of how Aristotle
ascribes to the enthymeme. That will be achieved from the
perception of argumentation theory in explaining how
enthymeme has presented in different perspectives. The
advantages of argumentation theory include the following: it

supplements the dominant logical approach presented in 2
highly enlightened researches by Burnyeat (1994) which
emphasizes the question of logical validity of the link between
the premise and deduction. Secondly, that method is better
calculated to outline parallels in contemporary ‘enthymeme
issues. Comment by Author: Has been
Or “is” Comment by Author: Spell out numbers under 100
Comment by Author: punctuation
The research intends to use an argumentative theory which is
the study of how deductions can be arrived at through
reasonable thinking, that is, soundly, claim based or not on-
premises. It comprises rules of logic and inference in speeches
and premises. In combination with rhetoric theory that traces
its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denoted the
art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime,
especially in the 4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy.
Comment by Author: So are you saying that you’re using
argumentation for this paper? Or are you using argumentation
theory as the context for enthymeme?
The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging knowledge of the
law and its procedures that the professional lawyer did,
however, it was great to his advantage to have wide-ranging
knowledge of the tactics of defense and prosecution. As a
result, the schools of rhetoric did a successful business in
training the layperson to defend himself in court or to prosecute
an offending neighbor. As such, Judicial rhetoric promotes
justice and identifies injustice by appealing to the law. 'Forensic
speech accepts as given the laws of the polis,' so the section on
judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to adjust 'particular cases to
general laws. Comment by Author: Comma splice Comment by
Author: ThoughCo Comment by Author: This information
comes directly from ThoughtCo and is stated in the same way.
As I stated in your outline, ThoughtCo isn’t really a peer-
reviewed secondary source; instead, it gives more of a generally
accepted overview of content.

Also, this is also a significant issue of plagiarism as you’ve
used material from another site and not cited it correctly. I
commented on this in the outline and warned that it needed to
be removed from the final paper.
Research Questions
This project seeks to answer the following questions
· What is the implicit premise in the term enthymeme?
This question can be examined by considering what can be seen
as the clearest case that enthymeme can be reduced to logical
syllogism, as it happens in the context.
· To what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a
syllogistic framework, in the sense of the previous analytics?
This question has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s
works of literature in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Currently, the
answers to that query still play a critical role in determining
one’s stance in connection to Solmsen.
· How can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the
semeia (signs) and eikota (probabilities) in programmatic
passages of the Rhetoric?
This question explains the central place of the semeia and
eikota in the rhetorical custom as explained by Aristotle. That
stance was mainly as a result of the virtually limited attention
initially preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence
was presented as credible or incredible.
The Enthymeme Explained
Aristotle explained that enthymeme occurs in an argument
where certain premises or things are not explicitly stated. The 3
properties that Aristotle ascribes to enthymeme include the
following: the first one is that enthymemes deal with mainly
non-essential issues, namely human actions and in this case are
derived from signs and probabilities (Braet, 1999). Secondly, an
enthymeme is used because of the benefit of the uneducated
audience, and this makes a succinct formulation more suitable.
Furthermore, as accustomed presumptions can be left
unexpressed, an enthymeme is usually derived from a few

statements as compared to premises (Pfister, & Woods, 2016).
Lastly, just like dialectical sullogimoi, enthymemes are
considered to be the kind of sullogismoi whereby common and
relatively formal topics as contrary to material and special
topics like idia; even though enthymemes from common topics
are perceived as more characteristic of rhetoric (McAdon,
2003). Comment by Author: This flagged as coming from
another source. While you do have a citation at the end of this,
the wording follows the original source. Without quotation
marks, this is another form of plagiarism.
As can be seen, the construal of the three properties has not
been agreed by the scholars. This is because of the uncertainty
that surrounds the text passages discussed by the theorists.
Based on this, it might be valuable to supplement these with
examples of enthymemes, although because of those present
problems it is not clear whether a specific example is
essentially an enthymeme (Walton, 2008). The examples that
are explicitly designated as enthymemes by Aristotle are as
follows: “it is not right for the individual who is sharp to have
kids taught to be intelligent, for on top of idleness they incur
hostile jealousy from fellow citizens”, taken from Medea; in
case the reason is omitted, this enthymeme becomes a maxim
(Conley, 1984). “There is no person who is free because he is a
slave of chance or money”, taken from Hecuba; here the
omission of the reason leads to maxim. “It would be dreadful if
in exile people fight to come home, but when they are at home,
they are forced into exile in order to cease from fighting,” taken
from Lysias speech; of all the examples it is only this one that
is explicitly termed an enthymeme (Walton & Reed, 2005).
Lastly, if it is essential to seek conciliations whenever such
changes are more profitable and more advantageous, then it is
essential to seek some of the changes if someone is successful
(Pfister, & Woods, 2016). All these examples demonstrate how
the enthymeme has been changing since Aristotle's original
discussions of it. Comment by Author: I this an attribution to
a source or something discussed within another source?

Enthymeme as Dialectical Arguments
Aristotle defined the enthymeme as a body of persuasion,
suggesting that everything is an accident or an addition to the
core of the persuasion procedure. The rationale why the
enthymeme, as rhetorical demonstration or proof must be
considered to be core to the rhetorical procedure of persuasion
is that people are easily convinced when they think that
anything must be demonstrated (Bitzer, 1959). Therefore, this
rudimentary concept of rhetorical demonstration appears to be
like this: to create a target one has to believe that b, the speaker
should in the first place choose a sentence c or some sentences
c1 … cn that is previously adopted by the target group.
Secondly, Aristotle is supposed to show that c might be
derivative of b or c1 … bn, using b or b1 … bn as premises
(Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). Due to the fact that the target
individuals form their opinions according to rational standards,
they will accept c as soon as they are able to comprehend
that c can be verified based on their own views. Comment by
Author: This entire section is taken from the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
You have citations within the paragraph, but they do not align
with the material presented. They are citations included in the
website’s reference list, but these statements are not coming
from the sources you’ve identified here.
Subsequently, the enthymeme's creation is principally the issue
of inferring from accepted views (endoxa) (Aristotle’s Rhetoric,
2010). In fact, it is similarly very probable to use premises that
might not be generally recognized by themselves, but maybe
derived from usually recognized views; other premises are only
acknowledged because the orator is regarded trustworthy; still,
other enthymemes are created from signs (Bitzer, 1959). That
the conclusion is formed from acknowledged views—contrary to
inferences from the original and correct principles or
sentences—is the significant aspect of dialectical argumentation
in the sense of Aristotelian (Weidemann, 1989). Therefore, the

enthymemes formulation is a dialectic matter, and such a
dialectician has the capability required for the creation of
enthymemes (Allen, 2007). When the enthymemes are
considered to be a subclass of dialectical opinions, then that
seems to be ordinary of normal to expect an explicit difference
by which one can tell enthymemes apart from all other kinds of
dialectical arguments (Allen, 2007). Nonetheless, this
expectancy is in some way misinformed: The enthymeme is
dissimilar from other categories of dialectical opinions, as far
as it is used in the rhetorical framework of public speaking (and
rhetorical arguments are termed ‘enthymemes’); therefore, no
additional qualitative or formal dissimilarities are required
(Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).
Nevertheless, in considering rhetorical framework there are 2
different aspects that the dialectician should have in mind if
he/she desires to be a rhetorician in the future, and if the
dialectical argument is to develop to be an effective
enthymeme. Firstly, the distinctive themes of public speeches
do not—as a dialectic subject and theoretic viewpoint—belong
to the stuff that is essentially the case, but is amongst the stuff
that is the goal of pragmatic discussion and can as well as be
otherwise (Braet, 1999). Secondly, as contrary to well-trained
dialecticians the readers of public speeches are categorized by a
logical inadequacy; apart from that, the jury or assembly
members are not familiarized with subsequent a lengthier chain
of interpretations. Thus, enthymemes should not be as specific
and detailed as a scientific justification and must be brief as
compared to a normal or usual dialectical argument (Aristotle’s
Rhetoric, 2010). This, nevertheless, is not to state that the
enthymeme is described by brevity and incompleteness. Instead,
it is considered to be an indication of a well-implemented
enthymeme that the content and the number of its premises are
attuned to the intelligence of the audience in public; however,
an enthymeme that fails to integrate these qualities is still
considered to be enthymeme. Comment by Author: This is also
from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Concision of the Enthymeme
Aristotle explained that the enthymeme regularly has fewer
premises than some other inferences. Due to the fact that most
translators refer the name ‘sullogismos’ to the syllogistic
theory, where an appropriate inference has two premises only,
those sentences have resulted to the common understanding that
Aristotle describes the enthymeme as a sullogismos in where
two premises have been repressed, in other words as a
shortened, unfinished syllogism (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010).
But certainly, the cited passages do not try to provide the right
enthymeme’s definition, nor does the name ‘sullogismos’
essentially mean inferences with two premises only
(Weidemann, 1989). Correctly comprehended, both passages
revolve around choosing the right premise, not about
intellectual incompleteness. The comment that enthymeme
regularly has fewer premises concludes the argument of 2 likely
errors the speaker could make. As such, one can draw
deductions from stuff that has formerly been construed or from
stuff that is yet to be construed (Cronkhite, 1966). The last
technique is not persuasive, because the premises are yet to be
accepted, or are yet to be introduced. The earlier technique is
challenging too: if the speaker is supposed to introduce the
desired premises by the other conclusion, and the premises of
this pre-conclusion too, one shall come to an end with a longer
chain of conclusions (Cronkhite, 1966). Arguments that have
many inferential phases are very common in dialectical
exercise, but it is impossible to expect the public speaking
audience to follow those longer arguments. That is the reason
Aristotle explains that the enthymeme has been and must be
from a few premises. Comment by Author: This comes from
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Enthymeme in Legal Reasoning Structure
This type of reasoning is deductive which is through the use of
rhetoric syllogism that Aristotle termed enthymeme. An
enthymeme is almost the same as legal reasoning structure:
universal rule or state general apply it to a specific

circumstance (the facts) and then reach a deduction (Braet,
1999). What differentiates an enthymeme from scientific or
strictly logical syllogism flows from the differences in their
spheres. In science and math, the syllogism deals with
universally true conclusions (Conley, 1984). In rhetoric and in
all fields applicable to rhetoric, for example, politics and law,
arguments are based on probabilities and likelihoods, not
certainties.
The kind of probability that Aristotle is discussing is not just
frequency or commonness, but instead, it is the probability
where “whatever, among things that can be other than what they
are, therefore it is so linked to that in respect to which it is
possible as universal is to a specific (McAdon, 2003).
According to Aristotle, something is possible when it is a
specific example of a general rule. To be certain, general rules
are general since they mirror frequent or common occurrences,
but the enthymematic probability is, to Aristotle, predicated on
frequency as such, but instead on the link of the generally
factual statement to specific example (McAdon, 2003).
The basic framework of a syllogism is the main premise, minor
premise, and conclusion. The easiest way to understand is
through the popular example: all humans are mortal, Socrates is
a humanoid, thus Socrates is mortal. To put it in the right
context, the main premise is an overall statement about some
condition or some set which is universally correct (within the
set of all human, all are considered mortal); the minor premise
is an exact statement regarding a particular thing within the
general set (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Socrates is considered to
be a member of the sets of the human); the deduction essentially
follows if minor and major premises are correct.
Kennedy (1991) explained in symbolic logic that syllogism is
expressed as if all X is Y, and some X is Z, then all Z is Y 68
“X” =humans; “Y” =mortal; “Z” = Socrates. The language in the
formal statement gets a bit odd, but that is how it works.
Replace “Z” with “Greeks” and the “is” with “are” in the last 2
clauses, and it sounds a bit better: “if all human beings are

mortal, and some members of the team of humans are Greeks,
then all Greeks are considered to be mortal. In a formal
syllogism and logic all of the premises should be cited
explicitly (Kennedy, 1991). In an enthymeme or rhetorical
syllogism, frequently several premises are unstated due to the
fact that Aristotle, “if a single premise is known, it does not
have to be specified, because the hearer purpose to supply it.
This means there are often several premises where inferences
rest and to explain to them all should be nearly impossible or
even truly impossible in some circumstances (Kennedy, 1991).
For the audience to supply the absent premise, the enthymeme
ought to be predicated on the premise that the audience believes
or knows to be factual. Explained the other way, the enthymeme
shall be ineffective if the unexplained premise is part and parcel
of the basic understanding.
Even if it is possible to establish and express the information
being depended on for inference, it would tremendously tedious
to do that. Some of the US citizens find it easy to understand
the statement such as “the marathoner won a silver medal” to
denote that marathoner was the second one in the race as
specified by Burnyeat (1994). Unspecified is premises like the
silver medals are awarded for the second place; the marathoner
was participating in the race; second place denotes that the
marathoner was beaten by the first marathoner in the race; the
race had other participants; it was an official competition and
not just buddies competing for the sake of leisure (Braet, 1999).
Hitchcock (1985) explains that in an enthymeme, the premises,
statements as well as conclusions are not normally absolute;
they have the tendency of being couched in terms of
possibilities. Things such as “children who are hungry
sometimes steal to get food” or “children shall commonly be
interrupted by thunder” are the stuff of enthymemes (Conley,
1984). This is the actual abode of the enthymeme- drawing an
inference that might be correct on the basis of the strongest,
most probable generalizations that a person can bring forth to
construe the circumstance.

Aristotle similarly identified deceptive enthymemes, premises
which tend or seem to be enthymemes, but aren’t (Conley,
1984). Since enthymeme deal with possibilities instead of the
certainties, what individuals find most convincing is an
elucidation that comports most strongly with their own
experience and understanding (Hitchcock, 1985). This is the
only way connection is made. An enthymeme created outside
the experience of the audience, irrespective of how persuasive
or strong or appropriate it might otherwise be, it shall not
persuade.
The bright scholar and shrewd observer, anthropologist Geertz
Clifford offers a strong example of the significance of linking
up with the audience. Geertz criticizes anthropologist Evans-
Pritchard’s explanation of Azande witchery. Consider a Zande
teenager, Evans-Pritchard states “who has banged his foot on a
tree stump and got poisoned.” The teenager responds it is
witchery. Nonsense, utters Evans-Pritchard, out of his common-
sense habit: you were just bloody uncaring; you must have
keenly observed where you were heading. I looked where I was
heading; you have to be with so numerous stumps around, says
the teenager - and if I had not been witched, I would have been
able to see it (Conley, 1984). Moreover, all wounds take a few
days to heal for that is the nature of wounds. But this one
embittered, thus witchery should be involved (Braet, 1999).
Therefore, nevertheless “spiritual” the content of Zande
witchery beliefs might or might not be, they are actually
employed by the Zande in a mysterious way - as an explanation
and defense of the actual claims of idiomatic reason. Behind the
above reflections upon stubbed foot, sour stomachs and spoiled
pots lies a tissue of common-sense concepts that the Zande
ostensibly consider as being factual on their face: that minor
cuts usually heal quickly.
It is worthy to note how the Zande teenager’s elucidation for the
witchery and infection makes sense within the culture of Zande,
although it doesn’t make sense under present western ideals of
common sense or from western perception of human activity

and human nature (individuals at some point stub their toes) and
infection (some wounds get infected and never heal quickly)
(Kennedy, 1991). Knowing about the culture of Zande would
affect how a person would go about the issue of introducing
some biology-based medicinal approaches to treat them.
The Enthymeme’s Content Focusing on Semeia and Eikota
Comment by Author: This is Braet’s 1999 section title.
Various authors have tried to explain enthymeme in the
perspective of semeia and eikota. Those authors particularly the
ones who believe in the logical approach declined the concept
of implied premises explaining they are important stuff of
enthymemes. Most of these authors have maintained that it is
only idiosyncratic aspects that can be found in the content of
enthymemes. These authors point to these issues as rhetoric and
previous analytics where enthymeme is sullogismos from
semeia and eikota. This viewpoint was recently criticized from
within their own stances by Burnyeat (1994). He could be right,
but his reasoning according to Aristotle, this argument can only
be found outside rhetoric and it is not strong than the
reflections which conclude that apart from semeia and eikota,
rhetorical premises have other signs (Burnyeat, 1996).
Comment by Author: Braet 1999
Semeion is also defined as a premise of enthymeme in his prior
analytics and. This means semeion is an event or situation
which denotes accompanying event or circumstance (Hitchcock,
1985). Aristotle uses illustrations that are principal although not
solely concerned with some signs. He differentiates between
signs whereby signified and sign continuously go together, this
kind of semeion has a distinct term: the tekmerion (necessary
signs) whereby signified and sign frequently go together (there
is no distinct term for this kind, but it is denoted as semeion in
the strict sense) (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle noted that the
tekmeria takes place only intermittently.
Aristotle mentioned semeia and eikota first time in the rhetoric
when he explained that those are premises where enthymemes
are derived. In Aristotle’s opinion, this is due to the fact that

the inferences of enthymemes are issues that are rarely
necessary for other words human actions (Burnyeat, 1996).
Seemingly these are considered to be actions with which the
three kinds of speech are concerned: intolerable or exemplary
acts, policy measures and acts which might be unfair (Walton,
2008). In his explanation, Aristotle explains that the fact that
inferences can only be reached based on premises that belong to
similar classes (essential inferences based on essential
premises, and commonly non-necessary inferences based on
commonly non-essential premises), the premises should have a
principally non-essential content (Mailly, 2016). Based on this,
Aristotle considers this kind of non-essential premise is
seemingly created by semeia and eikota. Comment by Author:
This section is taken directly from Braet 1999
Even though Aristotle is connecting the nature of the premises
and the nature of the conclusions, what he explains about the
nature of rhetorical premises and inferences is not totally in
keeping with the entire rhetoric (Hitchcock, 1985). Different
from what is proposed, Aristotle's conclusions and premises are
not completely of expressive nature. In fact, the content is
usually considered to be more evaluative. Even though other
authors have focused on solving the problem of premises and
conclusions by declaring eikos as a normative statement and
factual probability, this seems to be incredible based on
Aristotle's descriptions (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle sticks to
tradition in his eikos’ description by stating that it is mainly a
phenomenon in the whole globe, or at any rate of view of the
real globe: “that which is recognized to commonly take place or
not happen, or mostly is not the case (Burnyeat, 1996).”
Comment by Author: This is also following Braet 1999
In eikos’ case, the are two types of semeion in the bigger sense
are mentioned too in rhetoric as rhetorical premises and in prior
analytics, as protasis apodeiktike e anankaia e endoxos, this
means, a demonstrative premise which is either generally
accepted or necessary (Braet 1999). Based on this
interpretation, there is just a single deduction possible: as

premises, semeia and eikota have descriptive content (Mailly,
2016). This means they would also appear to be suitable for
arguing the kind of rhetorical deductions which Aristotle
originally had in mind about Rhetoric- issues which unlike
necessities only take place always, or are possible. But it is
pertinent to look at the four examples of enthymemes explained
above to distinguish if Aristotle did not regard either the
premises or the conclusions of enthymemes as limited to
descriptive claims (Walton, 2001). Out of the four examples,
only the second one has purely descriptive assertions.
Some of the examples, which can probably also be perceived as
instances enthymemes are in normative nature. Moreover, in the
several places where Aristotle mentions issues of rhetorical
(staseis and initially was referred to as amphosbiftiseis), he
proves that he understands that it is just incomparable instances
that rhetorical inferences refer to descriptive queries (Mailly,
2016). Therefore, as regards the content of conclusions and
premises, the rhetoric would also seem to have no consistency.
In this case, Aristotle explains that the orator ought to have
premises linked to the ends for conclusions to be reached of the
3 kinds of speech, on the other hand, he reminds the audience
that premises of enthymemes are semeia, eikota, tekmeria
(Smith, 2007). In the first place, no inferences can be attained
concerning tell. In other words, whether the proposal is not or is
favorable, an individual’s behavior praiseworthy is an act
considered unfair, based on this kind of descriptive premises
(Hitchcock, 1985). Furthermore, in his premise’s treatment,
Aristotle doesn’t limit to eikota tekmeria as well as semeia
though this is frequently maintained based on different
viewpoints or perspectives.
There is similarly the likelihood that Aristotle has given much
preference to semeia and eikota as enthymemes from the
category of the argument that seems to be the easiest way to
decrease to diagnostic syllogisms (Smith, 2007). In this case,
current information actually gives the audience a better concept
of the several contents of rhetorical premises (Burnyeat, 1996).

Aristotle precisely states that the enthymeme from a non-
necessary sign is the only one of the numerous potentials. As a
result, because of the random treatment, it is not possible to
make a thorough declaration on the scope of the contents of
rhetorical premises. One is motivated to state that: the kind of
premise which could be utilized in the 3 categories of speeches,
but the simple fact that Aristotle is continually sharing fictional
illustrations makes his stance hard to determine.
A comprehensive argument or debate is far beyond the scope of
the current prompt. It shall be sufficient to explain the penchant
principles like "the scarce is superior to the plentiful”. How
then can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the
semeia and eikota in programmatic passages of the
Rhetoric?Possibly it is because of the central place of the
semeia and eikota in the rhetorical custom. That stance was
mainly as a result of the virtually limited attention initially
preserved for the judicial speech where the evidence was
presented as credible or incredible (Mailly, 2016). This might
have induced Aristotle to use semeia and eikota as a parity for
the entire rhetorical premises. It is also remarkable that the
eikota and semeia are provided with limited rights in exactly
those contexts of the Rhetoric where the enthymeme is highly
connected to the logical syllogism (Kennedy, 1991). Possibly
this mainly for the reason that it highlights the difference with
the usually essential premises of the Analytics.
The Enthymeme’s Formulation Focusing on Implicit Premise
Comment by Author: This is the same title as a section in
Braet 1999 Comment by Author: This is taken directly from
Braet 1999
In considering the issue of an implicit premise, there are several
views that can be summed up as follows. According to Aristotle,
an enthymeme is considered to be a syllogism that has an
indirect or implied premise. This would later become the
standard definition. However, this definition and interpretation
are not taken seriously (Kennedy, 1991). Secondly, Aristotle
explained that an Enthymeme might contain the premise that

that has not been expressed, which is not so essential.
Furthermore, where Aristotle is concerned, it is improper to
speak about implicit premises: the several enthymemes with just
a single premise in Rhetoric must not be supplemented by the
addition of an unexpected premise (McAdon, 2003).
There are 4 different examples which presented as correct
enthymemes. However, these differences are related to the
sources and they are resultants of existing, in most cases
fictional sources, contrary to the ones that have ostensibly been
invented (Hitchcock, 1985). Firstly, the formulation difference
lies in the enthymeme’s style. This is where some of these
examples are formulated in a factual way. Thus, the audience is
able to understand that the impact of some of the enthymemes is
not even primarily to the structure and content of the argument,
but instead to the arresting devising (Walton, 2001). With
concern to this literary feature, it can be concluded that the
outcomes of the enthymeme’s description-both after and before
Aristotle is a striking devising.
Secondly, the formulation difference lies in the comprehensive
intricacy of the sentences that make up the enthymemes in the
examples. Aristotle presents enthymemes that comprise
multifaceted speeches or statements. As a result, there are four
examples, which were derived from the existing manuscripts
and designed as enthymemes by Aristotle (Mailly, 2016).
Conversely, Aristotle also uses simpler illustrations like “he is
sick, due to the fact that he has infection” which are mainly
presented as signs and were seemingly invented to serve as an
example (McAdon, 2003). This difference in intricacy has the
main repercussions for the reducibility of the instances to
reasonable forms of argument. The sign enthymemes, with their
terms, can be reduced to invalid or valid syllogisms from the
previous analytics which Aristotle did in his last work, a
procedure to which he referred in his rhetoric (Walton, 2001).
Nevertheless, this is impossible where most complicated
examples are concerned about just because they comprise many
terms.

Generally, Aristotle used enthymeme in only two senses.
Aristotle employed the word for arguments that exist in all
authentic manuscripts, and which are affected by stylistic
formula (Hitchcock, 1985). This means it is impossible to
decrease the examples to syllogistic formulae of arguments
based on Aristotle’s reasoning. In the framework of the
interpreted examples, there is no reference to any pushy literary
effect. As the initial logic according to pre-Aristotelian
tradition and the second one with syllogistic of Aristotle, which
was established comparatively late, a reader gets the impression
that what people see in that context is an old and recent case
(Mailly, 2016).
Structuring Enthymemes in Terms of Syllogistic and Topical
Comment by Author: Braet’s 1999 section heading
The question of ‘to what degree can people attribute to the
enthymeme a syllogistic framework?’ has been asked several
times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle's
critical role in determining one’s stance in connection to
Solmsen (Raphael, 1974). Some authors have tried to answer
explaining the enthymeme model in post-analytic rhetoric with
the exemption of the strange pre-analytic artifact- this
interpretation is shared (Smith, 2007). Other authors believe
that such Rhetoric has a double enthymeme model, and believes
an enthymeme is contemporary; this is the position espoused by
Ryan (1984). All these resulted in argumentation theory.
Therefore, in the modern argumentation theory, the most
interesting feature is that many disputants are attempting to
resolve what seems like a wrong dilemma. They thus share the
supposition of Solmsen that an enthymeme ought to be
predicated on syllogistic or topical framework (Raphael, 1974).
Nevertheless, those are in fact two contrasting structures: a
logical and practical framework that is concerned with the
logical structure and argumentation scheme, which focusses on
the form of argument (Hitchcock, 1985). In this case, there are
two categories of the framework that are not jointly high-class

but instead, combine into one argumentation. This is not to
explain that the knowledge that the 2 are dissimilar and might
be merged is completely absent, but instead that no systematic
and explicit dissimilarity is made between all the structural
levels.
It is possible to discover that Aristotle does not seem to have
made this dissimilarity concerning structural levels so that
knowing this difference involves a relic. However, according to
McAdon (2003), this is not supposed to be the case if one uses
the difference as a logical or diagnostic tool, without explicitly
accrediting it to Aristotle. In the re-interpretation of the
passages as either syllogistic or contemporary enthymemes are
overriding (Raphael, 1974). In the first passage argumentation,
structures play a critical role, but direct kinds of discussions are
similarly mentioned. In the subsequent passage, the converse is
the instance.
A topical structure, just like its contemporary concept and as
argumentation structure is different from a logical framework.
What needs to be made clear is that that the two categories of
the structure are not substitutes, but instead deal with dissimilar
features of discussion (Raphael, 1974). Then, from the
perspective of contemporary argumentation philosophers, it is
easy to explain how topical as well as logical structure plays a
critical role in the topical enthymemes.
The Enthymemes Underpinning Brown V Board of Education
The issue in Brown’s case was whether the argument of the
plaintiff was correct and fourteenth amendment followed about
“separated public learning institutions are not 'equal’ and it is
impossible to make them 'equal,' and that thus they are denied
the equal protection of the rules and regulations.” Several
premises surround this claim, and it is exciting to tease most of
them out. The enthymeme explains 3 of its premises: separated
public learning institutions aren’t equal, segregated learning
institutions can’t be made equal and the fourteenth amendment
demands that the entire public get equal protection of the rules
and regulations (Raphael, 1974). The inference that is

emphasized to be followed in these premises is that having
segregated schools breaches the equivalent protection act.
Unspecified, but comprehended premises consist of the
following: the public learning institutions are created by rules
and regulations; the rules and regulations relating to education
are encompassed within the concept of protection of people (in
fact this was broadly argued, but in this paper, only one
unstated premise is quoted) (Mailly, 2016). In this case, it was
overtly addressed by Brown Court that fourteenth Amendment’s
protections apply to the countries; that there is “race”; that
some learning institutions were isolated by race; that the past
settled cases allowing segregation but equivalent education was
incorrectly decided; that the so-called separation is a malicious;
that parity or equivalence is an issue of mind and heart, not just
factually quantifiable criteria (Raphael, 1974).
Conclusion
In discussing the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric one can see
a change of pronunciation from argumentation concept to logic.
Originally the attention of Aristotle seems to be focused on
categories of the considerable relationship between a premise
and conclusion. His arguments or ideas of departure were ideas
and points that he discovered in practice. This consists of a
topical approach that is explained by quoted illustrations. In the
last marginal---ease, there is an effort to construe the
enthymeme in terms of prescribed syllogistic figures. As a
result, the variety of definite arguments are laid on the
Procrustean bed of definite syllogistics: the syllogistic method,
demonstrated with devised illustrations from the syllogistic.
While it is logical that Aristotle wanted to make his clear
findings of syllogistics appropriate for the evaluation and
analysis of rhetorical argumentation, from the perspective of
argumentation concept, that was an exceptionally doubtful
initiative.
Yolanda,
The topic and discussion here is good, and it shows a high level

of investigation into Aristotle; however, this discussion and
material comes from other sources, which is a significant
ethical issue (plagiarism). The amount of material taken from
other sources is substantial and makes up nearly the entire
paper. Some sections are not highlighted because I had to stop
at the two sources that were lifted for the other parts. You even
used the section headings from Braet’s 1999 article, meaning
you replicated another source’s work and submitted it as though
it was original. I can see points where you changed a word or
two in sentences, but the structures, ideas, and even
organization of the material is identical. Due to this level of
plagiarism, this is a tier 4 violation according to the
university’s academic misconduct policy, which is the reason
for the grade being assigned. I am also submitting a plagiarism
report through LUO to document the situation.
I know this is not the comments you wish to see at the end of
the paper, but I must be very clear that this is a serious issue. I
was concerned when you submitted your outline last week,
which is why I stressed the need to significantly revise the
content and work with a research librarian. I’m not sure if you
felt overwhelmed and decided this was the only option as you
finished the course, but the work submitted here has
consequences.
I cannot stress enough that in order for you to be successful in
this program, you need to make sure you avoid any instances of
plagiarism. Work with the research librarian to help you not
only find sources, but integrate them into your paper. The
online writing center is another resource available to students to
help students use sources.
I promise you that I do not enjoy situations of plagiarism or
having to write comments such as this; however, I also know it
is necessary to help you understand this is not the step you want
to take in academia.
If you have questions, you can contact me via email.

References
Allen, J. (2007). “Aristotle on the Disciplines of Argument:
Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic” In Rhetorica 25: 87–108.
Aristotle’s Rhetoric. (2010, February 1). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Barnes, J. (1981). "Proof and the Syllogism." In E. Berti (ed.),
Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics.' Padova:
Antenore, 17-59. Comment by Author: Title of a book? If so,
italicize this. Comment by Author: Journal? Or publisher
information?
Bitzer, L. F. (1959). “Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited.”
In Quarterly Journal of Speech 45: 399–408. Comment by
Author: Big name in rhetoric.
Braet, A. C. (1999). The enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric:
From argumentation theory to logic. Informal logic, 19(2).
Burnyeat, M.F. (1994). "Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of
Persuasion." In D.J. Furley and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle's
Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 3-55.
Burnyeat, M.F. (1996). "Enthymeme: Aristotle on the
Rationality of Rhetoric." In A. Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays
on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:
University of California Press, 88-115. Comment by Author:
italicize
Conley, Th.J. (1984). "The Enthymeme in Perspective."
Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187. Comment by
Author: italicize
Cronkhite, G. (1966). “The Enthymeme as Deductive Rhetorical
Argument.” In Western Speech Journal 30: 129–134
Hitchcock, David, (1985). "Enthymematic Arguments." informal

Logic 7, 83-97.Comment by Author: italicize
Kennedy, G.A. (1991). Aristotle On Rhetoric. A Theory of
Civic Discourse. Newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and
Appendixes. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comment by Author: italicize
Mailly, J. G. (2016). Using enthymemes to fill the gap between
logical argumentation and revision of abstract argumentation
frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08789.
McAdon, B. (2003). Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia,
and Topoi: The Confusing Discussion of Materials for
Enthymemes in the" Rhetoric". Philosophy & rhetoric, 36(3),
223-247.
Pfister, D. S., & Woods, C. S. (2016). The unnaturalistic
enthymeme: Figuration, interpretation, and critique after digital
mediation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 236-253.
Raphael, S. (1974). "Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic
Argument: Aristotle's Position in 'Rhetoric' I-II." Phronesis
19,153-167.
Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotle's classical enthymeme and the
visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation
and Advocacy, 43(3-4), 114-123.
Walton, D. (2008). The three bases for the enthymeme: A
dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(3), 361-379.
Walton, D. N. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and
plausible inference. Philosophy & rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.
Walton, D., & Reed, C. A. (2005). Argumentation schemes and
enthymemes. Synthese, 145(3), 339-370.
Weidemann, H. (1989). “Aristotle on Inferences from Signs
(Rhetoric I 2, 1357b1–25).” In Phronesis 34: 343–351.
I looked over this outline, and this is far more focused than the
original version you present. I would not change the score on
the outline, but I have considered the outline only for giving
feedback to help you on the Term Paper.
There are two areas I want to clarify:

1) What is the one sentence thesis your entire paper rests on? I
can see the focus on enthymeme, but I think your concluding
remarks are the closest to an argumentative thesis statement.
They are as follows:
In discussing the enthymeme there is a change of pronunciation
from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of
Aristotle seems to be focused on categories of the considerable
relationship between a premise and conclusion.
So, are you arguing that the enthymeme has changed since
Aristotle's original discussions of it? If so, I think documenting
that change and giving a theory as to WHY it has changed
would be a great start. Again, I don't know if that's your
approach, but that brings me back to why I'm asking for a single
sentence thesis.
2) You give several different sections on the enthymeme in your
outline, and they seem to connect to different sources you've
found. What you want to do is make sure each paragraph isn't
just an overview of one source. You want to integrate the
sources within a discussion, meaning how does one person's
view of enthymeme connect (or not_ with someone else's
discussion). This will keep those studies from being isolated in
individual paragraphs and provide a clear focus throughout the
paper (one that connects back to the thesis). I think the online
writing center (once you have the paper typed out), can really
help you integrate the sources and develop the conversation I'm
talking about.
Again, this is much stronger than the first outline, so you're
definitely moving in the right direction.
MAKE SURE YOU COVER THESE POINTS IN YOUR MAIN
PAPER DUE TOMORROW. I WONT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU

ANY FURTHER EXTENSION
Running head: JUDICIAL RHETORIC
1
JUDICIAL RHETORIC 4
Project Outline: Judicial Rhetoric
ENGL 570 Term Paper Outline
Liberty University
Introduction
According to Aristotle, judicial rhetoric is one of the three main
branches of rhetoric: writing or speech that considers the justice
or injustice of a certain charge or accusation.
Thesis statement
The branch of rhetoric that received the most attention was
the judicial, the oratory of the courtroom. Litigations in court in
Greece and Rome were an extremely common experience for
even the ordinary free citizen--usually the male head of a
household--and it was a rare citizen who did not go to court at
least a half a dozen times during the course of his adult life.
Comment by Author: Right now, this is more background
information and not really reflective of the main focus for a
paper. A thesis should provide a clear and narrowed topic with
a controlling statement (what your approach to that topic is in

ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx

ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx

Similar to ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx (14)

More from khanpaulita

More from khanpaulita (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ENGL570_B01_202020 - 202020 SPRING 2020 ENGL 570-B01 LUOTe.docx