ARCS Chapter 4

I have to say that after reading the chapter, I feel like I don’t have a lot to say. The chapter did a pretty straight-forward job of defining topics and commonplaces and of providing examples.

The only place where I really get confused is when, on page 140, the suggestion is made to use common topics and commonplaces to invent arguments. I feel that the stasis theory thoroughly covered all of the means of invention, and when the book goes on to work through its extended example, my mind just goes “stasis, stasis, stasis!!!” I really don’t see how the two are different until we get to the common topic of possibility.

Nevertheless, an example of topics came to my mind as I was working through the chapter (or is it an example of stasis – since I am unclear on the difference, I may be thinking of the completely wrong thing.) I was reading an issue of People Magazine, and I came across a rather rhetorical advertisement by this group that aimed to show readers that the internet would not affect the future of magazines. The advertisement began with a headline that was something along the lines of: “Will the internet kill magazines?” And then below it, “Did instant coffee kill coffee?” My mind instantly jumped to two immediate conclusions: One, instant coffee is gross so of course it didn’t “kill” coffee, and two, how is this comparison going to be made?
It seems to me that the ad used a lot of statistics which I am assuming is a common indicator of degree. (What is greater than the norm, what is lesser than the norm, etc.) It seems to me that degree, then, is a pretty solid way to argue a point when backed up with statistics.

I also see now after going through this exercise that I was thinking of stasis as well – the main problem with the argument that sticks out to me is that Instant coffee is a form of coffee, so we are talking about the same thing. Whereas the internet and magazines are both part of media, but the internet is dynamic media and magazines are print media. The two can’t really be compared, in my opinion, for several reasons that deal with the facts they listed in the advertisement.

The most blatant of the logic flaws is the statistic on ad recall. The internet is so new that advertisements are still trying to find their niche. This statistic also neglects the idea that advertisement campaigns can span TV, radio, magazines, AND the internet. So I see that a major flaw in logos.

To get back on topic, the chapter is titled “The Common Topics and the Commonplaces: Finding the Available Means,” and the advertisement I pointed out is a good example of how the “common means” can be manipulated in arguments, even when facts are used in the form of statistics.