The Language of Argument

6 2

C H A P T E R 4 ■ T h e A r t o f C l o s e A n a l y s i s

Someone has suggested that the Members of this great body prefer to

keep the present program because someone back in the home district might

object to the gross figures. I know this is not so. When a Representative is

busy on minimum wage, or aid to education, or civil rights, such matters

of housekeeping seem too picayune to merit attention. The Member simply

checks the table and hires what he can hire under the provisions and then

forgets the whole business. But I know the Members also want the people

back home to realize that what we do here is open and frank and accurate,

and that we set an example in businesslike procedures. The more we can

demonstrate responsibility the greater will be the faith in Congress.

May I summarize. It is obvious that some Members need more clerical

help because of large population and large land area. I have been working

for some time with the best help we can get, on a measure which would take

these items into consideration. Those Members who are really in need of as-

sistance should realize that this temporary, hastily conceived proposition we

debate today will probably obviate their getting a satisfactory total solution.

First, we should await redistricting of the Nation.

Second, we should consider appropriate allowance for oversize districts

considering both population and total geographic area.

Finally, I hope we can develop a sound and sensible formula for computing

salaries of office clerks and other statutory employees in the same category.

Before going any further, it will be useful to record your general reactions

to this speech. Perhaps you think that on the whole Kyl gives a well-reasoned

argument on behalf of his position. Alternatively, you might think that he is

making a big fuss over nothing, trying to confuse people with numbers, and

just generally being obnoxious. When you are finished examining this argu-

ment in detail, you can look back and ask yourself why you formed this origi-

nal impression and how, if at all, you have changed your mind.

The first step in the close analysis of an argument is to go through the

text, labeling the various argumentative devices we have examined. Here

some abbreviations will be useful:

argument marker M

assuring term A

guarding term G

discounting term D

argumentative performative AP

evaluative term E (+ or –)

rhetorical device R

The last label is a catchall for the various rhetorical devices discussed in

Chapter 1, such as overstatement, understatement, irony or sarcasm, meta-

phor, simile, rhetorical questions, and so on.

If you want to make your analysis extra close, it is illuminating to specify

which rhetorical device is deployed whenever you mark something with “R.”

97364_ch04_ptg01_059-078.indd 62 15/11/13 9:50 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.