Rhetorical Appeals and Argument Claims in Persuasion
Classical Rhetoric and Persuasive Appeals
Classical rhetoricians analyzed the ways that effective speeches persuaded their audiences. They identified three kinds of persuasive appeals, which they called logos, ethos, and pathos. These appeals can be understood within a rhetorical context illustrated by a triangle: the rhetorical triangle.
Four Main Types of Argument Claims
There are four main types of claims used in argument writing: definition (or resemblance), causal, evaluation, and proposal. A definition claim focuses on identifying what something is and what category it belongs to. It tries to clarify meaning and settle disputes about boundaries — for example, whether video games should be considered a sport or whether graffiti counts as art. These arguments often depend on establishing clear criteria.
A causal claim, on the other hand, examines causes and effects, asking why something happens or what will happen as a result of a certain action — for example, exploring how social media use influences students’ attention spans.
Evaluation claims judge the value or morality of something, asking whether it is good or bad, fair or unfair, or effective or harmful. For instance, arguing that animal testing is unethical or that remote learning improves education are both evaluation claims.
Finally, proposal claims don’t just judge; they suggest action. They answer the question “What should we do?” by proposing a solution or policy, such as implementing stricter environmental laws or increasing teacher salaries. Together, these four claim types represent the main ways writers build arguments — by defining, explaining, judging, and proposing change.
Categorical Arguments and Their Structures
Types of Categorical Arguments
Categorical arguments are arguments that claim something is or is not part of a specific category, or that it resembles something in that category. They are divided into four main types.
1. Simple Categorical Argument
The first type is the simple categorical argument, in which everyone agrees on the definition of the category. In this case, the discussion focuses only on whether the thing in question fits the established criteria. For example, if someone claims that “low-carb diets are dangerous,” they must provide evidence showing how such diets actually cause harm.
2. Definition Argument
The second type is the definition argument, which appears when there is disagreement about what defines a category or its boundaries. Here, the argument is not only about the specific case but also about the definition of the term itself. For instance, if people argue whether Macklemore is a “pure rapper,” the debate depends on how “pure rapper” is defined. Definition arguments use what the book calls a criteria–match structure:
- First, the writer defines the category by establishing clear criteria.
- Then, they demonstrate that the person or phenomenon in question either meets or fails to meet those criteria.
3. Resemblance Arguments
Finally, there are resemblance arguments, which compare one thing to another. They can take two forms:
Analogy
Arguments by analogy use figurative comparisons — for example, describing a boss as “a Marine drill sergeant” — to highlight similarities and persuade the audience emotionally or visually. However, analogies can be weak if the differences between the two things are too great.
Precedent
Arguments by precedent, on the other hand, rely on historical or past examples: they claim that a current situation is like a previous one and should therefore be handled in the same way. To refute them, one can show that the present case is actually different from the earlier one.