ENG 204-002

1. When I hear the term "rhetoric," I think of the style or type of language used to communicate on any given toppic. The definition first given in the article that was the most common, is what I thought rhetoric meant until my English 201 class last year. My teacher defined it very similarly to the definition given in the article. So, at first my definition from pre-English class would have differed from the true definition, but now that I understand the real meaning of rhetoric my definition almost parallels the article's.

2. I semi-agree that the main issue was lack of specific purpose. The other issue I thought was more important was not realizing or taking into account how a female feels in a man-based organization. I could be feeling that more strongly because I am a female, but I think that if the men in the group would have taken women's feelings into consideration, the description of the potential woman's job would not have been phrased in the way it was. Although, I do still agree that if there was more of a specific purpose the issue most likely would have been avoided.

1. Rhetoric to me was something, prior to this article, that was admired. Great orators and honorable leaders would use beautiful rhetoric to mezmerize all listeners. To me, it was the talent or skill of crafting eloquent sentences that exercised the beauty of what ever language being utilized. My definition is very similar to the one provided in the book except for the book relies heavily on emotion. Not the gravity of the infromation being said, but rather the emotional connection being created with an audience of either listeners or readers.

2. I agree with this. The had a specific purpose in one sense. They wanted to recruit more women engineers to work on the fast car project. That was their purpose in creating the communication, or in this case, setting up the meeting. The group's problem was that they did not think of a specific purpose to include women. They simply walked into the meeting and then tried to stumble over a gender-specfic question...why women. They didn't have a pressing, women related purpose. Another issue is the blatent ignorance displayed by Walter and his group, when on the spot, as to why women should join them, and their best answer is "take minutes," "type memos," and "secratarial duties."

Rhetoric to me meant that one used language to motivate or persuade. After reading the article its apparent that I had a very common and basic misunderstanding of the term. I didn’t grasp that the term itself is an approach to language rather than a form of it.

I believe that indeed that they showed a lack of specific purpose but I also say they show a lack in preparation. In that environment they are pitchmen, selling a product, in this case their team. Preparation I believe is the key to providing a convincing product. As a team they should have come prepared with answers to even the most difficult answers.

1. Rhetoric in the article is explained as being "fancy language to try to cover over poor arguments". The article also informs us that rhetoric originated in ancient Greece. Rhetoric came about as speechmakers tried to convince their audience to agree with a certain point of view in the governing of Athens. To me rhetoric is the ability to use words to make your argument or point of view appear to be correct or superior. My opinion of the definition of rhetoric is similar to the portion of the article that I quoted earlier. In today's world I say that strong rhetoric is practiced mostly by politicians and lawyers. However I do acknowledge that rhetoric is probably used by anyone with a firm grasp of any language at some point if not often.

2. I'm not sure that Walter's group really lacked a specific purpose. Their purpose was to get more members on their team and they wanted those members to be female. I suppose you could say that they had a lack of purpose because they didn't know what they wanted those female members to do. What Walter and his team really lacked was preparation. If they had taken a few moments to ponder on what questions their audience would ask after their presentation, they probably would have realized that their potential members would want to know what they would be doing.

1. I have always associated rhetoric with the speaking capability of a good orator. I have never completely understood its real meaning but simply had a vague idea of what it implies. After reading the article, I understand rhetoric to be the use of language to persuade or amuse an audience. The definition that I originally understood is not that far off than the one outlined by the article, however the article provides a more concrete understanding and illustrates examples on the importance of rhetoric.

2. Walter's group appeared to bo completely unprepared for the presentation they were giving. A lack of specific purpose is definitely their primary problem because they had no idea what they were trying to convey. They had an idea of what they wanted to accomplish by their presentation, but did not have any defined plan to outline what they wanted to say. Another major problem was not understanding their audience. They were trying to persuade women into joining their team and did nothing in their speech to appeal to the women in the audience. Instead, they awkwardly worded speech offended the audience and had an inverse effect of what they were trying to accomplish.

1. When I thought about the word "rhetoric," I thought of it mostly in a political environment. Pundits will characterize a politician's speech as "rhetoric," or meaningless words used to confuse the public. The article's definition of the word is slightly different. The article explains that rhetoric is language used by a speaker to cover up a poor argument, but it also says that it is language used to persuade an audience. In both my definition and the article's definition rhetoric is described as a way to confuse an audience. But the article explains that this confusion persuades the audience, which often ends up being an effective speaking tool.

2. Lack of purpose was a huge problem for Walter and his group. They should have gone into the meeting with a much more specific plan. However, the biggest mistake Walter made was not knowing the audience he was speaking too. He had to know that girls is the engineering department would not take kindly to being asked to be secretaries and note takers. When taking a job the number one thing employees look for is a feeling of being respected in the work place (even over money). When asking someone to work with you, you have to treat them with respect if you expect them to take the job. Walter lost the respect of the girls and therefore lost the chance to have them in his group.

1. Through English classes over the years I was taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking, a logical way of arguing or speaking. I always tend to think of Ancient Greece as the hometown of rhetoric.

2. Walter’s groups’ not having a specific purpose for the women was a problem. They knew they wanted the women to help, but they didn’t think through why they wanted the women to be a part of the project. The biggest problem was that they didn’t consider their audience, in this case women engineers, who have to have to survive in a male dominated occupation. The way Walter’s group presented their project left the women feeling inadequate, and rightfully unwilling to participate. If the audience had been considered, the whole presentation would have changed. Walter’s group could have set up the presentation in a place that was familiar and comfortable to the Society of Women Engineers;
For example, where the Society of Women Engineers hold their meetings. Opening the floor up for suggestions from the women on the project, would have prevented the women from feeling like they were mindless, and only capable of secretarial duties. By assuming that the members of the Society of Women Engineers could only perform stereotypical tasks, the Walter’s group created an issue that overshadowed their purpose for having the women onboard the project.

1. Prior to reading this article, I considered rhetoric to be the art of public speaking. I did know that it originated in ancient Greece, but I was ignorant to the true definition. I never was aware of the depth of the word and didn't realize that it referred more to the relationship/connection between speaker and audience than to the speakers own general skill with words. After reading this article I have a much better understanding of rhetoric and improved my own vocabulary.
2. I disagree with the assertion made in the article that Walter's main problem was lack of a specific purpose. I believe he knew what he wanted, and that was females on the team. In my opinion, his biggest problem was not keeping his mouth closed. Had he thought more about everything he was going to say before he said it, he never would have said anything offensive in the first place. Even if they didn't have a task predetermined, I am sure the girls would have been happy to discuss potential opportunities as a group with the team and could have worked something out which would benefit everyone.

-Ryan Sarfan

1. Whenever I think of rhetoric, I think of Ethos Pathos and Logos. I have always thought of rhetoric purely as successful way to structure an argument, but, as the book stresses, I always forget about the audience. Rhetoric to me is a way to pursuade people on a certain idea or subject that you either support or don't agree with. I usually surround my rhetoric with my subject, choosing the best form of argument that is most closely related to the point of my discourse. The definition of rhetoric in the book points more toward an audience, and rhetoric as a way to relate to who is listening to you.
2. I definitely agree that one of the group's biggest problems was lack of specific purpose. I think this happens all the time in communication. People or groups always understand why they need to communicate, but often neglect to narrow down the specific points relatable to both them and their subjects. This often leaves the subject confused, or in Walter's case, angry. I also think that the group needed to consider who their audience was; not just that they were women, but as the book also points, prospective female engineers in and mostly male working environment. Not to mention womens' past history of restrictive employment. of course Walter and his group didn't mean to insult the women; however, their communication strategies were unfinished and not well thought-out.

According to Compose, Design, Advocate excerpt 1, rhetoric is described as an approach to language that grew out of Athens, Greece (also notably the birthplace of democracy) in the 4th Century, BCE, used for speechmaking purposes, among other political aspects. Rhetoric, regarded in this sense, is still legitimate today, as exhibited in the "Walter" example, but an updated formal definition is needed, like: rhetoric- the way of expressing a point or need across to a target audience most efficiently, through knowledge of their point-of-view and producing the most accurate portrayal of how the point or need would effect the audience.

Without a specific purpose, there is no way to figure out the subsequent problems, like thinking of what medium to use, or who their audience is, or what strategy to use. So, yes, I would agree that the lack of specific purpose is the biggest problem, since it must be the first one solved to overcome the others. As the order follows in the excerpt, the target audience must be acknowledged; in Walter's case, it should be obvious that the audience is women interested in their meeting, but some cases may not be so easy to specify an audience. If an audience cannot be targeted, how would one know what voice to use to get across, and by what means?

1.) I personally define the term "rhetoric" as a person's ability to effectively use a higher vocabulary in order to convey a certain message or to make a point. This definition is different from the definition of "rhetoric" found in Compose, Design, Advocate in the sense that I don't necessarily think of ancient Greece when I think of good rhetoric. Being able to formulate a well-written speech is valuable, but I consider that a different ability than being able to use vocabulary correctly and efficiently. My definition is similar to the one found in the text because I agree that rhetoric can often be "fancy language used to cover poor arguments."

2.) I agree with this statement. The men's team seemed to fully agree that they wanted women to become a part of their group, but they didn't seem to understand completely why they wanted these additions to their team. I think that another problem the men faced was that they may have acted impulsively, which goes along with the realization that they had planned their meeting with the women poorly. If this was a positive change to their team that the men were truly committed to making, one would think that they would have taken the time and efforts to plan their presentation to the women candidates more effectively.

My definition of rhetoric is pretty similar to the one given in the reading. Rhetoric to me is the way in which words are approached and communicated to connect to an audience. It is the way words are put together and delivered to engage or persuade people. I definitely think it’s important for the speaker to emotionally connect to the audience while delivering the speech. I have always been somewhat confused on exactly what rhetoric is and how it is used, but after reading the article I feel like I have a much better understanding of it.

I definitely think the group lacked a specific purpose, but I also think they lacked preparation and organization for the presentation. The men definitely knew that their reasoning was to have the women contribute to the project, but didn’t have the whole purpose and presentation planned out. They didn’t have a concrete plan for their presentation. They probably should have practiced and understood their target audience better. I think it’s important when delivering a speech to a certain audience to try and understand things from their point of view and alter your presentation to fit their specific needs and questions. Knowing your audience is probably one of the best tools when pitching a project.

When I used to hear the term rhetoric, the only thought that would come to me was a tone of writing or speaking that was harsh and aimed to critique. I suppose I most likely linked the term to an analysis of a document, novel, or other piece and only thought of the analysis in that light as being negative. Now when I hear the term rhetoric, I realize that my original definition comprises a small part of the term rhetoric as it is based off of the tone that one chooses when addressing a specific crowd. Rhetoric is the careful choice of words and their sequence to give off a tone dependant on the varying audience.

I agree that a big problem of Walter's group was that they lacked a specific purpose; in relation to that, however, they did not plan well and tailor their methods of communication based on the audience they were approaching. Therefore, I think that not thinking ahead and adjusting their ways to better suit their target audience greatly hindered them.

1. I suppose rhetoric isn't a word that I typically use in everyday conversation. Though I was familiar with the word I rarely used it. Before reading this I would always conjure a political setting in my mind after hearing the word rhetoric. I suppose I would assume the word had to do with the way politicians used words to shield and manipulate what they are actually saying. However, my opinion has greatly shifted. I would now define rhetoric as a tool used in the process of talking. A speech tool. It manipulates, even confused the audience into making a decision pre-determined by the speaker. By confusing this audience a decision can be forced out of them.

2. Walters group had a few problems. The excerpt states that their main problem was a lack of a specific purpose. This, they argue, gave them no direction and therefore made reaching the ultimate goal difficult. However, I would argue the largest problem facing Walters group, was Walter himself. I don't believe he was a good leader and made simple mistakes that ultimately hurt his team. Walter seemed to not even consider treating them female members of his group with any respect, delegating them to trivial roles with no second though. I believe had he been a better leader, or someone else lead, I believe the group would have found more success.

1. I, like many others, have had a tendency to associate the word 'rhetoric' with a politician's (or other public speaker's) use of wording and even to an extent, their way of incoherent rambling when giving a speech. After reading this excerpt and the first class, I feel like I have a better grasp on the word's actual meaning. After reading this article, it is more apparent that rhetoric is something used by everyone in everyday conversation to mold peoples mindset in a particular setting or situation.

2. It is true that Walter's group did indeed lack a specific purpose, and I believe that the lack of specific purpose is a big deal, but I don't necessarily think that it purpose was the prevailing problem. I believe that it was a lack of preparation all together that hurt the group more than anything else when they went to talk to the women. If they would have gotten together to prepare any whatsoever, they would have been more likely to discuss a primary purpose, a back up plan, and many likely situations and reactions of the women. Since they did not, they had to deal with their mistakes.

1. I always thought of rhetoric being someone's specific way of speaking. For example, how every individual has a different style of writing, every communicator has their own rhetoric. I have heard people use the term when dealing with politicians, or even people trying to sell ads, but it has always had to do with persuading someone-- never just trying to tell a colorful story. This excerpt taught me that rhetoric is actually as historical as ancient Greece and is simply knowing the right way to talk to people, to relate to them, to get your message across effectively, and using whatever kind of language that allows that to happen.
2. Walter's group definitely had a lack of purpose. However, I feel that their number one issue was not being prepared AT ALL. They weren't prepared to answer any questions and were stereotypical and hurtful when they tried. They did not have any visuals or guidelines as to what these ladies would be getting themselves into if they did decide to join, and they had not rehearsed so it came off as being very unprofessional and not serious. Also, they were completely clueless as to how to interact with their specific audience. I probably would've declined their invitation, as well.

1. Before reading Compose, Design, Advocate my definition for the word rhetoric would of been much more simple. I believed it was a one-sided conversation. Of course, persuation was still the main duty of rhetoric. In ancient Greece, the people of influence had to be incredible orators, being that spoken word was the only form of communicating ideas. In modern times, rhetoric applys to other media, such as e-mail and television. Yet, the power to move an audience, for good or worse, still lies in rhetoric.

2. If lack of specific purpose is what caused Walter to announce such an inconsiderate comment, then I agree that it was the biggest problem. If not lack of purpose, then lack of preparation is the key issue here. If Walter and his think-tank had taken the time to prepare for a meeting of engineers in a professional setting, they would have forseen the possibility of such a debacle. He also used the word, "stuff" in referencing the resposibilities of employment.