Reference the Harvard Business Case “The Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry in 1994,” to answer the following questions: Under what type of market structure did the cereal industry exist prior to 1994? Support your answer with details from the study Under what type of market structure does the cereal industry exist today? Support your answer with details from your own knowledge of the current cereal industry Discuss the use of marginal analysis to determine the optimal quantity of advertising that each firm should use Minimum 2 scholarly Articles References. Minimum of 500 Words, APA Format Your paper will be submitted to Turnitin software, No plagiarism. Scientific analysis over spiritual ideology ? COLLAPSE Top of Form Aristotle views rhetoric as the skill of finding the best possible means of persuasion in regard to any topic. He views the practice as only worthwhile when the orator is focused on the essential facts avoiding the temptation to craft a personal appeal. He believes that a speaker must master enthymeme making it more like dialectic so as to avoid using it for the purpose of appealing to emotion or conveying non-essential information. He felt it important to explain how rhetoric was to be used by describing how to craft the rhetorical speech which he felt should lean toward scientific analysis, must be concerned primarily with the modes of persuasion and have reasonable structure that considers argument types which should be addressed  through a scientific analysis of appeals. Like Plato, Aristotle regards that which serves the spirit to be, “the higher good” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.176). Unlike Plato, Aristotle places emphasis on the empirical means used to obtain knowledge while Plato emphasizes knowledge as coming from transcendent origins (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Plato’s rhetoric is defined as the, “study of souls and occasions for moving them (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Plato describes rhetoric in Phaedrus as persuading others to true knowledge while Aristotle considers rhetoric as useful for decision making where true knowledge cannot be obtained. (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Aristotle relies on the, “analysis of formal logic,” to “arrive at absolute truth” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.169). Plato’s search for truth began with a, “process of inquiry,” that, “takes place through verbal exchange” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). Similar to Aristotle, Plato sought after a rhetoric whose discourse was, “more analytic, objective and dialectical,” however Aristotle was less philosophically minded when it came to the spiritual nature of discourse and less ambivalent about the, “function of language” in rhetorical speech (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). When discussing rhetoric as an art, Aristotle speaks on discerning real means of persuasion from apparent means of persuasion (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.181). Often when studying for ourselves what the Bible is actually trying to teach us, w.

1. Reference the Harvard Business Case “The Ready-to-Eat
Breakfast Cereal Industry in 1994,” to answer the following
questions:
Under what type of market structure did the cereal industry
exist prior to 1994? Support your answer with details from the
study
Under what type of market structure does the cereal industry
exist today? Support your answer with details from your own
knowledge of the current cereal industry
Discuss the use of marginal analysis to determine the optimal
quantity of advertising that each firm should use
Minimum 2 scholarly Articles References.
Minimum of 500 Words, APA Format
Your paper will be submitted to Turnitin software, No
plagiarism.
Scientific analysis over spiritual ideology ?
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Aristotle views rhetoric as the skill of finding the best possible
means of persuasion in regard to any topic. He views the
practice as only worthwhile when the orator is focused on the
essential facts avoiding the temptation to craft a personal
appeal. He believes that a speaker must master enthymeme
making it more like dialectic so as to avoid using it for the
purpose of appealing to emotion or conveying non-essential
information. He felt it important to explain how rhetoric was to
be used by describing how to craft the rhetorical speech which
he felt should lean toward scientific analysis, must be
concerned primarily with the modes of persuasion and have
reasonable structure that considers argument types which should
be addressed through a scientific analysis of appeals.
Like Plato, Aristotle regards that which serves the spirit to be,

2. “the higher good” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.176). Unlike
Plato, Aristotle places emphasis on the empirical means used to
obtain knowledge while Plato emphasizes knowledge as coming
from transcendent origins (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170).
Plato’s rhetoric is defined as the, “study of souls and occasions
for moving them (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Plato
describes rhetoric in Phaedrus as persuading others to true
knowledge while Aristotle considers rhetoric as useful for
decision making where true knowledge cannot be obtained.
(Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Aristotle relies on the,
“analysis of formal logic,” to “arrive at absolute truth” (Bizzell
& Herzberg, 2001, p.169). Plato’s search for truth began with a,
“process of inquiry,” that, “takes place through verbal
exchange” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). Similar to
Aristotle, Plato sought after a rhetoric whose discourse was,
“more analytic, objective and dialectical,” however Aristotle
was less philosophically minded when it came to the spiritual
nature of discourse and less ambivalent about the, “function of
language” in rhetorical speech (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001,
p.81).
When discussing rhetoric as an art, Aristotle speaks on
discerning real means of persuasion from apparent means of
persuasion (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.181). Often when
studying for ourselves what the Bible is actually trying to teach
us, we filter our perception through influences that affect our
biblical views. Much of what we believe can be attributed to our
views on authority as was common in the culture of the early
Roman republic, relying on authority to justify what an orator
was saying. For most of us, when it comes to the word and how
it speaks to our lives, we justify the preacher’s message because
we perceive him as having some access to higher knowledge
that we do not, or we look up to the mega church because it has
thousands of members. We also tend to center our thoughts
around an emotional appeal, because much of what we
experience is tied to how those experiences make us feel, and
what beliefs those feelings strengthen in us. In defending or

3. explaining our biblical worldview we are dealing with subjects
where “true knowledge is not available” in the sense that we do
not have empirical proof and faith factors in to what we believe
and not only must we be able to adequately summarize our
reasoning for what we believe based on demonstration and
dialectic, but we must use our ability to form rhetorical
arguments that take into consideration what assumptions others
may hold (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p. 170). Aristotle designed
a way to create rhetorical arguments that did not rely on appeals
to authority and instead wanted to dignify rhetoric as a tool for,
“making decisions about matters on which true knowledge is not
available” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.170). Through his
methods of human inquiry, we can come to stronger conclusions
about our own biblical worldview without relying solely on the
authority of someone who defines biblical ideas for us and
without relying on our ability to stir in someone else the same
emotions that we feel in order to explain what we believe.
My question has to do with Aristotle’s understanding of
particular law and universal law. Universal law is described as
“the law of nature,” “binding to even between people who are
not united politically” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.176). I
wonder if or how he would reconcile this idea of universal law
with Plato’s idea of transcendent truth and whether he would
see universal law as being more empirical.
References:
BIZZELL, P. & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). (2001). Rhetorical
Tradition: readings from classical times to the present (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: BEDFORD/ST. MARTIN'S.
Bottom of Form
Discussion Board Forum 3 - Aristotle, Rhetoric, and Knowledge
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
How does Aristotle define/understand rhetoric?
Aristotle’s view of rhetoric can be defined as the way in which

4. the art of persuasion can be studied and logically applied to
oration in any field that deals with probabilities. Aristotle pairs
the arts of rhetoric and dialectic very closely. He literally
states, “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic” (Aristotle,
n.d./2001, p. 179). In this sense, rhetoric is defined as public
speaking while dialectic can be viewed as the art of logical
discussion (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p. 179). He desires for
orators to treat public speaking in a more logical manner. He
sees rhetoric as a practical means through which the orator can
logically persuade audiences in all sorts of subject matters.
Rhetoric is a rare art form in the sense that a rhetorician must
be well versed subjects other than rhetoric in order to be a
successful rhetorician. Essentially, a speaker cannot argue on
the subject of rhetoric, as rhetoric is the tool through which one
persuades an audience on another matter.
He also believes that rhetoric has been given too much
responsibility in various subject matters and it has become like
a science rather than a tool for reasoning in specific fields.
Rhetoric, in Aristotle’s opinion, is not a field of study, but,
rather, a practical way in which an orator can persuasively
discuss other subject matters, due to the fact that these subjects
are not absolute truths, but, rather, composed of probabilities.
He argues that rhetoric should only be applied to subjects where
absolute truth is not possible. One cannot try to persuade, as the
sophists did, a certain mindset if it has absolute, true knowledge
backing it up.
There are points of agreement and disagreement on rhetoric
between Plato and Aristotle. What epistemological views does
each hold and how does this explain parts of the
agreement/disagreement?
From Plato’s writings, one may assume that Plato believes
knowledge to be absolute. It is something that a person may
know and not merely believe in. Knowledge cannot be disputed.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates and Gorgias’ discussion focuses,
for a time, on the ideas of knowledge and belief and what their
differences are. They conclude that “…rhetoric, it seems, is a

5. producer of persuasion for belief, not for instruction in the
matter of right and wrong” (Plato, n.d./2001, p. 92). This
narrowed understanding of rhetoric’s applicability then narrows
Plato’s view of knowledge and what it can be used for. He does
not believe that knowledge has a role in persuasion. Belief deals
with probabilities, not facts, whereas knowledge is known and
not something to be persuaded for or against.
It does not seem as though Plato has a specific method through
which to attain knowledge; rather, knowledge is something that
is more built-in to understanding. Knowledge is known without
a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, through living and experiencing
life, one may gain knowledge of the world and its surroundings.
Knowledge is not something that rhetoric can assist in
cultivating, from Plato’s viewpoint. To him, fact differs from
opinion in the same sense that knowledge differs from belief.
Fact corresponds to knowledge in that it is indisputable.
Opinion corresponds to belief in that Plato believes that one is
capable of having a wrong opinion: “…I consider that a man
cannot suffer any evil so great as a false opinion on the subjects
of our actual argument” (Plato, n.d./2001, p. 94). Therefore, the
difference between fact and opinion is that no amount of
persuasion or training in rhetoric can change fact; however, the
same such training is perfectly capable of changing the opinion
of a person, as these areas of argument are up for debate due to
probabilities.
Aristotle agrees with Plato in saying that knowledge is absolute
truth (Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001, p. 170). To Aristotle,
knowledge can only be understood through scientific
demonstration and logical analysis of formal logic (Bizzell and
Herzberg, 2001, p. 170). This essentially means that knowledge
is fact and can only be shown, through demonstration, to be
true. One cannot argue for the truth of knowledge, as there is no
other alternative to absolute truth. Aristotle and Plato’s views,
again, are very similar in this aspect in that knowledge can be
understood as absolute while everything else that deals with
probability cannot be defined as knowledge. As Aristotle states,

6. “A Probability is a thing that usually happens; not, however, as
some definitions would suggest, anything whatever that usually
happens, but only if it belongs to the class of the ‘contingent’ or
‘variable’” (Aristotle, n.d./2001, p. 183). Therefore, the
subjects that rhetoric deals with cannot be classified as
knowledge, no matter how hard a rhetorician may try.
When it comes to attainting knowledge, Plato and Aristotle’s
beliefs diverge. While Plato believes in transcendent
knowledge, Aristotle focused on the idea of obtaining such
knowledge through empirical means. Aristotle claims that
“…men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true and
usually do arrive at the truth” (Aristotle, n.d./2001, p. 180).
However, finding this truth requires trial and error. While
Aristotle does believe that knowledge comes from truth and that
truth is instinctual, he also believes that there are certain ways
in which a man may get better at finding the truth. He believes
in the use of syllogism, or as he calls it enthymeme, which is
essentially deductive reasoning. Truth and knowledge can be
found through enthymeme and the use of probability as well
(Aristotle, n.d./2001, p. 183). Through deductive reasoning, he
believes that a man may find absolute truth. However,
persuasion does not lead to this knowledge, rather it attempts to
sway a man’s thoughts to favor an opinion, rather than a fact.
Again, in regard to fact and opinion, Plato and Aristotle hold
very similar views. Fact is truth and indisputable. Opinion can
be swayed, as seen above, through enthymeme.
Why is Aristotle’s claim of rhetoric as an art so important to
understanding his treatise [his work/writing on the subject]
through a biblical worldview?
Aristotle is very set in the idea that rhetoric is an art, which
means that it can be practiced and learned and refined and there
are better and lesser ways to do it. I think that his view of
rhetoric as an art is important because it validates his entire
treatise. Most of Rhetoric is spent discussing the ways in which
arguments can be made more persuasive or more beneficial or
why certain aspects of a speech should be a certain way. He

7. spends a lot of time discussing the importance of a speaker
having a good reputation before speaking. He states, “…the
orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech
demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own
character look right and put his hearers, who are to decide, into
the right frame of mind” (Aristotle, n.d./2001, p. 213). Aristotle
finds it important to be a good person when it comes to trying to
persuade people. I think that this idea of Aristotle’s has some
weight in regard to someone who is claiming to be a Christian.
We, as Christians, must also strive for excellence when it comes
to walking in our faith and spreading the good news of the
Gospel. As Aristotle states, when speaking of the sophists,
“What makes a man a ‘sophist’ is not his faculty, but his moral
purpose” (Aristotle, n.d./2001, p. 181). Essentially, good
rhetoricians are not looking to win an argument. Rhetoric is
about honesty and desiring for the best argument to win. This is
reminiscent of what Christians should desire. We must do a
self-analysis before going out into the world and trying to bring
people to Christ. We have to figure out what our purpose in
evangelizing is before stepping into the world. It cannot be
selfish, like the sophists. They wanted only to persuade people
to believe in their side of the argument. However, like Aristotle
believed, we must not be so quick to think that our way is the
only right way. Yes, we have certain aspects of our faith that
are absolutely true. Due to human error, it feels impossible to
know anything for certain, but that is where faith (something
more than mere belief) comes into play. Aristotle was adamant
that rhetoric should be used to learn the views of both sides of
the argument:
We must be able to employ persuasion…on opposite sides of a
question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both
ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but
in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if
another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to
confute him. (Aristotle, n.d./2001, pp. 180-181)
Aristotle lingers on the idea that rhetoric is an art and a tool to

8. be used in persuasion, and I believe that this idea carries into
the biblical worldview. His pursuit of excellence in rhetoric
should motivate Christians to use the same sorts of admirable
argumentation styles when defending their faith.
Lastly, my question for the readings on Aristotle is simply what
are your thoughts on the idea of absolute truth? Do you agree
with the idea that knowledge is absolute truth and that this is
transcendent and cannot really be attained through any human
means or do you think that there are tools and ways in which we
can further gain knowledge? Where is the line between
knowledge and belief, or can we even know that?
References
Aristotle. (n.d.) Rhetoric. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg
(Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times
to the present (2nd ed., p. 179-240). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001). Aristotle. In P. Bizzell & B.
Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from
classical times to the present (2nd ed., p. 169-170).
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001). Plato: Gorgias. In P. Bizzell
& B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from
classical times to the present (2nd ed., p. 82-84).
Plato. (n.d.) Gorgias: On rhetoric; reputative. In P. Bizzell & B.
Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from
classical times to the present (2nd ed., p. 87-138). Boston, MA:
Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Bottom of Form