Descriptions Aren't Just Descriptions

Many times we read a book and honestly fall asleep if the sentences are too long and the descriptions go on forever. However, have we ever wondered what the reason behind these descriptions is? For one thing, descriptions (if you don't doze off on them) are used so that the reader can actually imagine the scenario that's present in the book. Isn't this obvious? Scenarios aren't that important in certain books but "In Cold Blood" sure has an accurate description over everything and everyone.

This could be due to the fact that the first chapter is actually describing the last moments in which these six murder victims were seen. You see, it's all kind of like playing Cluedo, you get so many descriptions it feels as if you're playing a never ending puzzle. It feels as if we're actually a part of the famous series CSI Miami.


There are many types of descriptions. but I especially remember sensory description, which in my opinion, is mainly used in "In Cold Blood." Truman Capote activates many of our senses through his descriptions, especially the sight sense. With this, his goal is to pull the reader into the story and get inside the characters minds. "It was from her that he had inherited his coloring-the iodine skin, the dark moist eyes, the black hair, which he kept brilliantined and was plentiful enough to provide him with sideburns and a slippery spray of bangs." (Pg. 16)

These descriptions are necessary in the way that they allow the reader to familiarize with the book's setting, but at the same time add a slow pace to the reading, which could be used to create suspense. Here we can see how the how can once again affect the what. Once again we are back to rhetoric.

The descriptions aren't the only things that characterize "In Cold Blood." As we begin making our way through the book we realize the many long sentences that are used. Sure, these could be used just because the Truman needs to fit these descriptions in these sentences, but there could also be another meaning behind them. Action is slowed down with these long sentences that include many run-ons and pace at this point, as was stated previously, plays a key role. I wonder if short sentences will be used as the murders are further described to add action and suspense to the novel?

Great Speeches... Many Fallacies

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules." 

Now, we as catholics know that this Gandhi's words are true and stick to our believes, but we must not forget that there are so many other believes amongst us humans. Gandhi's phrase excludes Atheist since he states that there a superior power that everyone believes is. However, Atheist don't believe that there is a superior power at all. Gandhi also excludes those that believe that there is more than one God since he states that there is a power that rules, but doesn't present the possibility that there could be many ruling powers. Therefore, this phrase is both a hasty generalization and a fallacy of false dilemma. 

Gandhi seems a master at presenting the fallacy of false dilemma as he does this again in his speech. " And is this power benevolent or malevolent?" Here, Gandhi refers to the power of God and basically questions whether this power, this supreme being, is good or bad. Can't this power be nor good or bad? Here two choices are presented when there are actually more. 

Gandhi's speeches are recognized for their strength and clarity. However, once we detail his speeches we can find hidden fallacies that could weaken his argument or point. 

Winston Churchill does not stay far behind Gandhi when it comes to the use of fallacies. In his speech "Our Duty in India" there are many hidden fallacies. "We are not entirely defenceless of without means of expression" This is clearly a tautology since being defenceless basically means you have no means of expression. 

Aside from tautologies, Churchill also uses the fallacy of Slippery Slope: "To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence." The British could abandon India and cut trade as well as any power they have over them, which is considered a reasonable act. However, Churchill states that this would be an act of negligence and cruelty, which is considered an extreme version of this such abandonment. 

Fallacy of false dilemma once again. This time, with George Orwell's: Shooting an Elephant, the elephant of course representing imperialism. The whole story if not only an analogy, but also a fallacy of false dilemma. This is because "Shooting an Elephant" implies that you can either support imperialism or go against it. Is it not possible to maintain a neutral position toward the subject? 

Apart from this, the story also has fallacies within the huge plot fallacy. For instance, take this other example of fallacy of false dilemma: "All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited beasts who tried to make my job impossible." In life, there are way more than two dilemmas so this clearly presents a lack of choices or situations. 

By reading these essays I noticed that the fallacy that is the most evident to me is that of false dilemma because honestly, it allows you to question absolutely everything. Spotting a fallacy is honestly the easiest way to break your opponents argument. Honestly, if someone spots a fallacy in one of my arguments I'd probably have absolutely no response since a fallacy is extremely difficult to defend. 

Fallacies...Good or Bad?

People say that hiding the truth is never beneficial to one's argument. As a teenager I've realized that this is completely true and that there is nothing that makes you win an argument more than spotting a fallacy and telling whoever's using it the error they've committed.

For example, the other day I was in an argument with my brother and he told me "Do all your friends like picking fights with their brother?." I realized that in a way, this was an appeal to popularity and instead of responding with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy (like mos mom's would do) I simply said "In fact they do, but who cares what my friends do? How would their choices affect us in any way right now?" My brother immediately stopped trying to validate his point and was left speechless.

Now in many cases this appeal to popularity fallacy does work with my parents, as long as it's not spotted. When I ask my parents permission to go to a party or somewhere in general I basically use the phrase "All my friends are going, I should go" but in a way more discrete way so that they don't immediately decline by saying "You are our daughter and don't always have to do what your friends do." What I usually do is mention my most responsible friends that are going and state how much fun I would have with them in a responsible manner. After getting to know my friends, my parents have their weak spots. For example, if I tell them that a certain friend is going to this occasion they'll give me permission easily because they know how responsible that friend is and that I can't possibly "screw things up" when I'm with this person. (My parents trust me but who I'm with is always something that they pay close attention to).

After analyzing my experiences I realized that fallacies are honestly not the best tool when it comes to an argument because, well, if the fallacy you're using is spotted you're basically screwed. They could be beneficial at some point, but fallacies are putting yourself at risk without necessarily having to. Who would want to lose an argument by simply not knowing what tools to use and when?

Selfishness, Not The Key To Rhetoric

We all want whats best for us. You may argue this point, but in the end you know it's true. There are those exceptions and sure, sometimes we do think of others, but mainly we want to benefit the most from our decisions. As we get into chapter 11 we learn that we have to appeal to our public, not to ourselves. This means that we have to present arguments that actually make our audience feel as if they're going to benefit from this.

Why is this? Our audience, no different to us, is also interested in benefiting from everything. They want to be rewarded and content. No one will agree to an argument that will not benefit them entirely. So basically, what this chapter does is teach us how to manipulate our audience by making them think that they will benefit from our proposal, allowing them to accept our ideas much faster.

Take for instance the Axe commercial that ends with the words "Spray more, get more." This commercial is basically telling men  that they will benefit from using Axe because they will get many more women. Now, men are clearly attracted to this commercial because of this. After all, what man does not want to be surrounded by hundreds of gorgeous women? The commercial is convincing the consumer that Axe is the best product, not by presenting many facts, only by demonstrating a huge benefit of this product. "The Axe Effect."

Now this technique is not only used by those who are interested in selling their products to consumers. Politicians also use these techniques daily. In fact, what part of rhetoric don't politicians manipulate? For example, Mitt Romney encourages tax cuts, mainly for the rich. Why would they not want to vote for him? They're going to be paying less money in taxes, which is technically what most people want. The upper class in the states is not necessarily the least selfish  considering the fact that they posses 75% of lands in the States. If they are this selfish they will certainly vote for Romney to get the most benefit. Looks like the rich will get richer with Mitt Romney.

Rhetoric... A Powerful Tool

Why did I not read this book before? Thank You For Arguing not only teaches us how to argue, but it also teaches us how to manipulate people without them even noticing... What a powerful tool. As I am reading the book, I decide to try these powerful techniques out.

Thank You For Arguing taught me that in order to get your parents to buy you something you should first propose something that seems absolutely ridiculous and then something that is still ridiculous, but that will sound more appealing to them since they have already heard such a pathetic proposal.

About a month ago my iPhone was stolen in a party in a horrible manner. This guy approached me and started dancing with me, then he attempted to "get flirty" with me and so I stopped dancing. As I was leaving, he pulled my purse and stole my phone. What a great person. Therefore, for the last month I have had the worst phone that could possibly exist. The phone is five years old and basically does less than a Nokia. In fact, Nokia's have a cool game called Snake while this one has absolutely nothing.

Anyhow, I sat down next to my parents and told them that I heard about a new deal that's offered by Uff that involves you buying a Samsung Galaxy and then paying only 55.000 pesos a month. They said no instantly. Why did they say no? Well, because the Samsung Galaxy costs 1.400.000 pesos. I didn't even have to propose a less ridiculous plan in order for them to say they would get me an iPhone. Now, my mom has not proved to be the most mathematically capable human being. She believes that she will earn more money paying for an iPhone that costs 1.200.000 pesos and then paying 120.000 pesos a month. However, since the Uff proposal sounded so ridiculous to her she automatically thought of getting a new iPhone. Thank you Jay Heinrichs for making my life so much easier.