Analysis Of Joesph Wenzel's Three Perspectives On Argument

Since the beginning of humanity, people have had to persuade other people to reach their objectives. Whether it was arguing if hunting or gathering would be more beneficial, or if country should go to war, or whether a government should implement a new law, skilled persuasion has shaped history as we know it. With such a powerful tool, experts have tried to discover how to argue in a way that positively and efficiently benefits society. Joesph Wenzel, author of the chapter entitled “Three Perspectives on Argument,” describes what he believes to be the three fundamental parts to any beneficial argument. Wenzel explains that through the combined use of rhetoric, dialectic, and logic, arguments that can greatly influence a society are possible, and asserts his theory of persuasion by connecting aspects of each component to the theories of esteemed experts of argumentation in order to increase the credibility of his argument.

Wenzel first discusses the concept of rhetoric, which he suggests that we use to “understand and evaluate argument as a natural process of persuasive communication” …show more content…
Wenzel asserts that a persuasive argument must be able to be reasoned, either directly or indirectly, in order to see if that argument is true. This tool is primarily to compare arguments between each other, as it creates a way to distinguish sound arguments from unsound ones. Wenzel once again refers to Aristotle by referencing a classic logical tool, a syllogism, which can be used to make a logical argument. And while Wenzel admits that not all logical forms work for all arguments, he references the many attempts to capture logical structure in an argument, most notably by discussing the model created by Stephen Toulmin. Wenzel emphasizes the importance of logic by illustrating that he is mirroring the thoughts of other experts, and in turn strengthening his