ENG 204-001

1) Rhetoric was defined to me in ENG 101 as "language with a purpose". In excerpt 1 it is defined more along the lines of "the art of persuasion" which is more precise than the one I was taught.

2)Yes. They didn't have a reason as to why they wanted women on their project, just that they did. They probably just found it weird one day that there were no women on their project, in which case they should have started to wonder why that was.

1. Rhetoric is when someone uses language to try and persuade or please another person. Some examples of where it can be used are: as a sales pitch, giving someone advice, or in an interview. In the "fast cars" team's situation they were trying to pitch a sale to the women in order to add them onto their team. They used a rhetoric statement that they thought would be pleasing to the women but instead it offended them. In their minds they were thinking the women would enjoy the secretarial work but did not consider that the women wanted to be included in the research. There was a communication error in the use of rhetoric language in this instance.

2. I think Walter's group had a purpose but they did not plan it out efficiently. The team had a purpose to go in and find women to join their team. The process or acquiring women was where they went wrong. I don't think the team thought they would get offended. Another issue that was the problem was the group could have all discussed their ideas more thoroughly. The more feedback they got from one another, the more they probably would have been able to avoid the error. They could have asked a female colleague for advice on what to say to the women engineers that would have been appealing to them.

1. By reading the article I found out that their definition of Rhetoric is a way to persuade someone by talking or writing. From somewhere tucked in my vast brain-sea of knowledge, I remember learning a very similar definition regarding the term rhetoric. It may have been different in the fact that it did not regard writing as much as it did talking people into persuasion.

2. No, i do not agree that Walter's groups biggest problem was a lack of specific purpose, because walter had a purpose he just did not know how to engage the problem. I feel like how they went about addressing their audience was the major problem here. Walter's group did not know how to properly attract the attention of the women and therefore could not get them on their team for fast car.

1. In the excerpt Compose, Design, Advocate, the word rhetoric was used as a way to persuade an individual or group through a speech or text. I was taught a very similar definition of rhetoric that meant language that showed another person’s point-of-view. Rhetorical language is commonly used in government, advertising and sales, and arguments. In the “Fast Cars” group, the men used rhetoric language when they mentioned that the women could do secretarial work. They thought it would help persuade the women to join their team, but instead it offended the women.

2. I believe that Walter’s groups’ did have a purpose, which was to find women to join their team. However, they did not stop to think why there were no women on the team or how to properly approach the problem. The “Fast Cars” group’s biggest problem was that they did not properly plan how to propose to the women why they should join the team. The men should have practiced their presentation and tried to anticipate the questions the women would probably ask. That way they could take their time coming up with better answers, rather than just blurting out the first thing that came to their minds.

1. In my opinion, rhetoric is saying something with the intentions of informing or persuading someone. In Compose, Design, Advocate the definition of rhetoric is based on persuasion. The excerpt says the speaker uses rhetoric to strategize and arrange a speech that will successfully relate to and persuade the audience.

2. I completely agree that ‘lack of a specific purpose’ was the biggest problem for Walter’s group. After reading excerpt 1, I felt like Walter’s group was extremely unprepared when they called for a meeting with the Society for Women Engineers (SWE). It seemed like they rushed into the meeting without actually thinking about their plan of attack. I think they would have been more successful if they would have put more thought and effort into a more professional presentation. They could have made their proposition seem more intriguing to the women and offered them equal opportunities instead of assuming they would fill the secretary-type roles. Another issue I thought was a problem was the first impression they gave the SWE. They came across as unorganized and somewhat arrogant. By not properly organizing some sort of an agenda or game plan, the women didn’t think Walter’s group was taking them seriously.

1. I would define "rhetoric" as a style of writing or speaking that employs logical arguments to persuade an audience to feel favorably or unfavorably about a certain topic. This appears to differ from the definition outlined in "Compose, Design, and Advocate" mainly in the sense that the book notes that rhetoric should also take into account information about the audience- things such as social background, economic status,etc.- that would be imperative to persuading one's audience to react in favor or disfavor of the discussed topic.

2. I agree that one of the biggest problems Walter's group encountered was the lack of a specific purpose; without a specific purpose (other than setting themselves up with more favorable dating conditions) they had no chance of persuading the women to join their group. However, I believe that an equally large problem was the lack of knowledge about the interests, goals, and struggles of the audience. As the book notes, women engineers work in a force strongly dominated by men, and these women struggle to break the "secretary" stereotype. To have been told that all they were useful for would be the adherence to such a stereotype was one of the biggest insults possible for the women. Thus, because of a lack of knowledge (or foresight) about the adversities these women face, Walter's group failed their mission and did not recruit any women to their group.

1. From what I've been told, rhetoric is a set of skills and techniques that speakers (or writers) can use to respond appropriately to a given situation. I think my definition is similar to the one given in Compose, Design, Advocate because the techniques are elements of language. The book's definition, though, highlights the interaction between the presenter and the audience as a relationship rather than one way communication.

2. Though I agree that the lack of specific purpose was a large part of the presenter's problem, I believe the worst mistake was not preparing well enough. Had Walter and the rest of the Fast Car team taken sufficient time to prepare, they may have recognized where their proposal fell short and corrected their mistakes beforehand.

1. to me, rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively to get your message across and having the natural skills to do so. I think my definition compares to the one outlined in the reading because it discusses how to effectively communicate with an audience and how to form a connection with the audience to achieve the purpose of what you, the speaker, are trying to say.

2. I agree that the lack of a specific purpose was the biggest problem that Walter and his group had. Although they may have thought that they had a purpose, getting girls into their group, that "purpose" wasn't specific enough to bring girls into their group. They needed a plan for their speech and that plan must appeal to the women in their audience. They needed to ask themselves which reason for wanting women in their group would their audience respect and acknowledge as a valid reason to join.

1. Being a Communications Major the term Rhetoric comes up a lot, in fact there are three different classes on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Theory. The definition that I am most familiar with is, “Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking, writing and is the art of persuasion.” Based off of the reading Walter and his team did not use rhetoric to its full potential. Instead of persuading the women in to joining their team, they insulted them and received negative responses. From the reading, Rhetoric is defined as a language used centuries ago in the period of Plato and Aristotle. It is also a style of persuasion that speakers used, and still use today. From the reading and what I have been taught in Communications the terms definition is reinforced and the reading has added to its meaning in my mind.

2. I think that in this situation, Walter and his team members did think about what they really needed. For instance, if they needed a secretary, why didn’t they just hire someone as a secretary from another part of the University? But I do agree with Walter when he said that they had not thought it through carefully.

However, I do think they had already come up with a specific purpose, but not for the project but for the women in the group. I guess my question is, why did they want a women in the group if they had their project already planned out and duties where assigned? Why couldn’t one of the group members done the scribing for the project?

Also one thing that would be an issue that Walter already brought up was the fact that they did not communicate will with the women. Issue number 4, a lot of miscommunication comes from the lack of knowledge on how to communicate, which a lot of people tend to over look. I think Walter might re-evaluate some of his and his group members communication skills.

1. The term rhetoric means writing in such a way as to capture your audience and persuade them to do something. The excerpts definition is similar but vastly more detailed. It covered everything from the history of rhetoric to the font sizes and photographs to suit the audience.

2.I agree that the biggest problem they faced was the lack of specific purpose. Their purpose was to get more women in the group but they didnt know why. Another issue was the lack of preparation. The excerpt also dealt with that issue. It seems as though Walter's group went to the SWE not thinking of how they would approach the women there. They assumed the women would just cooperate with them and join the group.

Rhetoric is basically a pursuasive argument. It can be entertaining, but that is optional. When you want to pursuade someone you would use rhetoric to try and get them on your side, you want them to feel for your position and possibly despise any position that is opposing yours.

I highly agree that their problem was lack of purpose. Without purpose it is not really rhetoric. You need a purpose to give you that motivation to fight for your cause and build up your argument.

1. My definition of rhetoric is effective language use based on knowledge of your audience. The definition outlined in the exerpt is more strategic than my definition. While i do agree that all writing is done to achieve a specific goal (and even multiple goals), the article seemed to focus more on a very direct process where every question you pose has an answer. To me, sometimes you wont know everything about your audience; your questions might be left unanswered and you might have to guess on which way is best to communicate effectively.

2. I agree and disagree. I do not think that there was lack of a specific purpose, I think there was lack of communicating that specific purpose. Men need women around for plenty of reasons that could have either been discussed thoroughly or made up on the spot. The fact that these men, when giving their presentation, disregarded a women's need to feel respected as an equal was the men's biggest problem. These men are obviously smart; it should have been simple for them to come up with a better reason to have the women around, even if it was something they had to invent in a matter of a few seconds.

1. Normally, I think of rhetoric as using words or language to achieve a goal, whether that be to persuade someone towards a certain viewpoint or away from another, but in the text, the Fast Car team realized that they were approaching their audience in the wrong manner. They realized that communication is crucial and how they communicated their ideas was even more important.

2. By not looking into the target audience at the speech, the team failed as a whole because they did not portray the message that they intended for the audience to receive. By not having a specific purpose, they failed to outline their goals and review their details of how they could portray their ideas to the audience. If you cannot specifically explain what you are trying to get across to many different categories of people, then how will you convince anyone that you have a substantial points to your argument and that they are valid?

1. Rhetoric is how a speaker presents their topic to an audience. They take into account who their are speaking to and what they are speaking about so to not offend anyone. Mistakes in a speakers rhetoric can cause a loss of credibility as we saw in Walter's story about the fast car group. Speakers use a combination of pathos (emotional appeal), ethos (moral appeal), and logos (logical appeal) to persuade their audience and build credibility. The text states that rhetoric stems from the ancient greek times when individuals began to study how "speachmakers achieved their ends". These origianl thinkers discovered how to write speaches specific ways to influence certain audiences and what factors make a speach successful.

2. I agree that Walters group went about the presentation all wrong, but I dothink that they had a very vague direction they were heading in (which was simply to get girls to join their group). However, they lacked a reason why they wanted girls in their group (I still do not understand why they could not have completed the car with just guys). I also thought that their lack of a visual presentation seriously hurt their chances at getting women to join their group. Perhaps if they took the women to see the actual physical work that they were doing they would have been able to redeem themselves for their secretary comment.

1. From what I have gathered, rhetoric is the language of persuasion to get a certain point across. With that being said, there are several different rhetorical strategies that can be manipulated and geared towards a specific purpose or result. In Compose, Design, Advocate (excerpt 1), the text refers to the Ancient Greek’s idea of rhetoric as “an approach to language use.” The text also emphasizes the importance behind purposeful planning in rhetoric that establishes a relationship with the audience. The excerpt includes a guideline of questions to ask when using rhetoric, covering the: what, who, why, when, and how of the message. What is the purpose? Who is the audience? Why is this important? How will this message be put across? This really stresses the extreme importance of the audience in rhetorical writing. Both definitions of rhetoric highlight the importance behind planning and strategy in writing to achieve a certain result upon the audience.

2. I agree that the biggest problem with Walter’s group was the lack of a specific purpose. Without a specific purpose, it is hard to answer any of the what, who, why, or how questions to successfully gear towards a rhetorical approach. Not being able to justify the purpose behind simply “wanting more women in the group” leads to a faulty quest. It is similar to a “because I said so” environment, which may be tolerated between a parent and toddler, but not in the workplace.

Rhetoric, to me, was the language you use in order to defend or explain an argument. A little different than how the book describes.

I do agree that the group lacked a specific purpose. It seemed as though the only reason they wanted women in the group was to have a little gender diversity. If they would have explored different roles the women could play it would have gone over a lot better.

1. Using words to persuade your audience is my personal definition of rhetoric, one that I learned in one of my high school English classes. This definition, the one I've always known, is similar to the one spoken of in the reading except that in the reading, it also touches on the effects of a rhetorical approach. The reading also talks about the relationship between the writer and the reader and how the shape and deliverance of your writing needs to be carefully approached.

2. I disagree with lack of purpose being Walter's biggest problem. I believe wanting women on their team was the actual purpose, it just needed a little defining. Walter's group needed to make a list of reasons why they needed women, what jobs they had available for women, how the women would be treated, etc. By having a broken down list of answers to possible questions branching off from the main purpose of the meeting, Walter's group would have been much more prepared.

1. In my own opinion rhetoric means to merely make an assertion in the form of a question without necessarily wanting a reply. It seems that my definition is similar to Compose, Design,and Advocate in the terms that they are both a movement of text or speech, which are created to persuade and assert rather than wanting to obtain an answer.

2. I do agree that the lack of specific purpose was a main problem in Walter's group. They simply had an idea of what they wanted, but not a specific tangible purpose to execute. This ultimately led them to falling short of their goal and looking immature and unprofessional. Moreover, a lack of purpose equals a poor execution, and also, a high result of ambiguity.