On the subject of rhetorical devices, here's one I've been following lately--the enthymeme.
This device first came to my attention during the buildup to in a WaPo piece by Paul Waldman.
<<This is an example of what scholars of rhetoric call <enthymematic argumentation>. In an enthymeme, the speaker builds an argument with one element removed, leading listeners to fill in the missing piece. On May 1, speaking from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. . . . With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." This is classic enthymematic argumentation: We were attacked on Sept. 11, so we went to war against Iraq. The missing piece of the argument -- "Saddam was involved in 9/11" -- didn't have to be said aloud for those listening to assimilate its message.>>
The reason this has been on my mind is that we are seeing the technique again re SS. The pitch on SS reform is that 1)SS is going broke and 2)private accounts will produce a better benefit. The missing piece, left to the reader, is that private accounts will fix SS's finances, which is, of course, singularly untrue. The plan relies on benefit cuts to do that. Private accounts are a separate matter. |
