Reflect on our readings and discussions--as well as your new and growing understanding of rhetoric--and start to construct your own “theory of composing;” what does it mean to compose and to do so “effectively?”
You will revisit your theory of composing as the semester continues and it will become one of the capstone pieces in your portfolio; but for right now, focus on your initial thoughts.
According to Aristotle, rhetoric "is the ability to see in each particular case, the available means of persuasion." I believe rhetoric has everything to do with persuasion and persuading effectively, but I also believe it all has to do with the way a composition is organized. In the reading "Key Concepts in Rhetoric," by Covino and Joliffe, we are given "five traditional canons of rhetoric." These include, arrangement, invention, style, and memory. Composing successfully, has a lot to do with organizing these concepts in a correct manner. My "theory of composition," consists of all five canons arranged in a specific order, beginning with invention. The invention consists of finding a certain topic on which to touch upon. Without a topic, there is no composition. Following, arrangement would be the next most important canon, because without organization of information, the audience would most likely not be able to understand, or they would just not care to listen. Style is the next one on the list, due to the fact that without creativity, the concept you are trying to convince the audience upon would not correctly grasp the attention of the audience, or correctly grasp the concept. The delivery and style have a lot in common. Style is the mannerisms, the way a written work is composed, its use of language and its ability to grab the audiences attention, and thus making it successful. The delivery also has to do with mannerisms, or the way a speaker delivers the speech. The delivery has to be entertaining, and keep the audience on the speaker at all times. Memory, I believe should be the last of all these canons, because although in Ancient Greece, it was required, now a days it is no longer required or important. Following this order of canons, the ability to persuade an audience on a certain topic would not be at all difficult.
ReplyDeleteWhat is rhetoric? Is it the formation of successful discourse? Is it effective use of language? Is it the way a text is arranged? Is it style, delivery, message and invention? Throughout the past two weeks, I have come to an understanding that rhetoric is a combination of all. Rhetoric is the effective use of language that allows the creator to successfully convey his or her ideas. To do so successfully, however, the creator or rhetor has to use the five cannons of rhetoric that Aristotle first mentioned. These are as follows: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Though each topic has its unique characteristics, each topic ties into the next. Invention, or taking an idea and forming it, is much like the use of arrangement. By taking the idea, one has to arrange it, or put form into it to give it a coherent meaning. As the idea takes formation, the rhetor puts his or her style into it by the use of delivery. When creating the piece, the creator picks different times to make points through delivery, which provides a unique quality to the piece that no other piece will have. This results in style. While writing, or creating, the rhetor is remembering his or her ideas (memory) to create them and arrange them, which leads back to the beginning where invention takes place. During this creation process, the rhetor has to remember audience, which ties into the step of style creation. When considering the audience, it is appropriate for the rhetor to use the rhetorical triangle, which focuses on logos, ethos, and pathos. When an argument or points are made, the points of the triangle are placed in the rhetoric without much conscious thought. It is within human nature to use logic and credibility to connect with others, whether that is on an emotional basis or not. Though rhetoric has defined attributes, all run together subconsciously. It is the art of practice, that makes for perfect, or in this case successful discourse.
ReplyDeleteMy theory on rhetoric is that you write to gain knowledge and discover yourself more clearly through your compositions. When I am writing my own thoughts, I take a single idea and morph it into a complex argument through out my composition. I expound on my single idea until it has become a fully formed argument. Afterwards I will go back and read my writing and discover ideas that were previously dormant in my mind. This would mean that my idea of rhetoric would be closely associated with the idea of classical rhetoric, mixed in with the 60’s movement to have rhetoric take more notice of the student’s needs and adjust to their social demands. Ethos is the most important point on the rhetorical triangle because without it no one will take your argument seriously. I think being able to take a writer seriously is the most important thing because without trusting an author, their arguments and emotional appeals won’t matter. In terms of audience I think the constraints should be that writing is tactful, as to not completely alienate anyone that reads it. That is to say, that the writing should pay attention to a particular group of readers, but not alienate other’s who can’t directly influence the argument you are presenting.
ReplyDeleteComposition is a word with more than one meaning. Authors “compose” essays, books and articles. Musicians “compose” symphonies. Artists “compose” works of art. It’s almost as if everything we do is composing and that “composing” is really just making anything, especially when you consider the fact that anyone of any age can do any of the things I just listed. I think that any type, though, is an exploration of the self and one’s ideas through action. The word itself has so many synonyms (formulate, devise, arrange, draft, orchestrate, choreograph, etc) that it would be hard to do something which isn’t composing. Effective composition, however, is an entirely different story.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can create anything, but not everyone can effectively create anything. Effective composition depends on the audience and their interests and their differences in morals, beliefs, etc, as we discussed in class. I will, for once, give Cicero the credit he deserves in this situation. Though normally rather verbose and, to be honest, a bit of a egocentric trouble maker, he successfully identified the way to properly arrange a written composition to make it useful and successful. Reminiscent of Anonymous of Bologna’s “The Art of Letter Writing,” I think that Cicero’s focus on appealing to an audience in composition is what makes it most effective. Through flattery in Anonymous of Bologna’s piece and appeal to the truth or a greater common good for the audience in Cicero’s case, the level of effectiveness is based on the audience’s reception of your work.
Effective writing also needs to be clear and concise. In Cicero’s steps of arrangement, he sets aside space for quite a bit of information on the topic. If that information is poorly constructed, there really isn’t a point in appealing to the audience because they won’t understand either way (which may be reflected in my post here…). This aspect of effective writing also reflects on kairos and the appeals in the rhetorical triangle.
Rhetoric is pure and simple, it is to say what we think. We say something because we think and believe it, or for at least that period of time. To be able to persuade we have to think before we speak and even if we don't mean to say what we had thought; we still thought of what we said. However, when people start to delve deep into the human mind and try to come up with the reasons why we think what we think, there are so few answers. So instead of exploring purely the psychological aspects of rhetoric we will discuss the composition.
ReplyDeleteTo come up with effective rhetoric a person cannot just think and speak, even though what they say maybe what they believe and want to exert in their given argument; there are too many variables to consider to make the outcome become a positive one. Aristotle one of the classical teachers of rhetoric said, "a whole is which has a beginning, middle and end". This is a key concept while composing our thoughts, to have our argument make sense we need to have an order.
A good start for composition is by looking at the rhetorical triangle which consist the Ethos (rhetor), Logos (argument), and Pathos (audience). To consider these three items is key in successful rhetoric. To have a positive outcome the rhetor must be respected by the audience, have a clear and concessive argument, and make the audience take something from what was stated in the argument.
Now there are many orders in which to put an argument, but since we are talking about the classics we might as well look at the five canons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. These are five basic steps to successfully argument our point. We all need to have something to say because if there is nothing to think then there is nothing to say. There needs to be organization to the argument:
Ethos
Logos
Logos
Logos
Pathos
Back to the triangle which produces an easy way to make a good established case to an audience.
Composing a successful argument is what is the hard part of rhetoric, but with these few steps we may become a established rhetor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComposing is the art of synthesizing written or oral text in a way that effectively conveys an idea. To even begin composing, a writer should abide by the five canons of rhetoric solely to enhance his purpose for writing. Through invention, arrangement, and style, a writer can persuade an audience. In order to create a convincing argument, he must refer to the three points on the rhetorical triangle: ethos, pathos, and logos. As he establishes his credibility through his ethical and moral qualities, his reasoning and logical appeals become more influential. After he has influenced his audience, he assures them that their values and beliefs are what are motivating his argument. While he is composing this argument, he must insert himself into the audience to get a holistic perspective and also must consider the constraints that could deter his audience from acting how he would like them to. Another part of composing that is crucial is cohesion and coherence. Cohesion refers to the sentences and topics themselves that stand alone. Coherence refers to the summation of these sentences and topics and the central idea that arises from them being put together. As Rochelle Smith puts it, “cohesion is text centered, whereas coherence is audience centered.” The text has to make sense and avoid redundancy in order to be effective. Another key component of composition is collaboration. Critiquing and conferencing with others provides an outsider’s insight that can be helpful in strengthening the argument. Some see writing as an individual act, while others see it as a social act, and I personally see it as both. A writer invents the material on his own, but may or may not make contributions taken from others. I think it is best to see writing as an individual and social act because the writer is getting the best of both worlds, so to speak. Form and structure are important in the act of composing because how the writer constructs his argument will make the audience think a certain way. If the piece is an utter mess of randomly placed facts, morals, and emotional appeals, the audience will not understand the main purpose and the goal will not have been achieved. Coherence is a synonym for form. Composing is a process. The writer has to critically think about what his intentions are and how to obtain the result he wants. He has to think of the product and content alone, but also the process as a whole. The final step in composing effectively is the revision process. This is where the writer corrects anything that may sound out of place. Revisions do not always guarantee improvement though, as Sommers says. To compose effectively, a writer must create a natural flow of strong points that will make an audience react.
ReplyDeleteTo me, composing effectively means utilizing the five canons: content, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. This, in conjunction with integrating the rhetorical triangle (ethos, pathos, and logos) will almost ensure the construction of a valid composition.
ReplyDeleteSeems too complicated, right? Wrong.
Multi-tasking is the name of the game here, folks. You have to write something, which is difficult enough, but you also have to include relevant content material, organize everything effectively, use your creative juices to make stylistic choices, not forget any key part of your piece, and deliver the message in a pleasing manner. At the SAME TIME, you have to infuse logical, emotional, and credible reasons into your argument. When you start contemplating the rhetorical audience, message, and constraints, you might just give up; but never fear! It will all become clear!
Merely juggle the rhetorical bean bags and balance them on your head; then just write the piece. Don't worry about any of this rhetorical nonsense-- at least for now! Once you have a complete draft, then re-read your work. Evaluate yourself in terms of the rhetorical guidelines: the canons, the triangle, and the situation. Maybe you need to add a little bit of logos because your writing style favors pathos; maybe you lack style and over compensated with arrangement. Either way, rhetoric gives sight to the blind editor in a way which opens up world of improvement.
Rhetoric is a method of persuasion. It is how you craft an argument so that your audience, the people who can change the “problem,” so that they understand and listen. There is an “appropriate” way to address the situation. For example, trying to convince the government of a new tax plan would not end well if you used baby talk and simple, basic words. Every rhetoric covers three bases: Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric can be completed in any way desired, but effective rhetoric usually follows an order. It must also excel in the areas of Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. If the discourse has the correct topic, word choice, and order for the audience, the orator should be able to effectively convey his/her idea to the audience and hopefully change their method of thinking.
It can be used involving the written word, the spoken word or even no words at all. Throughout history, the concept of rhetoric is juggled among orators, writers, scientists and psychologists, all trying to figure out the true meaning behind the natural human process of creating discourse. We can even use the art of persuasion on our own beings; epistemic rhetoric involves making decisions for ourselves, essentially creating our own reality, completely void of alternate opinions. We can find rhetoric in everything we do, and it touches nearly every part of our daily lives.
After reading the article about the different time periods of rhetoric studies, my definition of rhetoric would be simply the effective use of language to relay a message to an audience using a means of persuasion. The article did a good job of showing the slow progression of the different focuses of rhetorical studies, literature versus writing. Over time, it seems that the classical process of composing was overshadowed by the new concepts of emotional appeal to audience and not focusing so much on rules to produce a specific product. My own theory of composing would be to stick to Aristotle’s five stages of composing a rhetorical speech, while incorporating human thought and expression and how an audience might respond to such.
ReplyDeleteI was glad that the classics were being brought back to composition programs later in the postmodern era. I believe there is something to be said about the original study and teaching of rhetoric. The classic scholar produced a formula that worked and yes it is a little outdated to use as is now but it stands as a solid frame work.
Composition is clearly defined as the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. To me that is exactly what it is. By using the five cannons of rhetoric- invention/content, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery- composition is made easier to understand. With invention, you take some wealth of knowledge, obtained on your own findings or through the influence of a source- these are your parts. You then take those parts using arrangement and style to produce a piece that is appropriate for your audience and will appeal to them. Then with memory and delivery it gives your piece credibility. The more you can remember about your piece, without having to actually read it off a piece of paper, the more your audience will believe that you are experienced in the subject your piece is about. The conviction you have behind your delivery will also give you credibility. Composition is like a assembly line- you have these individual pieces that do not look like they fit together, but once you start the process and go through each step (the five cannons), the final product is something you could have never imagined.
ReplyDeleteTo me, rhetoric involves the artful use of different mediums in order to persuade. Rhetoric began in ancient Greece and had several distinct structural features. Most notably, these included the five cannons; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Additionally, they included three rhetorical appeals—ethos (communication/the credibility of the speaker), pathos (audience/emotional connection/beliefs/constraints) and logos (the message) —or the three “points” in the rhetorical pyramid. In all things, the classics are classics for a reason; composition of rhetoric, whether it oral, written, or otherwise, should incorporate the five canons and the points of the Rhetorical pyramid. They serve as guiding principles, a framework for which to apply other rhetorical skills in composition.
ReplyDeleteI find flexibility and the ability to adapt to be characteristics of effective rhetorical composition as well. When speaking orally, memory is preferable, but a rhetor should have a well stocked composition “toolkit.” This way, the rhetor can adapt and carry on unruffled if something goes awry. The rhetor should be able to improvise to avoid mechanical memorization and recitation. The rhetor should also be able to field questions, withstand rebuttals, and change course if need be. Attention to the audience is crucial, and knowing them intimately is beneficial; that way, the rhetor can successfully make any of the three appeals, and decide on the means of delivery, arrangement, and style of the message. Rhetoric is, by nature, epistemic; through rhetoric, the rhetor can alter the reality of the audience. A successful rhetor can convince the audience of the existence of issues, solutions, and needs, and shape their behaviors. The rhetor must be careful with the gestures and words used in their delivery, and must choose language, images, and other pieces carefully so as not to offend their audience; for instance, a rhetor attempting to solicit a group of religious conservatives should probably refrain from using coarse language or ideologically sensitive material, preserving the rhetor’s appeal to ethos. More importantly, if a rhetor is sensitive to the audience’s beliefs, the rhetor can better appeal to pathos and adapt the technique to convince the audience that their preexisting values align with the message. This kind of flexibility is attained through the process of invention; the process of deciding “what to say” could become the process of deciding “what to say if,” or “what to say when” something happens.
Composing rhetorically is defined in different ways by multiple theorists in the field of rhetoric. To me, rhetorical composition is a matter of meeting the five canons of rhetoric: Invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Generally, by meeting the five canons, one also meets the three appeals of the rhetorical triangle: Ethos, pathos, and logos.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that kairos's importance is not stressed enough. Bitzer suggests the importance of timing in terms of a rhetorical situation responding to a pertinent topic, but otherwise the topic isn't given enough magnitude compared to how I feel it should. The timing of rhetoric is infinitely beneficial in terms of pathos--a presidential speech given after a satirizing episode of Saturday Night Live would likely be less effective than a presidential speech immediately following a major crisis (for reasons other than SNL ending after midnight, of course).
For the most part, I agree with how Bitzer describes rhetoric and the general ideas behind his theories. This may be because it was my first notion of rhetoric in my collegiate career, but I believe I mostly feel this way because his theories seem to be relatively well-received.
My "Theory of Composing" consists of a neccessity to have organization. Organization is very essential when writing because it is easier to comprehend which approach will be best for getting points across to audiences. I have decided that when trying to brainstorm or configure a work of writing, one needs to follow an outlined process; I like to dwell on the five canons of rhetoric because they show these key skills. Outlines ensure that one's best concepts are being generated and will be as influential as possible on the audiences.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the assigned readings are concerned, I loved Bizzell, Herzberg, and Reynold's "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition." It was a tad bit of information overload but I now have such an intriguing understanding of what rhetoric and composition consists of.
Composing, as we know it, is a process in itself that provides recorded written proof of what goes on in writer's heads. For composing to be done effectively the five canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery all have to be used and give way to orderly explanation of our thoughts. Also, I feel as though cognitive processes, too, has so much to do with composing and shares similarities. As a fluent rhetoric writer, you have to formulate what it is you want to write about and that requires a lot of planning, reasoning, and imagination depending on what it is you want your audience to convey.
It seems to me that composing in text is simply to create of a body of ideas. To compose effectively though, is a process that takes time and effort. There are many considerations when composing any type of work and all have certain canons which cannot be ignored when trying to create an effective piece.
ReplyDeleteFor rhetoric to achieve its purpose, there are certain ideas which must always be addressed. Most important is the relationship between the rhetor and his audience. To create an effective piece of work means that the rhetor must anticipate how the audience will react to what he has to say. This is how the rhetorical triangle gains importance. Without the inclusion of ethos, logos, and pathos the argument has no real basis. The ethos establishes the trust, the bond, between the rhetor and the audience that gives them the reason to listen in the first place. Without the logos however, there is no argument or body to what the rhetor is saying. And pathos allows the rhetor to make the argument personal to their audience. While an argument can be made with either minimal logos or pathos, a well composed piece of rhetoric must balance the two.
While the actual creation of the work or argument is the composition of it, there are other aspects of rhetoric that must be included. The revision gives the rhetor the ability to look into their work and change it, keeping the work alive and adapting it as necessary. For oratory purposes, the memory and delivery are huge considerations. The rhythm of a piece, whether being spoken or written, can affect the effectiveness of the piece. A choppy speech will not give the audience the best possible chance of understanding and being moved by the argument. And a written work that has no flow runs the risk of not being fully read.
I understand that we have only a basic understanding of rhetoric at the moment and that this theory of composition is a grossly simplified look at what makes a piece effective. However, these are still the basic underlying necessities in a good argument and as such are all that the average person needs to understand.
My theory is that rhetoric is a method of confronting the world through language. The composition of text in either written or spoken form is an outlet that allows us to interact with the world around us. It can be divided into the simple and convenient canons that we learned in class Invention (the creation of the idea), Arrangement (the planning of the structure of your composition), style (the fun stuff that makes your thing unique), memory (mostly important only for written speeches), and delivery (the actual conveyance of your discourse). On a simpler level, I prefer Bitzer's way of organizing a Rhetorical Situation: Exigence (the problem) and Discourse (the discussion/argument). Regardless of how you organize your rhetoric or composition on a technical level, and regardless of what other factors like Coherence and Topoi come into play, Rhetoric is all about communication and truth to me. And that's all it will ever be.
ReplyDeleteBrittany writes:
ReplyDeleteComposition has influenced many changes throughout history, but one thing that has not changed since the Classical period is that all writing needs rhetoric for an effective delivery. In reading Covino and Jolliffe it states that "rhetoric is all language," and all forms of communication, I agree with this statement. In Classical rhetoric, oratory were placed under three categories of social functions are as follows: deliberative, forensic and epideictive. In Aristotle's time he designed what he calls the Psychological Device Central to Rhetoric. His design contains 5 canons that include; invention, style, arrangement, memory and delivery. Memory and delivery were not important until later in Roman rhetoric's. In some ways Peter Ramus reconstructed Aristotle's means of persuasion to increase the relevance of style, memory and delivery to rhetoric in Medieval times when religion played a big part. In the period of New Criticism thought was connected to language and theorists started to write about rhetoric. The 5 canons came back into play in the 1960s but writing was no longer a step by step process; it was more self-expressed. After writing became more cognitive in the 80's; it expanded to all things in the 1990's.
I believe Rhetoric became more involved in standard language as times evolved. When language expanded; so did rhetoric. When oratory is logical and organized it builds composition. Over the years in history these differences of design, influence and construction in language continue to relate to rhetoric. Although there has been modifications in composition since ancient times; it all boils down to one goal; "Good writing."
Candance writes:
ReplyDeleteTo "compose" something typically means to come up with something that is your own. A composer can be an artist, author, rapper/song writer, etc. People compose all sorts of things, what I am writing right now is me composing. It is when someone gathers their thoughts or brainstorms to take those thoughts and to turn it into something. Whether it be a picture, a song, an essay, a book... people compose things on a daily basis whether they may realize it or not. A connection that I can make to better describe what composing means to me is when someone says "compose yourself." This means to bring yourself together and to gather your thoughts. That is the same process that you have to do before you begin to actually compose something, or to produce a literary peice or whatever it may be. It consists of taking multiple things and mashing it into one single composition.
Olushola writes:
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that comes to my head when thinking of composing something is a conductor. A conductor signals an orchestra to play a selected tune the way it should be played. The true definition of the word compose is “the components or parts that make up something”. When someone composes something they are piecing together a work of art, literature, etc. my theory of composing is comparable to writing poetry or a song. The reason for this comparison is because initially the creator has to come up with an idea that is appropriate for the situation at hand. After coming up with an idea one must now brainstorm on how to make the idea a reality. Using the example of producing a song, a person may begin by freestyling and then eventually record their lyrics. The next step for composing something is editing the final product. The final step in the composing process is bringing the final product to the public’s attention; this is a very important step because this is how the creator receives credit. I know these steps may not be the correct but this is my theory on composing. Reading “The brief History of rhetoric and composition” I identified a five step process for composing writing which is discovering ideas, organizing ideas, style, memory, and delivery. A rhetoric discourse is created from composing ideas in s specific genre.
The five cannons of rhetoric helps a writer compose effectively. My thoughts on an effective method of composing are being passionate about the subject. Aristotle is known for saying “discovering available means of persuasion”. If a writer is not passionate about the subject how can they persuade and audience? Another method that helps writers compose effectively is researching the subject. I mentioned before that the creator has to make an idea a reality and knowledge of the subject. Rhetorical discourse and genre call for composition. Composition is effective if the audience is moved by the discourse. The audience being moved by the rhetorical discourse it says a lot about the ethos. Also the logos is an important part of the effectiveness of composition.
Winnie writes:
ReplyDeleteThese past two weeks we have been discussing rhetoric. In the beginning, I really was not sure what rhetoric was at all. I just assumed it was complicated and something I would never understand. However, rhetoric is a simple idea, it is the “art of using language effectively” (from In Defense of Rhetoric). We use rhetoric when we are saying something we believe. To “compose effectively”, we must use rhetoric, but it is a little more complicated than that. Rhetoric consists of five canons: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. Each canon must be thought out and planned because they truly do have an effect on whether your message is effective. Invention is the process of developing your argument, what you want to talk about and the point you wish for everyone to know. Arrangement is the process of organizing your argument. You must have ethos in the beginning, logos in the middle, and pathos at the end. With style, you must decide how you will present your argument. When this is done effectively, your audience will see the organization of your message and find you credible. In Ancient Greece, memorizing your argument was extremely important and that is why memory is on the list. Even though it is not required to memorizing your speech now, you must be able to know your argument well enough to say it at any point. Finally, we have delivery, which is how you deliver the speech. What your hand gestures are doing and how loud your voice gets, these are just some examples. When constructing your composition, you must utilize each canon, and in this order as well. Invention While writing, it is necessary to include the rhetorical triangle as well. The rhetorical triangle contains logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is your message, and the logic of your argument. Pathos is your audience and the emotional appeal of the message. This is tricky because you might need to tailor your message to specifically mesh with your audience. It is about finding their values and what they do not like. Finally, ethos is the speaker and your credibility. You must establish why your audience should trust you. Why should they be listening to your opinion? Integrating both the canons and the triangle, ensure a clear and concise message to come across. I think that organization when writing and planning ahead or doing research on the message, the speaker, and your audience are at the heart of composing effectively.
Before these two weeks began, I didn't quite understand how there could be a formula to solving rhetoric. I simply felt it was an innate ability to use language effectively and express a strong belief. After this week, however, I have learned that there is so much more to effectively using rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric is part of a fundamental working system, made by composing many different articles to express a point.
I have learned that it is necessary to experience an exigence that sparks your need for a change. This exigence must fill you with passion and inspire you to alter a situation. You must have an audience, and address them while abiding to certain constraints.
Once your rhetoric is taking place, this is where the canons come into play. Composing and executing the five canons are probably the most imperative part of a successful rhetorical argument. Each canon; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, play such vital roles in the entirety of a rhetor's purpose.
I personally feel that the delivery is the key component in rhetorical situations. While it is essential to have great content, the way it is presented will make or break an argument. As presented by most of the leaders of our country, a well spoken and articulate ruler receives much more respect than one that can hardly form a sentence.
Additionally, ethos, pathos, and logos, must ann be effectively addressed in a rhetorical argument. These three elements are very important for persuading your audience.
Rhetoric is a well oiled machine, not something inherently innate, it takes skill and several components to deliver effectively.