The book opens by claiming that any expression—from tweets to clothing—counts as a form of argument.

The authors introduce the distinction between convincing an audience to accept a claim and persuading them to take action.

Aristotle's three rhetorical appeals—ethos, pathos, and logos—are presented as the core tools for appealing to any audience.

The concept of kairos is introduced, explaining that effective arguers must identify the ideal moment and context to present their case.

Research showing that people make decisions based on feelings is cited to establish the persuasive power of emotional appeals.

Elon Musk's decision to open source Tesla patents is presented as an example of a company building ethos through a public action.

President Obama's State of the Union address is analyzed to illustrate the difference between reasoning-based proofs and hard statistical evidence.

The Washington Post's investigation of Obama's wage gap statistic reveals that even compelling data can be presented misleadingly.

Fallacies are defined as argumentative moves that are inherently flawed by their very nature or structure.

The Dodge Ram 'God Made a Farmer' Super Bowl commercial is fully analyzed as a complete rhetorical text.

The Toulmin argument structure is introduced, built around claims, qualifiers, warrants, backing, and acknowledgment of rebuttals.

Arguments of fact are introduced, with the observation that most factual arguments arise from a question of curiosity.

Proposals are distinguished from other argument types as uniquely future-focused and action-oriented, prioritizing audience action over mere acceptance.

Visual rhetoric is introduced, covering how images, fonts, and design choices build pathos, ethos, and logos simultaneously.

Plagiarism is addressed, and proper citation is framed as both an ethical requirement and a tool for building speaker credibility.

This pool follows the textbook's main conceptual arc from start to finish, covering the foundational ideas that define the field of rhetoric. It begins by establishing that all expression is argument before introducing the three Aristotelian appeals—ethos, pathos, and logos—as the engine of persuasion. The middle events trace how these concepts are tested and complicated, from Obama's manipulated wage gap statistic to the full rhetorical analysis of a Super Bowl commercial. The Toulmin model then provides a practical structure for building rigorous arguments with claims, warrants, and qualifiers. The pool closes with the book's guidance on argument types, visual rhetoric, and the ethical demands of citation and academic integrity.

The core rhetorical concepts from argument basics to academic integrity.

Aristotle's classification of arguments by time—forensic, deliberative, and epideictic—is introduced to categorize arguments about past, future, and present.

The authors distinguish between intended readers, invoked readers, and real readers as three distinct types of audiences.

Senator Marco Rubio's off-script Senate speech attacking Cuba is analyzed as an example of risky, potentially alienating emotional appeal.

Michael Pollan's essay describing reading about animal rights while eating a steak illustrates how pathos can open audiences to uncomfortable ideas.

Ron Rosenbaum's essay 'Let Them Eat Fat' is presented to show how humor can relax audiences into accepting an argument.

J.K. Rowling's joking opening to her Harvard commencement address is used to show how self-deprecating humor builds speaker credibility.

The documentary Super Size Me is identified as an example of stacking the deck by presenting only one side of an argument.

A blogger's critique of the Dodge Ram commercial's lack of diverse farming representation is introduced to illustrate rhetorical context and implication.

The Declaration of Independence is analyzed as a model of classical oration, from its opening exordium through its closing call to action.

Frederick Douglass's Fourth of July speech is presented as a historical example of an invitational argument seeking shared understanding.

The Defense of Marriage Act is introduced to illustrate how arguments of definition can carry far-reaching legal and social consequences.

America's obesity epidemic opens the chapter on causal arguments, illustrating how a single effect can stem from multiple layered causes.

Three versions of the same campus hunger strike story are compared to show how word choice dramatically shifts an argument's tone.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech is cited to illustrate how repetition and parallelism build persuasive momentum.

The principle that every source—including scholarly ones—carries underlying bias and intention is introduced as central to source evaluation.

This pool covers the rich supporting layer of examples, historical analyses, and secondary concepts that develop the textbook's rhetorical framework. Beginning with Aristotle's time-based classification of arguments and the three types of audiences, the events move through memorable illustrations like Rubio's risky Senate speech and Rowling's self-deprecating humor. The middle of the pool examines landmark texts—the Declaration of Independence and Douglass's Fourth of July speech—as models of classical and invitational argument structure. Later events explore how word choice shapes perception, how causal arguments structure policy thinking, and how rhetorical analysis extends to critiquing what a text deliberately omits. The pool closes by grounding the research process in the uncomfortable truth that every source carries inherent bias.

Supporting examples and secondary concepts that flesh out the rhetorical framework.

The authors argue that the primary purpose of argument should shift from defeating opponents to finding mutually beneficial solutions.

Stasis theory is introduced as an ancient Greek and Roman framework for identifying the precise point of contention in any dispute.

A blind professor's account of her students' shocked reaction is used to show how empathy prompts audiences to examine their own prejudices.

A speaker's defense of his family history against 'check your privilege' accusations is met with audience backlash, illustrating how ethos can backfire.

The logical structure of syllogism is introduced using the classic example that Socrates is mortal because all human beings are mortal.

Political commentator Charles Krauthammer's response to a climate change article is identified as a straw man fallacy attacking a misrepresented claim.

Rhetorical analysis is revealed to be an argument in its own right, requiring its own claims, evidence, and supporting structure.

Rogerian and invitational argument structures are introduced as alternatives that prioritize mutual understanding and connection over persuasion and winning.

The flat tax enthymeme is examined closely, revealing that questioning its underlying warrant can flip the entire argument's conclusion.

The military's redefinition of 'combatants' to include all military-age males in a strike zone is cited to illustrate the power of definitional arguments.

The principle that fair evaluation requires establishing clear criteria before any judgment is made is introduced as the basis of evaluative arguments.

Rachel Carson's argument about chemical pesticides is presented as a landmark causal argument that leads with devastating effects on a community.

Figurative language is introduced as a persuasive tool, covering tropes like metaphor and irony and schemes like anaphora and parallelism.

Academic arguments are distinguished from other types as formally structured, research-based, and directed at a knowledgeable and specific audience.

The concept of 'infotention' is introduced to describe the essential skill of filtering and synthesizing the massive flow of online information.

This pool traces the textbook's most significant conceptual turning points, moments when a new idea challenges or reframes how readers understand argument. It opens with the provocative claim that argument's true purpose is not victory but consensus, then uses stasis theory to give readers a diagnostic tool for any dispute. The middle events reveal counterintuitive insights—that a warrant can entirely reverse an argument's conclusion, and that rhetorical analysis is itself a form of argument requiring its own evidence. The pool then examines how definition, evaluation, and causal structure each demand a foundational step before reasoning can proceed. It closes by confronting the challenges of the digital age, from navigating unavoidable source bias to filtering the endless flood of online information.

Key revelations and turning points that reframe how readers think about argument.