Output

I've had to write one 15-page paper, one 8-page paper, and one 8-page take-home final in the space of 10 days. I had topics and outlines planned out in advance, but still ended up being rushed. Actually, I'm not done with the final exam yet; I have to turn it in tomorrow, early afternoon, before I leave to go out of town (it's due the 15th). Here's the question I've chosen out of the four options, and believe me, it was preferable to the others, since I have thought about this a little before:

In the conclusion to the New Rhetoric Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca write, "Only the existence of an argumentation that is neither compelling nor arbitrary can give meaning to human freedom, a state in which reasonable choice can be exercised" (NR, 514).



Explain what this means and evaluate their success in meeting this goal.



Or if you want the longer version of the question: Explain how within their system traditional concepts in theories of argumentation, e.g., validity, fallacy, etc. that formed the basis for distinguishing rationally compelling argument are transformed to admit a degree of choice; then explain how seemingly arbitrary means, such as emotional appeal and striking style, are transformed so that they are no longer arbitrary or subjective. Then select some of the techniques of argumentation they identify and show how they are not a miscellaneous collection but meet the test of neither compelling nor arbitrary. Have Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca created a rhetoric that has found a middle ground between the compelling and the arbitrary? Or have they amassed an incoherent collection of techniques that people sometimes use when they argue.

Kind of a leading question, isn't it? ;) I know what to say, but it's going to be dry and tedious. I'm working with as few cases as possible; one fallacy and one of the seemingly arbitrary means, probably the ridiculous (starts on p. 205 if you're interested).