Andrea Rodriguez

Professor Thames
ENC 1102
4 September 2020

1. In everyday conversation, argument is usually denoted to be involved in conflict. You are

in an argument because you are most likely at odds with someone else. Stuart Greene
states that when we argue in an everyday conversation, “we take a stand and support what
we think” (Greene 1). In writing, an argument essentially takes the same form. While in
the academic setting, we decide what we want to argue on because of how we feel or
think of a topic. However, to form a valid argument, research must be conducted. You
have to read claims of others’ work with a critical eye in order to form your argument. In
everyday conversation and in an academic setting, argument represents a stark difference.
In the everyday, we intend for our arguments to prove us right, or for them to persuade
others to feel the same way we do. Although we may begin with having the same
intention of persuasion in the academic setting, the true purpose should be to start a
conversation with your argument. Often, you do not need to research a topic heavily to
argue in an everyday conversation. In an academic setting, it is vital to research in order
to form an inquiry. This inquiry will make the piece of writing much more appealing to
the reader and the author.
4. In the past, I strictly knew rhetoric in terms of rhetorical appeals and rhetorical questions.
Once I read Doug Downs’ article, I learned rhetoric is so much more than a good writing
technique. Downs states that “rhetoric must be a system for and art of interpreting other
people’s actions” because of we interpret bodily actions (Downs 18). Rhetoric is
embodied, meaning that it begins with being self-aware. With that being said, I have
shared the concepts of knowledge making, motivation, and identification when it comes
to Downs’ list. I am familiar with motivation because I have been taught about how to
make your motives in writing clear enough to shape an interaction between the reader and
writer. I am used the rhetorical appeals such as logos, pathos, and ethos because I was
taught how to provoke feelings from an audience. However, my familiarity with
identification was challenged by Downs. When it came to writing, I assumed that
identification matched exclusively with feelings. Downs challenges my thoughts by
stating that “when we trust a rhetor deeply, it is because we see some aspect of ourselves
 Andrea Rodriguez
Professor Thames
ENC 1102
4 September 2020

in them” (Downs 49). This indicates that there is more self-awareness than I originally
thought.

Work Cited
Downs, Doug. “Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making.” Writing
About Writing. 3rd ed., Macmillan Learning, 2017, pp. 458-461.
Greene, Stuart. “Argument as Conversation.” Writing About Writing. 3rd ed., Macmillan
Learning, 2017, pp. 32-34