Logic

In Jeanne Fahnestock’s, “The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument,” mentions at the beginning of her article that “We tend to treat classical rhetoric as a source of basic rhetorical concepts rather than as an instrument capable of performing the kind of intricate analysis of audience and context for which we turn to modern rhetoricians.” (Fahnestock477) However, we have not taken much into account the classical rhetorical definition of invention and the connection to audience and discourse. Aristotle created the five canons and maybe it is about time to not exactly change his methods but perfect them and pull out different perspectives and approaches. When Jeanne begins explaining her theory she mentions that Stases follow a logical, hierarchical order. They generate engaging questions but it also takes into account when each question is going to be asked. But what if you can predict the claims that can attempt to answer or assumed which question was to be asked? In the end, it all turns back to logic. 

In Killingsworth and Palmer’s “Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America,” speak of logic but with a different approach. They mention words like “realist” and “positivist” and “epistemology,” which all have one thing in common, devotion to facts. These are applied in a scientific way that reveal certain decisions. “In the search for discourse types that fill this gap and take up instrumental and rhetorical writing in the hope of bringing consciousness to bear on action…” (Killingsworth/Palmer160)