Rhetoric is the use of language to effectively communicate your ideas to the audience. The book seems to describe rhetoric as a systematic approach to creating a useful speech, but while a system can greatly aid the speech-making process, the system itself is not rhetorical. In my opinion, the end result of language presented in an easy-to-understand and effective communication is the rhetoric.

I do not completely agree with Walter's group that they lacked a specific purpose. The author suggests that Walter's team should have asked, "What do we want to achieve here?" Obviously, they knew the answer to this: to involve more women in their project. However, they lacked the thought and planning necessary to convince the women to join. They did not know why they wanted women, just that they did. They did not know what they wanted the women to do, either, and their spur-of-the-moment answer is what alienated their audience. Had they considered this more carefully, they likely could have kept the audience's attention.

Another related problem with Walter's story is that the men did not know what women had done with engineering in the past. Perhaps they should have researched famous women engineers and used those as examples to encourage the women in their audience to follow in their footsteps.

I believe rhetoric is the use of multiple forms of communication to convey your specific purpose to the audience. The excerpt goes along to give a specific process for developing your rhetoric. I do agree with the introduction when it says that rhetoric is needed in speeches, websites, and papers. With the wide variety of ways to communicate today rhetoric can be seen almost everywhere.

I do not agree that a lack of specific purpose was there biggest problem. I believe that the group knew they wanted more women to be part of the project and going to the SWE was a smart decision. To me the biggest problem was that Walter and his group did not think at all about the audience or the larger context of the presentation. This problem is huge because it shows complete disregard for the audience and if this had been for an actual real world application then this could cost a person there job.

Rhetoric is how we use verbal and visual communication to correctly address a message to an audience. The book also discusses these two types of communication and how to use them to have effective speeches, websites, and papers. I feel that rhetoric process in the book is a great guideline for effective communication. You must consider each situation independently to truly say what you intend in your message.

I disagree with the book's statement of Walter's group having the biggest problem on not stating a specific purpose. They made a great point that if you do not have a purpose for any type of communication, there is not a point to say anything at all. Having a general purpose is great, but you need to have specifics or you will seem unprepared.

But I think the main problem that Walter's group faced was they did not consider the audience. They did not consider what it feels like to be a outside member of a group and what the group would see as offensive. If they had thought about how women are portrayed as inferior in the science world, they could have approached the message differently. Instead of the response of being in need of secretaries, the group could have explained how a women's input on design and intellect could really help the team to being successful.

In my opinion, rhetoric is the ability to study speaking and be able to process it in a communication form of persuading towards the audience. I concur with the excerpt stated value of rhetoric. It’s important to have more of a broader prospective of how to imply rhetoric by addressing more than just speechmaking tactics. The systemic breakdown tutorial in which the excerpt presents to the reader is perfect on how to correctly incorporate rhetoric in effective communication.

I agree that the biggest problem from Walter’s group was indeed the lack of specific purpose that lead to their failure of capturing the Society of Women Engineers attention. In addition, the way Walter’s group approach their audience was another failure on their behalf. The statement made about “as secretaries” is disrespectful to the Society of Women Engineers, and will automatically lose attention.

I would define rhetoric as the art of clear and effective communication for persuasive or other purposes. The book's definition mostly agrees with my own, as the outline compliments it nicely. Still, it differs in that it appears to view rhetoric as a process rather than a product. I believe this viewpoint to be incorrect, as even if someone were to adhere to the suggested steps the resulting communication ultimately is not rhetoric unless it accomplishes it's intended goals.

As for page 25, I do not believe the biggest problem in Walter's group was lack of specific purpose. Instead, I believe the biggest problem with Walter's group (other than lack of basic common sense) was their lack of knowledge in regards to their audience. Had Walter's group understood anything about women, especially those in a group called Women in Engineering, they'd have known that many women are offended when sexist stereotypes are brought into play. The comment about secretary positions was one such stereotype, and it was no wonder their attempted communication failed so miserably. Thus, while the talk with Dennis revealed other hidden problems in their endeavor, the initial suspicians Dennis had as to what went wrong were by far the most important.

Another problem with Walter's group was their terrible lack of preparation. They knew they were recruiting extra people for their group, yet they didn't even bring a list of the available positions. This mistake forced them to ad-lib their communication, resulting in some rather ignorant comments. If only they were more prepared, having an outline of what they planned to say with them throughout the presentation, they might have been able to adress questions with greater sucess.

1. Simply put, rhetoric is the specific vehicle that transports a message from the presenter to the audience. This can be a spoken or visual (written) approach to conveying any message, and goes beyond simply presenting an oral argument. According to the text it would seem that rhetoric is more of a scientific, and less natural, approach to presenting a message or argument. At the same time, the focus of the text is on oral presentation, and much less about visually presenting material. The importance of each rhetorical element remains the same for a visual message, in fact it may increase due to the lack of the author's presence during its consumption.

2. Unfortunately for Walter, it seemed like his purpose was clear. The group was simply looking to add a few women to their team, and they knew this going into their meeting with the female engineers. What they lacked was a clear understanding of their audience, and furthermore they forgot to test their communication. Had they taken into account the sensitivity of their female counterparts to the stereotypes women in the workplace face, they would have likely been much more successful. By mentioning that they needed help with secretarial tasks, the group unintentionally ostracized their audience.

(1) I believe rhetoric defines as being able to publicly speak using oral and visual communication to explain the subject or discussion to the audience in the simpliest manner and being understood.

That definition is different from the excerpt because in the excerpt it explains it as being very specific and formal speaking. There is a set system and guidelines to follow.
It is similar as well, in the aspect that both definitions include the audience and makes sure that the audience is the most important.

(2) Yes, I agree that the biggest problem was the lack of a specific purpose.
Another problem was not only did they not have a specific purpose for going into the meeting, but they didn't draw in an interested crowd. They chose that one female group and spoke to them. I believe if they would have posted flyers or made an announcement somehow about the project and drawn in women that came into the meeting interested the guys might have even had a different approach on what to think about the females. They wouldn't have assumed "secretaries" from the get go.

In my opinion, Rhetoric is the ability to properly address a point of concern that needs to be communicated to a group of people. It is the ability to have a certain audience understand the specific message that you are trying to portray. Rhetoric directly correlates to the way that the message in conveyed.

I think the way that rhetoric was displayed in the book isn't nearly as broad for the realm that rhetoric is in. Rhetoric is portraying a message effectively. I think the book gave a small glimpse at the possible ways that rhetoric could be used.

I don't agree saying that Walter's biggest overall problem was lock of specific purpose as they say in the text. I think they went there with a purpose. They went to talk to the Society of Women Engineers because they wanted women to help them. They had a purpose and carried that aspect out properly. I definitely think a little planning could have gone a long way. Point 5 in the What we learned section is a very big point. They didn't plan what to do at the presentation. They were not just asking a friend for a favor, they were trying to persuade a group of strangers to work with them. That doesn't work by just asking them to join. A presenter that wants someone to join a group has to have a presentation that appeals to the audience. I think their biggest problem was then the lack of preparation, not purpose.

1. I think rhetoric simply means clear, concise communication, primarily being verbal communication. Ideas should be well-thought out, have a central meaning that people can clearly distinguish and should be easy to understand and gain knowledge.

2. In response to the group lacking a specific purpose, I don't think this is the case. The group did have the right intentions to include women and to gain their input for the new designs, but their initial reactions for the purpose were wrong. They did not have a plan for the women, other than to do the tasks they mentioned in the meeting.

Another issue that was a problem was the fact that it seemed as if they didn't have a set idea as to why they wanted the women to join. They invited the women in engineering group, but didn't think to include women from all over the campus.